Deadly Attack in Libya Was Major Blow to C.I.A. Efforts
Source: NYT
The attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans has dealt the Central Intelligence Agency a major setback in its intelligence-gathering efforts at a time of increasing instability in the North African nation.
Among the more than two dozen American personnel evacuated from the city after the assault on the American mission and a nearby annex were about a dozen C.I.A. operatives and contractors, who played a crucial role in conducting surveillance and collecting information on an array of militant armed groups in and around the city.
Its a catastrophic intelligence loss, said one American official who has served in Libya and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the F.B.I. is still investigating the attack. We got our eyes poked out.
The C.I.A.s surveillance targets in Benghazi and eastern Libya include Ansar al-Sharia, a militia that some have blamed for the attack, as well as suspected members of Al Qaedas affiliate in North Africa, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html?pagewanted=all
"Though the agency has been cooperating with the new post-Qaddafi Libyan intelligence service, the size of the C.I.A.s presence in Benghazi apparently surprised some Libyan leaders. The deputy prime minister, Mustafa Abushagour, was quoted in The Wall Street Journal last week saying that he learned about some of the delicate American operations in Benghazi only after the attack on the mission, in large part because a surprisingly large number of Americans showed up at the Benghazi airport to be evacuated."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html?pagewanted=all
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Ironically, a major reason Eastern Libya became an al-Qaeda safe area is because of these operations. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021343355
But, this is not new. US intelligence has had a covert relationship with Libyan terrorists going back to the Edwin Wilson days. See, comment at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/edwin-wilson-former-cia-operative-convicted-of-selling-arms-to-libya-dies-at-84/2012/09/22/3f97da2e-04f1-11e2-9132-f2750cd65f97_story.html
The attack and death of the American Ambassador has drawn unwanted attention to these facts.
Cross-posted as comment in NYT article thread. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www#comments
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)It's been acknowledged that CIA is coordinating foreign fighters going into Syria. Are you denying that some of them come from Libya or that the CIA has not worked with Libyans?
Start here (I'll give you some more, if you're still in denial):
Tripoli Files Show CIA Working With Libya - WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903895904576547101159155100.html
Sep 3, 2011 The Central Intelligence Agency and Libyan intelligence services developed such a tight relationship during the George W. Bush administration ...
CIA activities in Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Libya
[edit] Libya 1969. Focused on the next six months after the coup that overthrew the monarchy, conclusions estimated: "likely developments in Libyan policy, ...
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Note that Blackwater has its contracts with the State Dept, and State seems to be the driving force behind the regime change program.
The US Government Sent Blackwater Veteran To Fight With Rebels In Libya And Syria
Michael Kelley|March 20, 2012|
4,255|0
The former director of the security firm Blackwater aided the Libyan opposition and was subsequently sent to contact Syrian rebels in Turkey at the request of a U.S. Government committee, according to leaked Stratfor emails reported on by Al-Akhbar English.
Jamie F. Smith, former director of Blackwater, is currently the chief executive of the security firm SCG International.
In an email sent to Stratfor on February 11, 2011, Smith praised the company's intelligence gathering and said his "background is CIA and our company is comprised of former DOD [i.e. Department of Defense], CIA and former law enforcement personnel. We provide services for those same groups in the form of training, security and information collection."
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-20/news/31212864_1_stratfor-provides-syrian-opposition-regime-change#ixzz27OWCEP1I
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)...to actually overthrow a tyrant.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)And it's kind of hard for the people to overthrow a dictator, when he is receiving crowd control weapons from Western powers.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Here's France:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/warplane-shot-down-libya_n_837911.html
Here's Italy:
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110427/163739878.html
Leveymg's already provided stories of Blackwater and the CIA, and the well known US military air support as well. There are more links to the many foreign elements in Libya - all with their own agendas.
I'm completely sick about western intervention in these regions. There's no good end to them so I pay attention when it happens (and happens and happens and happens and.... ad nauseum).
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions early on. They were slammed and insulted for pointing out obvious facts demonstrating that even if the initial UNARMED protests were legitimate, they were quickly taken over and used as cover for the NATO regime change which has pretty much destroyed that country and caused untold numbers of deaths.
The excuse for NATO's 'air support' was supposed to be to 'protect civilians'. But on the day of the Gadaffi killing, when atrocities were being carried out against civilians, NATO ended its 'air protection of civilians' leaving thousands to the brutality of those they had armed and supported.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I'm not willing to say that's what the spooks were up to, but one has to wonder.
There are reportedly lots of Libyan fighters in Syria.
US wants to overthrow Assad.
The Benghazi area is/was jihadi turf.
Big CIA operation in Benghazi.
Maybe the CIA was just there to keep an eye on the jihadis. If so, they did a pretty crappy job of it.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Did they do a bad job of keeping an eye on them, or did they do a good enough job training and arming them that they were able to overrun a US embassy and kill the ambassador?
