The Great Benghazi Distraction

The Benghazi “scandal” has enabled congressional Republicans to keep their “base” worked up to a fever pitch, but the hyping of the controversy beyond all reason is doing real harm to U.S. national security by distracting officials from actual foreign policy problems, according to ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.

By Paul R. Pillar

If I were a political adviser to those relentlessly pushing recriminations about the attack last year on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, I think my advice would be, “Give it a rest.” This pseudo-scandal has become so forced, so contrived, and so blatantly driven by motives other than safeguarding the security of U.S. interests that the unending push has already passed the point where it serves any identifiable objectives, even partisan political ones.

The subject, about which a panel of inquiry has completed its work and issued its report, is already tiresome; imagine how much more tiresome it will be to voters by 2016 after three more years of it.

A poll on Benghazi released this week by Public Policy Polling suggests that the agitation on the subject is keeping a Republican base agitated but not making wider inroads on public opinion. One has to ask what good it does Republicans to dwell on something that keeps one segment of the population angry about Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) when that segment was already angry about Obama anyway.

When asked whom the respondent trusted more on the issue of Benghazi, 49 percent said Hillary Clinton and 39 percent said Congressional Republicans. On other questions asking for an overall favorable or unfavorable rating, Clinton enjoys an eight-point margin over Congressional Republicans, the same margin as in a similar poll in March.

The poll did show that the angry base has gotten the intended message that there is supposedly a scandal involved. A plurality of Republicans (but only small percentages of either Democrats or independents) said yes to the question of whether this was the “biggest scandal in American history.” By margins of greater than three to one, Republicans polled said it was a worse scandal than Watergate, Iran Contra, or Teapot Dome.

That’s an interesting result given that in one case [Benghazi] the issue involved nuances conveyed in some talking points, while each of the others involved criminal behavior in the form of attempted subversion of an American election with a subsequent cover-up, illegal diversion of arms into a foreign war, or bribery of a cabinet officer to get preferred exploitation of publicly owned natural resources.

The customary ignorance of the American public is no doubt at play. Probably the proportion of the general population that could say today what Teapot Dome was about measures in the single digits. A scandal seems worse if you’ve actually heard about it.

The ignorance factor was suggested by another question in the poll asking where Benghazi is. Ten percent believe it is in Egypt, nine percent in Iran, six percent in Cuba, five percent in Syria, four percent in Iraq, and one percent each in North Korea and Liberia, with another four percent being unwilling to guess. Maybe those who said Cuba have Benghazi confused with Guantanamo. It would be interesting to know what those who said North Korea think the incident was about.

Probably the failure of the agitation about Benghazi to make wider inroads on public opinion is due not only to the tiresome, contrived and partisan nature of the agitation but also to the fact that it never had a logic in the first place. The message being promoted seems to be that the administration was shying away from describing the incident as terrorism in order not to undermine, during the 2012 election campaign, a claim to having success against international terrorists.

But when did Barack Obama ever contend that international terrorism has been licked? When the presidential candidates were asked in one of the debates, several months after Osama bin Laden had been killed, what each believed to be the biggest national security threat facing the country, Obama replied, “terrorism.” However the incident in Benghazi is characterized, four Americans were killed. There is no way to sugar-coat that, whether the T-word is used or not.

The endless harping about Benghazi has costs beyond, and more important than, wasted time by Republicans who have better ways to try to win votes and defeat Hillary Clinton. Among those costs is the fostering of misunderstanding of some fundamental realities about such incidents and about terrorism.

Shortly after the Benghazi attack I mentioned some of those realities, including the inherent hazards of overseas representation and the inability to protect every installation everywhere, and the fact that the details of such incidents are nearly always obscure initially and become clear only in hindsight.

As the harping continued other costs grew. These included promoting yet another misunderstanding about terrorism: the idea that popular anger at the United States and the machinations of a group are somehow mutually exclusive explanations for any terrorist incident. Still another is the notion that non-state violence is worth worrying about if it can be linked to al-Qaeda but is not much of a threat if it cannot. There also is the cost of inducing future secretaries of state and other officials to impair U.S. diplomacy by futilely pursuing a zero-risk approach to overseas representation.

As the pseudo-scandal continues to be pushed, other costs come to mind. An obvious one is the big distraction this entails from useful work Congress could otherwise be doing. Of course, we are no strangers to similarly ineffective use of congressional time and attention. Probably the Benghazi kick has been no more of a distraction than the House of Representatives voting for the 33rd time (or maybe it’s more, it’s so many there doesn’t seem to be an accurate count) to repeal Obamacare.

One also needs to consider, however, the drain on the time and attention of officials in the Executive Branch. Having five different House committees holding hearings on the same subject is an enormous diversion from the main duties of those who are responsible for diplomatic security.

The poll questions about the relative severity of different scandals brings to mind another cost: a debasing of the currency regarding what really is a scandal and what episodes in our nation’s history ought to be thought about and have lessons extracted from them. Another example of this is found in a column this week by the Washington Post‘s Jackson Diehl.

