Diplomat: Benghazi special ops team spurned
By The Washington Post
Published: Monday, May 6, 2013, 7:42 p.m.
WASHINGTON — As the weakly protected U.S. diplomatic compound in eastern Libya came under attack the night of Sept. 11, the deputy head of the embassy in Tripoli sought in vain to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in a show of force that might have averted a second attack on a nearby CIA complex.
Hours later, according to excerpts of the account by the U.S. diplomat, Gregory Hicks, American officials in the Libyan capital sought permission to deploy four special operations troops to Benghazi aboard a Libyan military aircraft early the next morning. They were told to stand down.
Congressional investigators released a partial transcript of Hicks' testimony on Monday before a hearing on Wednesday at which he is scheduled to appear. His remarks are the first public account from a U.S. official who was in Libya at the time of the attacks about the options that were weighed as militants mobbed the American diplomatic outpost and CIA station in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other government employees.
The account is certain to restart a debate over whether the Obama administration has been sufficiently forthcoming in its public accounting of the events and missteps that resulted in the first death of a U.S. ambassador in the line of duty in a generation.
When it was over and the jets had not been scrambled and the troops not dispatched, an American lieutenant colonel in Tripoli who commanded the four-man special ops team told Hicks he was sorry his men had been held back.
“I've never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has (more guts) than someone in the military,” the officer told Hicks, according to the diplomat's account. Hicks called that “a nice compliment.”
The administration has said that the independent review it commissioned after the Benghazi attack was exhaustive, and State Department officials have vowed to move swiftly to implement post-Benghazi reforms to make U.S. missions abroad safer. Republicans in Congress, however, say Hicks' account suggests the administration has not been entirely truthful.
“The White House and the Pentagon have allowed us to believe that there were no military options on the table,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, one of the lawmakers who has called for greater disclosure about the attacks, said. “The model of the military is to leave no person behind, and it's stunning and unacceptable to think we had military willing and ready to go, and the Pentagon told them to stand down. That's just not the American way.”
Chaffetz said the four troops who were not allowed to travel to Benghazi would have arrived after the attack on the CIA base ended but may have provided first aid to wounded personnel. He noted that the order to keep them from traveling was given before the second attack began.
A Pentagon spokesman said he would review the excerpt from the upcoming testimony.
State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters that the Republican-led inquiry into the Benghazi attacks appears to be politicized, saying it was “not a collaborative process.”
He said, however, that the State Department is not seeking to suppress the accounts of whistleblowers. “We have always encouraged any State Department employee who wants to share their story and tell the truth,” he said.
Part of the Benghazi debate has focused on whether prompt action might have saved lives. In the initial attack, armed militants overran the compound where Stevens was staying, and he and another State Department officer, Sean Smith, were killed. Others in the compound made their way to a nearby annex used by the CIA, where the other two Americans, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, died in an attack several hours later.
Hicks, a veteran foreign service officer who is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told congressional staffers that he and others in Libya thought that flying U.S. military jets over Benghazi during the early hours of the attack could have had a deterrent effect.
“If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the ⅛CIA⅜ annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split,” Hicks said. “They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”
Hicks said that late on the night of Sept. 11, he called the embassy's defense attache, Lt. Col. Keith Phillips, and asked about the viability of sending jets.
“Is there anything coming?” he said he asked, according to the transcript.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Justices to hear critical software case
- Beer black market exploits enthusiasts, ignores law
- Pearl Harbor survivor keeps story alive
- Dems to overlook probe of nominee
- Wind-power companies won’t face federal prosecution in eagle deaths
- Ex-prof hopes to save art for Detroit
- Navy deems drone launch from submarine success
- GOP unlikely to block ban on plastic guns
- Earnings vary wildly by major, team says
- Traffic tickets — and revenue — plunge in Dallas
- NSA, Cyber Command leadership split mulled