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)A false flag in order to get the Libyan people to move away from jihadis? Because that is clearly the result of said actions.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)What did we do in Afghanistan in the 80's? What was the result?
Never forget that NATO's mission is to support capitalism over communism. We helped these same rebels overthrow a dictatorial communist regime with little regard for what would take its place.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)harmonicon
(12,008 posts)We're doing it again in Syria - I imagine that that's what a number of those CIA operatives were doing in Libya.
Their plan behind it seems to be this:
1. Remove governments we don't agree with at any cost, even if it means training and arming religious extremists who hate us.
2. ???
3. Profit
Iran... Afghanistan... Iraq... Libya...
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)The CIA (and US intelligence in general) isn't stupid, they know that the Syrian rebels aren't able to overthrow the government. The US hasn't even recognized the Syrian National Council as the sole authority (they have recognized the SNC for "dialog" but that is immaterial). The goal of US intelligence in those two countries is to track arms and follow whatever jihadist groups are indeed there not "overthrow" the "governments we don't agree with."
In Libya the oil was flowing, Gaddafi was doing rendition for the US, we had opened up trade, whole nine yards. He wasn't a threat to us.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Just like Afghanistan.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)It'd probably still be ongoing.
Just like Syria.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)The fact is, we interfered in their civil war. This isn't the first time we've done this, and it usually hasn't gone well in the past, so I don't know why we'd expect it to in this case.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Libya is the only country in the Arab Spring to vote against the Muslim Brotherhood and to oust islamists!
Are you kidding me?
They may be the only thing stopping a resurgence of islamism in the middle east.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)in the region to launch a successful terrorist attack against a US embassy in their country, which, as you know, is an attack against the US, and on US soil.
You can turn the Muslim Brotherhood into a boogeyman if you want to, but them being elected in other countries is only a sign of working democracy in those countries - those countries in which regime change did not involve civil war sponsored by NATO, but rather a peaceful transition.
I wouldn't consider that as going "quite well" unless you also think Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iraq went quite well.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)I don't know why you think you can successfully revise history here.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/12/f-embassy-attacks.html
Also, it wasn't the official state embassy, it was a consulate which was attacked, which is decidedly not "US soil."
So let's get the facts straight, shall we?
The Muslim Brotherhood is obviously not a big a threat as the more radical islamists, it is merely meant to show that even in Libya, a moderate Muslim country, the Muslim Brotherhood didn't gain control. Showing how anti-islamist in the end they really are, disproving the racist xenophobic commentary that the Libyan people had to endure for a year.
It is going exceedingly well. Some others have tried to use the Libyan consulate attack to demean not only the President but the Libyan people. The Libyan people took to the streets and protested the attack and proved those demeaning people wrong in every way.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)I've certainly heard it reported that it was an embassy, but you're right. It wasn't like the AQ embassy attacks in Africa if it wasn't an embassy, but US government officials were killed either way.
I think there are just basic differences between how you and I see this, based on the link you give. I see that as evidence for my point:
Our embassy in Iran was attacked after we helped overthrow their government and install one we supported. The bombings in Africa I see as a direct result of our support for Bin Laden & co during the Afghan civil war and general support for Saudi extremists. Saudi Arabia... 'nuff said. Afghanistan - my point exactly. Having our embassy attacked there is a great example of the loads of "freedom" we brought them.
I think this latest attack in Libya and its aftermath really shows that the civil war there is not over yet. Iraq was relatively quiet for quite awhile after we overthrew their government and installed our own.
I don't want to make any generalizations about "the Libyan people," because I wouldn't do that in any country. There are Libyans who want functioning liberal democracy. There are Libyans who are royalists, there are Libyans who are xenophobic and Islamist. All of them were fighting for different reasons. Just remember, there were also Libyan people who loved the government they had before and considered it worth fighting and dying for - a lot of them.
I think this is far from over, and for our sake and the sake of Libya, I hope you're right and that our country did the right thing in that war. I'm just afraid that we didn't and that we're seeing evidence of that already.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)I think it is more a result of the civil war and the lack of security that followed. This is what happens when all countries undergo a civil war, the victors need time to establish security again.
edit: to be sure the fact that 40+ Americans were mostly unguarded in Libya does indicate that their guard was down, indicating at least to me that they thought they were in a safer place than they were. The attackers used that void and trust against them. Of course we saw even here on DU the calls for more security and so on and so forth. Which is precisely what the attackers want in any case. It's one reason the Libyan people protested the attack because they want to keep dialog open and relations on good standing.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)This is what gets us into so many arguments.
It wasn't "the Libyan people" who protested the attack, but some Libyan people. If you want to make that claim, a counter claim can be made that "the Libyan people" attacked and killed US government officials. Doing this gets us nowhere; there's just too much nuance in the situation.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Are you contending that most Libyans would've been supportive of the attack?
