Benghazi Consular attack was Local, not al-Qaeda: NYT Correspondent Demolishes GOP Talking Points

(By Juan Cole)

David D. Kirkpatrick at the New York Times has settled the controversy over events in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, by actually going to Benghazi and digging into the story. Admittedly, it was a somewhat dangerous assignment, but Kirkpatrick risked it.

The take-away of this careful investigation, depending on a range of interviews with Libyans who had been at the scene of the attack on the US consulate in the Libyan port city, is that al-Qaeda had nothing to do with it.

The chief suspect is an eccentric local militia leader, Ahmad Abu Khattala and his Obeida Ibn Al Jarra Brigade, which fought against Muammar Gaddafi in the 2011 revolution. Abu Khattala had no gratitude to the Americans who helped his people against the dictator, and is viewed as one bulb short of a chandelier by many of his acquaintances. He, like many Benghazi fundamentalists, had spent years incarcerated by the Gaddafi government in the notorious Abu Salim prison, where in the 1990s Gaddafi dealt with a prison revolt by just having hundreds of inmates mowed down.

Another fundamentalist organization in the city, Ansar al-Sharia, was also involved, though it continues to deny involvement in the consulate attack.

The ginned up Islamophobic attack “film” on the Prophet Muhammad probably produced secretly by the Islamophobic network in the US in hopes of causing trouble abroad for President Obama in an election year did provoke demonstrations at the US consulate, which morphed into the attack on it. In fact, in my darker moments I suspect that some US GOP officials knew about the “film” and the likelihood it would get the Muslims’ goat, and had a narrative ready to go that Barack Obama on the Middle East was another helpless Jimmy Carter. Whatever the origin of their narrative, they clearly weren’t willing to let go of it simply because it flew in the face of the facts as known.

US officials in Benghazi knew that there were dangerous fundamentalist militias in the city. But they had dozens of CIA operatives at a nearby safe house, who they were sure could protect them. And they had allied with the fundamentalists against Gaddafi and so expected if not gratitude at least tolerance for their presence.

The Republican attack propaganda on President Obama and his team maintained that the consulate attack was the work of Ayman al-Zawahiri’s al-Qaeda, that it was preplanned, and that the “Silence of the Muslims” film had nothing to do with it.
The Republican attack propaganda on President Obama and his team maintained that the consulate attack was the work of Ayman al-Zawahiri’s al-Qaeda, that it was preplanned, and that the “Silence of the Muslims” film had nothing to do with it. Sen. Lindsey Graham alleged that “everyone knew” that Benghazi was controlled by al-Qaeda in summer of 2012. Rep. Mike Rogers, who is more of a prevaricator even than most politicians, asserted the same thing.

I was in Benghazi in late May of 2012 for a few days and gave a talk at a community center there. The city most certainly was not in the control of “al-Qaeda.” There were a few fundamentalist militias, but they were not representative of the city, which had municipal elections in late spring.

On the occasion of the appearance of Kirkpatrick’s important reportage, I’ll leave you with my own deconstruction of the false GOP narrative, from last year. I think it is largely vindicated by what Kirkpatrick was able to find out on the ground.

“Top Ten Republican Myths on Benghazi:

1. Republican senators keep saying that it should have been “easy” to find out what happened on September 11, 2012, by simply debriefing US personnel who had been there. John McCain, Ron Johnson and the others who make this charge are the most cynical and manipulative people in the world. The Benghazi US mission was very clearly an operation of the Central Intelligence Agency, and that is the reason that the Obama administration officials have never been able to speak frankly and publicly about it. McCain and the others know this very well, and they know that their public carping cannot be “simply” answered because the answers would endanger sources and methods. The consulate was amazingly well-guarded by some 40 CIA operatives, many of them ex-special forces, in a nearby safe house. These were viewed by consular officials as “the cavalry.” It is still not clear what Ambassador Chris Stevens and the CIA were doing in Benghazi, and unless we know that we can’t know why they were attacked. (They were not overseeing the shipping of weapons to Syria; the Syrian revolutionaries complain bitterly that the US *prevents* them from getting medium and heavy weapons).

2. Republicans keep posturing that their questions about Benghazi are intended to bolster US security. In fact, they are harming it. Republican hearings in the House of Representative have disgracefully revealed the names of Libyans talking to the US consulate, thus endangering their lives and harming US efforts to understand the situation in the country, since who would risk talking to the embassy if they know about Darrell Issa’s big mouth?

3. The GOP figures keep saying that it was obvious that there was no demonstration at the Benghazi consulate against the so-called “film,” the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ that attacked the Prophet Muhammad. But in fact Libyan security officials repeatedly told wire services on September 12 that there was such a demonstration, and that the attack issued from those quarters. An American resident in Benghazi at that time confirms that there were such demonstrations that day. The secular-minded revolutionary militia that guarded the US consulate for the Libyan government kept the demonstrations far enough away from the consulate gates that they would not have shown up in security videos.

