What Questions About Benghazi Say About Today’s Political Climate

Partisanship has entered the discussion of a tragedy.

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 01: (L-R) U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell (Retired), former deputy director for the Intelligence and Knowledge Development Directorate (J-2) of U.S. Africa Command and former deputy commanding general of the Joint Task Force Odyssey Guard, Hoover Institution research fellow Kori Schake, Foundation for Defense of Democracies senior fellow Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Middle East Program senior associate Frederic Wehrey testify during a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee May 1, 2014 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The committee held a hearing on "Benghazi, Instability, and a New Government: Successes and Failures of U.S. Intervention in Libya."
Getty Images
Charlie Cook
May 9, 2014, 1 a.m.

For polit­ic­al ana­lysts — or at least those who try to be in­de­pend­ent and non­par­tis­an — an oc­cu­pa­tion­al haz­ard is that at al­most any giv­en time, one side or the oth­er will be angry about what you say and write. Dur­ing the run-up to the 2012 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, many con­ser­vat­ives and Re­pub­lic­an par­tis­ans were un­happy to hear me say that a win­nable race was slip­ping away from them, some be­liev­ing all the way to Elec­tion Day that they would win. In 2010, and now in 2014, it is Demo­crats who are less than thrilled with our pro­gnost­ic­a­tions.

An­oth­er oc­cu­pa­tion­al haz­ard is cyn­icism. Elec­ted of­fi­cials and can­did­ates, along with their hand­lers, say and do things that I am pretty sure they know bet­ter than to do. Or ought to know bet­ter than to do. They at least know that there is an­oth­er im­port­ant side to every story, es­pe­cially when they de­cide to leave out per­tin­ent facts as they heave rhet­or­ic­al red meat to their party’s base. They do what they feel they need to do to max­im­ize their chances of win­ning, even if fair­ness or truth get a little bent in the pro­cess. A by-product of this tend­ency to bend the truth is that the pub­lic, or at least the slice that re­lies ex­clus­ively on ideo­lo­gic­al voices and sources for their news, can get an aw­fully one-sided per­spect­ive.

Fre­quent ques­tions have aris­en of late, mostly from con­ser­vat­ives, about the tra­gic killing of four Amer­ic­ans in Benghazi. These people have heard ques­tions raised on cable tele­vi­sion, and they haven’t heard or read sat­is­fact­ory an­swers to why and how the tragedy happened. I have no doubt that their con­cerns and ques­tions are sin­cere.

I also have no doubt that things could have been done to pre­vent the hor­rible in­cid­ent and that, in ret­ro­spect, Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials and polit­ic­al ap­pointees, as well ca­reer civil ser­vants and mem­bers of the mil­it­ary, wished they had handled some things dif­fer­ently. But many ask­ing the ques­tions seem un­aware of cer­tain facts and points of view. Last March, when Face the Na­tion mod­er­at­or Bob Schief­fer asked former De­fense Sec­ret­ary Robert Gates about Benghazi, Gates, who had left his post 14 months be­fore the at­tacks oc­curred, said, “Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my de­cisions would have been just as theirs were.” Keep­ing in mind that Gates had been ini­tially ap­poin­ted by Pres­id­ent George W. Bush and, in his book Duty: Mem­oirs of a Sec­ret­ary at War, was un­spar­ing in his cri­ti­cism of Pres­id­ent Obama and many ad­min­is­tra­tion de­cisions, this in­form­a­tion is something that people deeply con­cerned about Benghazi don’t seem to know, have for­got­ten, or con­veni­ently ig­nore.

Gates went on to say that cer­tain people seem to have a “car­toon­ish” view of mil­it­ary cap­ab­il­it­ies in such situ­ations:

“I’ve heard, ‘Well, why didn’t you just fly a fight­er jet over and try and scare ‘em with the noise or something?’ Well, giv­en the num­ber of sur­face-to-air mis­siles that have dis­ap­peared from [Muam­mar el-] Qad­dafi’s ar­sen­als, I would not have ap­proved send­ing an air­craft — a single air­craft — over Benghazi un­der those cir­cum­stances. And with re­spect to send­ing in spe­cial forces or a small group of people to try and provide help, based on everything I have read, people really didn’t know what was go­ing on in Benghazi con­tem­por­an­eously. And to send some small num­ber of spe­cial forces or oth­er troops in without know­ing what the en­vir­on­ment is, without know­ing what the threat is, without hav­ing any in­tel­li­gence in terms of what is ac­tu­ally go­ing on on the ground, I think, would have been very dan­ger­ous.”

The cyn­icism comes when one re­calls an even great­er tragedy that oc­curred on Oct. 23, 1983, when the Mar­ine bar­racks in Beirut, Le­ban­on, were bombed dur­ing Ron­ald Re­agan’s ad­min­is­tra­tion. In the latest New York­er, Jane May­er writes about hav­ing been in Beirut as a re­port­er for The Wall Street Journ­al at the time of the hor­rible bomb­ing, when 241 Amer­ic­an mil­it­ary per­son­nel, in­clud­ing 220 Mar­ines, were killed in the largest single-day loss of Mar­ines since Iwo Jima in World War II. Al­though Demo­crats con­trolled the House and Tip O’Neill was speak­er, there was little par­tis­an grand­stand­ing over the tragedy, even though mis­takes were made. As May­er notes, a gate was left open, and the per­son­nel on guard were un­der or­ders to keep their weapons un­loaded. Con­gress con­duc­ted a mat­ter-of-fact, brief in­vest­ig­a­tion, re­com­mend­a­tions were made, and every­one moved on. Scor­ing polit­ic­al points was not the name of the game, even though the loss of Amer­ic­an lives was more than 50 times great­er than in Benghazi. It was a dif­fer­ent era.

One won­ders how some of these con­ser­vat­ives would have re­acted to such cir­cum­stances. Se­lect­ive out­rage is rampant in our polit­ic­al pro­cess today. The facts are too of­ten swept to one side, or un­der the rug, for polit­ic­al pur­poses.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×