The Libyan people who protested are in line with the majority of Libyan people who voted in a moderate government. I would like to understand how the Libyans who protested were in fact sharing views incompatible with the people who voted.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Last election, teabaggers sweep into congress with a pretty sizable majority. Would you like to be characterized along with them as "the American people" because one election gave them an edge?
I know that I'm on the fringe of society culturally and politically. I'm still an American. I reject any characterization of "the (country) people," for any place.
I don't doubt that there are many wonderful human beings in Libya, but I also know there are terrible people there - just like in the US.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)...were an anomaly?
Because the teabagger elections certainly were (MSM propaganda + disillusioned lefists).
I do not think it is unfair to say the vast majority of Libyans are anti-radical islamists. I think it would be more accurate to say that the vast majority of Libyans, including the majority of those who protested to oust Gaddafi and including those who had revolutionary agency in lieu of his ouster, the vast majority of those Libyans are moderate Muslims who reject extremism.
The composition of the fighters (not all revolutionaries were fighters, not all protesters were fighters; to expect all to be fighters is BS) was 1/3rd Berbers, 1/3 Misratians, 1/3 Benghazi and the east (which had within it a relatively large composition of islamist leaning individuals). Because at most (being generous given how Benghazi reacted to the islamist attacks) 1/3rd of the fighters (fighters, not protesters, again the distinction must be made) were potentially "islamist" does not in any way change the character of the revolution nor does it indicate where Libyans stand. One must look at all the demographics and all the groups and then understand it from that point of view.
And when you do that it's damn impossible for a rational person to stand back and pretend that Libya is anything but the best achievement from the Arab Spring.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)I'm saying that when discussing almost any topic, we do ourselves no service by mentioning "the (country) people," because we're not homogenous groups - not Libya, not the US, not anywhere.
I didn't want to continue this argument, but I must be irrational or have achieved the impossible, because I don't see Libya as the best of anything, unless you'd characterize something as a "best" unmitigated disaster.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)They don't need the CIA to go to Libya just as the Syrian fighters in Libya didn't need the CIA to go to Libya. It's simple. The connection between the CIA and these fighters is simply not there, it's a conspiracy theory.
I am fully open to evidence to those ends but I simply don't see it.
I think they were there to keep an eye on the relative minority of jihadis. The report admits as much. But I don't think they were there trying to coerce things into being as is implied. It simple makes no sense for them to try to do that as they gain nothing.
The CIA was burned by the Taliban and I simply don't see them being friendly toward them. I know it goes against the meme that the US was helping jihadis during the civil war, but we saw how the Libyan people voted and we see how the Libyan people protest. The US is not going to be stupid and coddle jihadis.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 25, 2012, 04:07 PM - Edit history (4)
Do you think Reuters, the NYT, and the CSM and the VOA are engaging in "conspiracy theory"?
www.nytimes.com/.../cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels...
Jun 21, 2012 WASHINGTON A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition ...
Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret U.S. support for Syrian rebels ...
www.reuters.com/.../us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK201...
Aug 1, 2012 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has signed a ... Syrian rebel fighters pose for a picture in Hama July 20, 2012. ... the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
Tripoli Files Show CIA Working With Libya - WSJ.com
online.wsj.com/.../SB1000142405311190389590457654710115915...
Sep 3, 2011 The Central Intelligence Agency and Libyan intelligence services developed such a tight relationship during the George W. Bush administration ...
CIA Secretly at Work Inside Libya
www.voanews.com/content/article/137541.html
Apr 4, 2011 But just what they are doing not clear and, in keeping with practice, CIA would not comment on reports.
David Bromwich: The CIA, the Libyan Rebellion, and the President
www.huffingtonpost.com/david.../cia-libya-obama-_b_843166.html
Mar 31, 2011 The appeal against armed violence, by the leader of a superpower who either has just approved or is about to approve the shipment of arms to ...
No sooner was Gadhaffi gone, and the US-backed regime in place in Tripoli, did the new "President" of Libya dispatch the top militant commander to Turkey for a meeting with the Syrian opposition.
Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group
Libyan authorities this week dispatched the country's most renowned Islamist militia leader to meet senior figures of the Free Syrian Army, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
By Ruth Sherlock in Tripoli
9:00PM GMT 27 Nov 2011
Comments44 Comments
Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, "met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey," said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. "Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there."
The "covert operation" was immediately laid bare when a rival Libyan rebel brigade detained Belhaj at Tripoli airport, accused him of travelling on a fake passport, and declared they would jail the senior military leader.
Only a letter from the country's interim president was enough to persuade them to let him leave the country.
