adminIn a scathing assessment, the review cited “leadership and management” deficiencies at two department offices, poor coordination among officials and “real confusion” in Washington and in the field over who had the responsibility, and the power, to make decisions that involved policy and security concerns.
The attack killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and set off a political furor as Republicans used the issue to attack President Barack Obama before the 6 November election in which he won a second term in office.
The report’s harsh assessment seemed likely to tarnish the four-year tenure of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said in a letter accompanying the review that she would adopt all of its recommendations.
“Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department … resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” said the unclassified version of the report by the official “Accountability Review Board.”
The board specifically faulted the department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, the regional office which is responsible for the Middle East and North Africa, and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, its law enforcement and security arm.
The five-member board said US intelligence provided no “specific tactical warning” of the attack and that there was “little understanding of militias in Benghazi and the threat they posed to US interests” in the eastern Libyan city, where the central government has little influence.
The incident has raised questions about the adequacy of security at US embassies around the globe and where to draw the line between protecting American diplomats in dangerous places while giving them enough freedom to do their jobs.
Jon Alterman, head of the Middle East programme at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the assessment reflected poorly on Clinton and its recommendations would probably make life harder for diplomats in the field
“This is a mark against Secretary Clinton. While she was not singled out, the report highlighted the lack of leadership and organisation on security issues, and those fall into her bailiwick,” Alterman said.
“The report, however, relies a little too much on bureaucratic fixes,” he added.
“Sprinkling people throughout the system who are not only empowered to say ‘no,’ but have an institutional interest in doing so, will make it harder for diplomats to get out of tightly guarded facilities.” — Reuters.
Online Reporter