4. Benghazi, a city of over a million, is not dominated by “al-Qaeda,” contrary to what Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has repeatedly said or implied. The city had successful municipal elections in May, just before I got there. The number one vote-getter was a woman professor of statistics at the university. While political Islam is a force in Benghazi, only some relatively small groups are militant, and it has to compete with nationalist, tribal and regional ideological currents. In Libya’s parliamentary elections of July, 2012, the Muslim Brotherhood did very poorly and nationalists came to power. Women won 20% of the seats! The elected Speaker of Parliament, Muhammad Magarief, called for a secular constitution for Libya and a separation of religion and state.

5. Contrary to repeated assertions that it was obvious that terrorist groups were rampaging around in the city, members of the Benghazi municipal council told then US ambassador Chris Stevens that security in the city was improving in summer, 2012.

In fact, one Senator John McCain said during a visit to Libya last February, ““We are very happy to be back here in Libya and to note the enormous progress and changes made in the past few months… We know that many challenges lie ahead… but we are encouraged by what we have seen.” Doesn’t sound to me like McCain was running around like Chicken Little warning that the sky was about to fall on US diplomats there. Want to know who else came along on that trip? Lindsey Graham, who likewise didn’t issue any dire warnings in its aftermath.

6. Contrary to the “Libya-is-riddled-with-al-Qaeda” meme of the GOP politicians, there is a strong civil society and tribal opposition to fundamentalist militias in Benghazi, of which Amb. Chris Stevens was well aware. Tripoli-based journalist Abd-al-Sattar Hatitah explained in the pages of the pan-Arab London daily al-Sharq al-Awsat [Sept. 30, 2012, trans. USG Open Source Center]:

“It appears that the simple rule Benghazi’s people thought of applying was based on other experiences in which the radical Islamists or militants in general managed to grow, prosper, and expand by seeking protection from the tribes, as happened in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen. But the civil movements which became very active [in Benghazi] after the fall of Al-Qadhafi’s regime were the ones that formed alliances this time with the tribes, the notables, wise men councils, and civil society figures against the militants. This is akin to the “Sahwat” in Iraq. The alliance managed to expel the brigades from the town and encouraged the nascent Libyan authorities to tighten their restrictions on all armed manifestations…

He adds that [a meeting by secular notables with the tribes] was also attended by representatives from the army chiefs-of-staff and the Interior Ministry as well as a number of members from the National Congress (parliament). “All civil society organizations also took part with us. Everybody consented to issuing the statement against the presence of the [fundamentalist] brigades and we distributed 3,000 copies. “

This was around September 3. After the attack on the US consulate, tens of thousands of people in Benghazi demonstrated against the violence and in favor of the US and Stevens. Then they attempted to sweep the fundamentalist militias from the city.

7. Al-Qaeda is not for the most part even a “thing” in Libya. The only formal al-Qaeda affiliate in the region is al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which is not a Libyan but an Algerian organization. Just calling all Salafi groups “al-Qaeda” is propaganda. They have to swear fealty to Ayman al-Zawahiri (or in the past, Usama Bin Laden) to be al-Qaeda. The main al-Qaeda connection in Benghazi is to Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was killed in northern Pakistan by a US drone strike in June. Some of his close relatives in Benghazi may have been angry about this (depending on how well they liked him), but they are not known to form a formal al-Qaeda cell. There are also young men from Dirna in the Benghazi area, some of whom fought against the US in Iraq. Their numbers are not large and, again, they don’t have al-Zawahiri’s phone number on auto-dial. Sen. McCain was a big supporter of the US intervention in Libya and seems to have been all right with Abdul Hakim Belhadj being his ally, even though in the zeroes Belhadj would have been labeled ‘al-Qaeda.’

8. Ansar al-Sharia (Helpers of Islamic Law) is just an informal grouping of a few hundred hard line fundamentalists in Benghazi, and may be a code word to refer to several small organizations. There are no known operational links between Ansar al-Sharia and al-Qaeda. It is a local thing in Benghazi.

9. Leaders of Ansar al-Sharia have denied that they directed their organization to attack the US consulate and have condemned the attack.

10. Lindsey Graham and others point to instances of political violence this past summer in Benghazi as obvious harbingers of the September 11 consulate attack. But it was a tiny fringe group, the Omar Abdel Rahman Brigades, that claimed responsibility for setting off a small pipe bomb in front of the gate of the US consulate last June. This is what the US statement said last June:

“There was an attack late last night on the United States office in Benghazi,” a US embassy official said, adding that only the gate was damaged and no one was hurt. The diplomat said a homemade bomb had been used in the attack on the office, set up after the 2011 uprising against Muammar Qadhafi and kept open to support the democratic transition “

You’d have to be a real scaredy cat to pack up and leave because of a thing like that, which is what Sen. Graham keeps saying should have been the response. Likewise the same small cell was responsible for attacks on the office of the Red Cross and on a convoy of the British consulate, which injured a consular employ. Security isn’t all that great in Benghazi, though actually I suspect the criminal murder rate is much lower than in any major American city. I walked around freely in Benghazi in early June, and couldn’t have disguised my being a Westerner if I had wanted to, and nobody looked at me sideways. A pipe bomb and a shooting, neither of them fatal, did not stand out as dire in a city full of armed militias, most of them grateful to the US and Britain for their help in the revolution. You can understand why the Red Cross packed it in after a couple of attacks, but the US government is not the Red Cross.”