The meetings came as a sign of a growing ties between Libya's fledgling government and the Syrian opposition. The Daily Telegraph on Saturday revealed that the new Libyan authorities had offered money and weapons to the growing insurgency against Bashar al-Assad.
Mr Belhaj also discussed sending Libyan fighters to train troops, the source said. Having ousted one dictator, triumphant young men, still filled with revolutionary fervour, are keen to topple the next. The commanders of armed gangs still roaming Tripoli's streets said yesterday that "hundreds" of fighters wanted to wage war against the Assad regime.
Related Articles
Libyas offers weapons to Syrian rebels
25 Nov 2011
Libyan Islamist leader detained as tensions grow between rival factions
25 Nov 2011
SNIP
Newspapers reported on Saturday that four Libyan men had been caught on the Turkish border trying to infiltrate into the country. The grand design envisioned by Mr Belhaj and the Libyan authorities is still in its nascent stage.
The US and UK have actually been bankrolling the Syrian opposition a lot longer than that, way before this article was printed as the active phase of the Sunni uprising was ignited in April, 2011: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/04/18/syria-united-states-backing-wikileaks.html
U.S. admits funding Syrian opposition
CBC News
Posted: Apr 18, 2011 3:14 AM ET
The U.S. State Department acknowledged Monday it has been funding opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad, following the release of secret diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks that document the funding.
The files show that up to $6.3 million US was funnelled to the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based dissident organization that operates the Barada TV satellite channel, which broadcasts anti-government news into Syria. Another $6 million went to support a variety of initiatives, including training for journalists and activists, between 2006 and 2010.
Asked point-blank by reporters whether the United States is funding Syrian opposition groups, State Department spokesman Mark Toner told a news conference Monday, "We are we're working with a variety of civil society actors in Syria with the goal here of strengthening freedom of expression."
Then pressed to specify whether the U.S. provides satellite bandwidth for Barada TV's broadcasts, Toner said: "I'd have to get details of what exactly technical assistance we're providing them."
Toner insisted the financing is not aimed at overthrowing Assad's rule. "We are not working to undermine that government."
However, an April 2009 diplomatic cable from the U.S. mission in Damascus recognizes the risky optics of the funding.
"Some programs may be perceived, were they made public, as an attempt to undermine the Assad regime. The Syrian Arab Republic government would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change."
Whistleblower website WikiLeaks provided the cables to the Washington Post newspaper, which first reported on them. The files are part of a haul of 251,000 secret U.S. diplomatic documents the website says it has obtained. It began disclosing them in November through partner media outlets and so far has released nearly 7,000.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Fucking satellite communication is not the kind of support you're talking about.
Next you'll be using Cuban-esque propaganda-style language calling communication equipment tools of mercenaries.
It's intel based at this point, and it's not what you say it is. And then you, like everyone else, group the various aspects of the opposition into one subgroup. Dirty filthy islamists.
It's classic stuff.
That's why I stay out of the Syrian debates because it's just the same shit that was done over Libya (which was proven wrong).
bemildred
(90,061 posts)ronnie624
(5,764 posts)about the adequacy of security preparations at the two American compounds in Benghazi"
But never about the moral legitimacy of intervening and stoking violence in other countries for completely self-serving reasons.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)He had to stay behind and make sure all the computer equipment was destroyed. At the time of the report, I wondered what material could be so sensitive that he had to stay and risk his life to get rid of.
I guess we know now. Libya is definitely not a fairy-tale. I bet once the media veil lifts, we will see that the majority of the country was disenfranchised under this new government.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Why has there never been a coup d'etat in the U.S.?
Because there is no U.S. embassy there.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)including every Libyan who was supporting or working with the US.
I keep expecting to hear of the deaths of many Libyans in the eastern part of that country.
This whole thing is just such a complete mess. No one who has touched this will end up looking very good, and that includes Sec. Clinton. If she decides to run in 2016, you can bet that her primary opponents and the pugs will take her to task for this FUBAR situation.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Or is it the political fallout that was behind it?
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Obama and his team are really sticking to a game plan for re-election, and it seems that they are not allowing current events to upset every day.
With that kind of plan, I would think that the team would try to downplay any disrupting event, if possible.
On the other hand, they might have thought that they could give cover for important things going on that could not be made public at that time.
I tend to go with the former, though. But then, I have been told repeatedly that I'm quite cynical.
It's so much more complicated than I realized. Thanks for the insight.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Please see today's post on this, Libya Attack Casts Unwanted Spotlight on CIA and Blackwater in Syria, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021410954
wutang77
(31 posts)Between this and Camp Chapman, it is begining to look like Al Qaeda offshoots are getting good intel. Also, people need to learn to stfu up about operations, and their aftermath.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Yeah, there were some mindless idiots on the bottom believing whatever they were told, but the ringleaders of the demonstrations have kept well out of sight...