Witness: U.S. response to Benghazi attack too weak

Associated PressMay 1, 2014 

— A retired general who was in the U.S. military’s operation center during the 2012 attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, said Thursday that Washington should have done more to respond during the battle.

Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell told the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform that U.S. forces “should have tried” to get to the embassy in time to help save the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans who were killed by militants in twin attacks the night of Sept. 11, 2012. He says the State Department should have made stronger requests for action. The State Department didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Lovell was monitoring the attack from U.S. Africa Command’s headquarters in Germany. He says it was clear that the attack was hostile action.

“Four individuals died. We obviously did not respond in time to get there,” he said.

Lovell was asked whether the military was allowed to adequately respond. Lovell said that from his perspective, it was not.

“The military could have made a response of some sort,” Lovell said.

Congressional Republicans and Democrats have said repeatedly that the military did what it could to respond on that chaotic night.

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said earlier this month that he was satisfied with how the military responded, considering where troops were based and how the two separate attacks unfolded.

Leon Panetta, who was defense secretary at the time, was monitoring the attack and has testified to Congress that military assets such as jets were not ready to engage and that efforts to get troops from Tripoli to Benghazi in time were not successful.

Lovell described the mood in Africa Command during the attack: “It was desperation to gain situational awareness.”

The Obama administration initially described the attack as a response to an anti-Islamic video that had sparked protests at the embassy in Cairo and elsewhere. Susan Rice, then the U.N. ambassador, went on Sunday television talk shows and described it as such. Those comments have stirred up political opposition ever since as military and other officials have said it was clear it was a separate terror attack unrelated to the video.

Lovell told the committee it was clearly not an attack borne of the protests.

The U.S. has not yet identified those responsible, but now believes it was done by Islamist militants who set fire to the diplomatic outpost and engaged Stevens’ security officials and others in gunfire. Stevens died of smoke inhalation in a safe room in the diplomatic compound. The diplomats were aided by officials from the CIA outpost a mile away.

A Republican congressman is drafting legislation to give the military and intelligence agency the authority to kill those responsible for the attack.

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California said Thursday that he will try to add his bill to the annual defense policy legislation when the House Armed Services Committee considers the measure on Wednesday.

Hunter said his legislation is the same as the authority that the Congress gave the government after the Sept. 11 attacks.

“I don’t know why they don’t ask for it. They must not care,” Hunter said in an interview. “It shouldn’t take Congress to do this. They should have asked for this right after the attacks.”

Hunter said his legislation was prompted by closed-door testimony from Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told the panel last October that the U.S. cannot strike the perpetrators under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the 2001 law that applies to terrorists.

Bellingham Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service