Diehl validly observes that the unending agitation over talking points about Benghazi is a misdirected digression from serious issues that ought to be addressed in a bipartisan manner, such as a failure to “adequately prepare for an emergency in post-revolution North Africa.” One might broaden the point by saying that we also ought to be discussing, again in a bipartisan manner, what assumptions underlay the Western intervention in Libya and whether it ever was a good idea.

But then in an apparent effort to achieve some kind of partisan balance, or just to scratch some old itch, Diehl contends there is equivalence between the folderol over Benghazi and the episode in which in the course of selling the invasion of Iraq the George W. Bush administration made a false claim about Iraqi purchases of uranium ore in Africa, with the office of Vice President Cheney doing battle with a former ambassador who investigated the matter.

There is no equivalence at all between these two episodes. The one involving the Vice President’s office, like Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Teapot Dome, but unlike Benghazi, involved criminal behavior. Vice presidential aide I. Lewis Libby was convicted of perjury, providing false statements to investigators, and obstruction of justice.

Diehl also gets the other essentials about the episode wrong. Although he writes that what the retired ambassador, Joseph Wilson, said was mostly “grossly exaggerated, or simply false,” the principal thing Wilson said, that no such purchases of uranium ore were ever made, was absolutely correct, with the administration’s claim being dead wrong.

The reason the Vice President’s office got so deeply involved in the matter was to try to find ways to discredit Wilson and the agency that hired him because the truths they spoke were complicating the effort to sell the Iraq War.

Although Diehl says we should have had “a serious discussion of why U.S. intelligence about Iraq was wrong,” he fails to mention that on this very matter U.S. intelligence was right, having repeatedly warned the White House against using the temptingly juicy tidbit about purchases of uranium ore.

The episode was one of the most salient indications that far from being misled into Iraq by bad intelligence, the war-makers in the administration were determined for other reasons to launch the war and were only using intelligence selectively to try to bolster their campaign to sell the invasion.

And lest we forget, the damage to the national interest from that expedition was many, many times greater than anything involving Benghazi. Now that’s scandalous.

Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)

1 comment for “The Great Benghazi Distraction

  1. F. G. Sanford
    May 15, 2013 at 18:29

    I guess it reveals my age, but the first thing that pops into my mind about Benghazi is…KEYSTONE COPS. I guess it’s hopeless to point out that, if we went into Iraq based on “bad” intelligence, we must have intervened in Libya based on NO intelligence. That fiasco has destabilized the whole of Northern Africa and provided terrorists in Algeria and Mali with plenty of weapons they wouldn’t have otherwise had. The intervention was an act of war initiated without congressional approval against a sovereign nation which offered no conceivable threat to the United States (unless we acknowledge the real threat, which was Gaddafi’s intention to avoid trading oil in petrodollars). Some claim that’s an impeachable offense.

    There is hypocrisy on the Republican side as well, since their darling, the General, was in charge of the CIA when this whole Bozo Clown Show went down. Security was real “tight”, with Paula Broadwell, his “main squeeze”, speculating to journalists about motivations for the attack: “Now I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually — had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.” None of the official story makes any sense. They were able to airlift thirty people out, but the main guy, the ambassador, got left behind? The Consulate is in TRIPOLI, not Benghazi, so what was the ambassador doing there in the first place? Remember, Paula said it was a CIA annex, and I guess she was in a position to know. Hillary campaigned for the whole fiasco, and gloated over the fact that the barbarians we supported shoved a knife up Gaddafi’s rectum. “We came, we saw, he died. Cackle, cackle, cackle.”

    Now that we’re supporting some of those same rebel elements in Syria, and they’ve appeared on international news outlets practicing cannibalism (No, I’m not making that up.), the only “analysis” being peddled is that this is a plot to derail Hillary’s campaign prospects. Well, for God’s sake, I hope so. We had to sit through those hearings which Lindsey smugly promised, “Are gonna make us mad”. We find that his sycophant witness, Hicks, was back at Headquarters while the “boss” was at the annex taking flack. Doesn’t anybody realize this represents a complete reversal of the “chain of command”? The obvious question was never asked: “What the hell was Stevens doing there in the first place”? The republicans can keep the democrats twisting in the wind because neither side can afford to tell the truth. They made a big deal out of getting “whistleblower” protection for their “stoolie”, and retained Victoria Toensing, the ambulance chaser lawyer who smeared Valerie Plame, as his lawyer. Then, they followed through by asking questions that never rose to the whistleblower level.

    Both sides are despicable, but with any luck, the bright side will be congressional paralysis and failure to accomplish any more bipartisan “sellouts” of our economic and civil rights. The only time democrats rise to the challenge of of supporting the best interests of their constituents is before, or after, they are in office. It’s time to “just say no” to Hillary. And, distracting our officials “foreign policy” is likely to avoid more disasters than anything else.

Comments are closed.