Related video:

Channel 4 News reported recently on “Libya Two Years after the Revolution”:

21 Responses

  1. And of course that will scrape up all the mildewed toothpaste and shove it back into the tube, and unring the klanging bells, just like the release of a certain “short-form” birth certificate…

    Matters of identity, those notions that so patently animate reactionary minds especially, like “Benghazi” and that guy who killed himself in that park, riiiiight, and the necessity to provoke Holy War and the other bits of Revelation, and “who lost China,” and on and on, world without end… well, apparently that notion, at least, is actually “inoperative,” it seems.

  2. There now needs to be a comprehensive investigation of the production and distribution of “Silence of the Muslims”. Who created it? Who financed it? Who was responsible for its dissemination? Given its impact are similar ventures underway?

    Juan Cole suggests the film may have been produced by Islamophobic elements in the United States. If that is true they must be unmasked before they can do us more harm. It is also possible this was a false flag operation financed and promoted by Al-Qaeda fanatics to produce a backlash among the Muslim faithful. If that is the case we need to know how Al-Qaeda manages to pull off such an operation when NSA surveillance is supposedly necessary to keep it from happening.

    And we need to know whether there are clear or tacit alliances between whoever financed and distributed the film and other groups. This may be well-organized cooperation or simply marriages of convenience where each partner is using the other to advance their own objectives but we need a serious exploration to avoid another major crisis we could have prevented.

    • You’re right, Jack. Given their massive data collection program and advanced data mining capabilities, the NSA undoubtedly knows all of the parties involved and how they collaborated, not to mention the detailed timeline of the inception of the scheme, etc. The time for sitting on this information is over.

  3. I know that as a liberal I’m supposed to be happy with this NYT piece, but it actually aggravates me. Other than in those first initial, confusing hours, when was that controversial video ever a “competing storyline”? It was never “a storyline” – except as a strawman created by the rightwing. The NYT basically just legitimized that strawman before debunking it.

  4. Surely the GOP-symps who conspired against our own people in Benghazi have committed crimes. What’s the FBI for? These disgusting traitors need to be prosecuted. And their political connections need to be exposed relentlessly. Why is the Administration so delicate about these things? That’s what has me worried.

  5. How shall we define “the Islamophobic network in the US”? Are the Southern Baptists and other evangelicals a big part of it operationally speaking? Well, no. They are not of this world. Then who are the sophisticated, false-flag-experienced elements who are so “deep” into such things as, for example, the subornation of a de facto American declaration of war against Islam per se because “all Muslims are terrorists who hate us for what we are, not what we do in their region.”

    As the depth of the taboos are so intense and I’m so easily intimidated I’ll withdraw to my watery cave in a cloud of squiddish ink. But not before saying again that we must change the *nature* of our primarily relationship in the Near East, i.e., we must determine to manage it first and foremost according to our interests and global responsibilities. And if we haven’t learned that from 9/11 and the wars in the region we’re close-on to deserving them.

    • Citations please? I’d especially be interested in those from “far left” members of Congress and from national publications with significant “far left” mailing lists.

  6. In reality, there have been concerns about Al-Qaeda endangering U.S. interests in Libya that have factual support.

    On September 14, 2012 CNN correspondent Arwa Damon discovered Ambassador Stevens’ diary at the unsecured site of the attack; that diary conveyed his worries of being on an Al-Qaeda hit list.

    CNN’s Paul Cruickshank, in a March 15, 2015 report indicated that an intercepted phone call from Benghazi linked a senior Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb figure to the attack.

    Kirkpatrick’s account likely solves mystery of the assault on the operational level only and in no way even scratches the surface as to who may have planned or ordered it.

    In no meaningful way was the al-Libi drone killing addressed in the Kilpatrick report however this appears to have been a possible motive for the attack. He was the Al-Qaeda figure from Libya who was targeted by a U.S. drone and died in Pakistan several months prior to the Stevens attack.

  7. Mr. Abu Khattala sounds like a type that would be familiar to anyone who attends New England town meetings, or reads the letters to the editor in small-market newspapers.

      • And that’s what chills me: reading about those teenagers coming up to him asking to fight because he’s known as a tough guy.

        In similar circumstances, how many young men in New England would walk up to the crank who rails about fluoride in the drinking water at Town Meeting, and ask him to organize them to fight?

  8. Al-Qaeda or not Al-Qaeda debate has significance mostly in the context of U.S. politics. More to the point is that a growing number of Middle East people are becoming radicalized in response to U.S. arrogance, which can most dramatically be seen in the drone killings and spiriting away of people off the streets in violation of local sovereignty. They don’t need to swear allegiance to Zawahiri; they’re still sworn enemies of the U.S and its puppet governments.

  9. Is it me? Why does the right never mention David Petraeus? Was, he not the CIA director? Was, the compound not a CIA safe house? Talk about picking and choosing, that’s all this GOP/Fox story is. The sad part is, I’m afraid, is most Americans believe the GOP lie.

Comments are closed.