| by B.Raman
(October 1,
2012, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) In my article of September 13,2012, titled
“Blood in Benghazi” , I had stated as follows:
“In Benghazi
too, outside the US Consulate, there was a similar demonstration against the US
by a group of unarmed local Muslims. The US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens
who is based in Tripoli, was then on a visit to Benghazi and was inside the
Consulate. The demonstrators did not appear to have been aware of this.
“While this
demonstration was going on without posing any major problem to the security
guards, another group of armed Muslims carrying fire-arms and rocket-propelled
grenades (RPGs) appeared on the scene and launched a commando-style attack on
the Consulate. There was a heavy exchange of fire and use of grenades. The
armed intruders with others entered the Consulate complex and tried to set fire
to the buildings.
“By the time
their attack could be brought under control after four hours, the Ambassador
and three other American employees were killed. The circumstances under which
they were killed are not clear.
“The CNN TV
channel quoted State Department officials as saying that the two incidents at
the diplomatic missions in Cairo and Benghazi were not related and that they
believed the Benghazi violence was a "clearly planned attack." The
CNN quoted a senior official as saying: "It was not an innocent mob. The
video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their
perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."
2. Thus,
according to the CNN, in the briefings immediately after the Benghazi attack,
unnamed spokespersons of the US State Department had characterised the attack
on the Consulate that led to the death of the US Ambassador to Libya and three
other US employees as a ‘clearly planned military type attack.”
3. I had also
stated as follows in my article: “The speculation in Benghazi is that the
commando-style attack was probably carried out by Ansar al-Sharia (Supporters
of the Sharia).The Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which operates
from Yemen, has also been calling itself since last year as the Ansar
al-Sharia. It is not yet clear whether the Ansar suspected in the Benghazi
attack is the same as the Yemen-based wing of Al Qaeda or is an indigenous
Libyan organisation.”
4. It was clear
from the beginning that on September 11, 2012, there were two incidents outside
the US Consulate—a spontaneous anti-US demonstration by a group of unarmed
Muslims and a commando-style attack by a group of heavily armed persons
suspected to be connected with Al Qaeda.
5. There was no
confusion in the State Department briefing as reported by the CNN. A confusion
was caused by the remarks of the US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan
Rice, who stated in a TV talk show on September 15,2012, that the hours-long
assault with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades on the US consulate was part of a spontaneous demonstration over
an amateurish video that mocked the Prophet Mohammed.
6.It was not
clear whether it was an unintentional slip-up by an ill-informed and
ill-briefed Ambassador or whether it was a deliberate attempt by Ms Rice, who
is one of the close advisers of President Barack Obama, to downplay the initial
briefing of the State Department that it
was a planned military-style attack in order to protect the President and his
White House advisers from any allegations of complacency and softness towards
the terrorist elements in Libya during the current Presidential election
campaign.
7.As one had
seen during the election campaign of Mr.George Bush for a second-term in 2004,
carefully projected perceptions of Senator John Kerry, his Democratic opponent,
by Republican experts as soft on terrorism contributed to his defeat. It has
been seen since the 9/11 terrorist strikes in the US homeland that US voters
are hostile to any candidate perceived by them as soft towards terrorism.
8.By no stretch
of imagination can one project Mr.Obama as soft on terrorism. The record of his
administration against Al Qaeda in the Af-Pak region and Yemen speaks for
itself. The spectacular raid by the Navy Seals into the hide-out of Osama bin
Laden at Abbottabad that killed him should normally go in favour of Mr.Obama in
the election campaign.
9.But the
Benghazi incident and conflicting versions of it have given his Republican
opponents an opportunity to divert voter attention away from the successes in
the Af-Pak region and to focus on the failure of Mr.Obama to prevent the
infiltration of Al Qaeda elements into Libya.
10.The
politicisation of the Benghazi incident as indicative of the failure of
Mr.Obama to deal effectively with Al Qaeda in its new areas of operation could
provide the Republicans with a stick to beat him with during the election
campaign.
11.In an attempt
to pre-empt such politicisation, Mr.Obama and his close advisers, including
Ms.Rice, initially tried to downplay the possibility of the Benghazi attack
being an act of terrorism. On September 28,the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence had to admit that the consulate attack was planned and
linked to Al-Qaeda, but stressed that "many unanswered questions"
remained.
12.This volte
face has been sought to be exploited by the Republicans to project Mr.Obama in
negative colours. Mr.John McCain, who was Mr.Obama’s opponent in the 2008
election campaign, has said that the administration's initial explanation for
the attack was flat wrong. He added: "It was either wilful ignorance or
abysmal intelligence to think that people come to spontaneous demonstrations
with heavy weapons, mortars and the attack goes on for hours."
13.Republican
Vice- presidential nominee Paul Ryan has said: "It's part of a bigger
picture of the fact that the Obama foreign policy is unravelling literally
before our eyes on our TV screens." There have been demands for the
resignation of Ms.Rice for allegedly misleading the people. Senior Obama adviser
David Plouffe has described as "preposterous and really offensive"
any allegation that the Government withheld information on Libya for political
reasons.
14.Till now the
indications are that Mr.Obama has a lead over his opponent Mr. Mitt Romney and
that the terrorism issue should not make any difference to the final outcome.
The Republicans may not carry conviction with the voters if they try to project
Mr.Obama as soft or confused in his policies towards terrorism in Libya.
15.But the
fortunes of his campaign could change if
it turns out that Mr.Obama and his advisers attempted a cover-up of the gravity
of the Benghazi attack by projecting it initially as a spontaneous
demonstration which was at variance with the characterisation of the incident
by State Department experts as a pre-planned military-style attack.
16.The voters
may not react adversely if it turns out to be a case of incompetence, but they
may react strongly against him if they believe that an attempt was made to tell
them a lie. The fortunes of the campaign could also change if there is another
major terrorist strike by Al Qaeda or its affiliates against US nationals and
interests anywhere in the world.
17.Terrorism
will continue to be an unpredictable factor in the elections.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd),
Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director,
Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For
China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com
Twitter @SORBONNE75)