May 7, 2013

UT Report: Benghazi Book Uncovers the Details Nobody’s Talking About

In the hectic hours during last year’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty and six others used $30,000 in cash bribes to get a small commercial jet to fly them from Tripoli and Benghazi to help embattled Americans there.

That was the only plane to depart in time to make a difference during the Benghazi siege. This week, a State Department official is expected to testify to Congress that a Libyan C-130 with other U.S. Special Forces troops was later ordered to stand down for unknown reasons.

Doherty’s bold move got him to the battle, but it also led to the Encinitas man’s death along with three other Americans killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

As Congress again sifts through the details of Benghazi Wednesday and Thursday, a book by a San Diego former Navy SEAL offers a virtually minute-to-minute description of the attacks that killed Doherty.

Also killed were U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, CIA security contractor Tyrone Woods of Imperial Beach and State Department official Sean Smith, a San Diego native.

The account, by former SEAL Brandon Webb and Army Ranger Jack Murphy, lays partial blame for the attack on poor communication between the Pentagon, CIA and State Department about each other’s missions in post-civil war Libya.

U.S. special-operations military hits against al-Qaeda in Libya probably sparked resentment that was taken out on the poorly guarded, makeshift consulate in Benghazi, they concluded.

But no one told Stevens about the military missions. Nor did they alert the CIA, which was searching Libyan black markets for dirty bombs after the fall of dictator Moammar Gadhafi, affording to the account, called “Benghazi: The Definitive Report.”

“They had no idea that Special Operations missions would be kicking the hornets’ nest in Libya and therefore could not prepare for the fallout that would result,” according to the 80-page ebook, published in February by William Morrow. A hardcover edition is scheduled for later this year, Webb said this week.

Continue reading the review by Jeanette Steele at U-T San Diego.

To comment on this article please join/login. Here's a sample of the comments on this post.

  • RVN SF VET

    New developments in embassy security and new US Marine units: "That will mean funding for a lot of things, but for embassies, it means adding as many as 1,000 new Marines to guard American embassies over the next three years. That would nearly double the number of Marine guards, which now stands at about 1,200, who currently serve in or support 152 "detachments" in 130 countries. As part of that plus up, the Marines are creating as many as 10 "squad-sized" Security Augmentation Units. These units of about a dozen Marines each will be based at Quantico, Va., and deploy to embassies as needed, Situation Report is told. Such units would be designed to reinforce the Marine guards at an embassy, but the thinking is that they would deploy in anticipation of a security threat based on intelligence, not necessarily in the heat of the moment, if an embassy were under fire, for example. The Security Augmentation Units would be fully-trained Marine Security Guards and be trained and oriented toward specific regions, Capt. Greg Wolf told Situation Report. The Corps hopes to have the new units in place by the end of summer. Separately, the Corps has assigned a new Crisis Response Task Force to Moron Air Base, Spain for deploying to hotspots within U.S. Africa Command. The unit, composed of about 500 Marines, arrived at the air base in Spain about three weeks ago. It is designed to respond to a Benghazi-like attack. That unit has six MV-22 Ospreys and two C-130 refuelers available to it. The concept has become a popular one for the Corps, which has pushed for the mission as it seeks to return to its kick-down-the-door roots after years of being used as a second land army. Both U.S. Central and Southern commands have requested a similar unit for their "areas of responsibility."

  • RVN SF VET

    majrod AUNITEDPEOPLE The CIA is central to the issue. The article raises valid points. He is referring to the villa as being inadequately defended. He seems to confuse who was a rescue force and may not understand that Ty's unit was joined by Glen's at 0500.  Now that we have the full, unedited emails, it does appear to be a food fight between the CIA and State. I do not understand why some of the spurious stuff about the video and a demonstration were included by the CIA - that's ridiculous. The other thing that is ridiculous is that only emails were used. They do have telephones - secure phones if they want to discuss classified issues. Lastly, there was a Deputies meeting called for the following morning and that is held at the White House. The final talking points emerged from that meeting. We do not have any facts about what went on in that meeting. This is the first time I've heard mention of waivers. Seems like a rather high-level review for a rented villa serving as a temporary "mission" - if there is such a thing as waivers.

  • majrod

    RVN SF VET I can agree with those observations and thought process wholeheartedly though that won't even get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks :) Still troubling as to where that concern went the day of... Not enough questions asked.  Not buying there was no one or no assets.  Someone isn't asking the right questions.  I've undergone investigations and conducted them. WH, State and DoD aren't investigating, they are justifying and the great unwashed can't tell the difference.

  • AUNITEDPEOPLE

    RVN SF VET AUNITEDPEOPLE majrod  I had a feeling you'd like that, but I'm not convinced. To me, at this point in time, I have little faith in any of this political bullshit. It's pretty easy to lay all of this at the feet of the CIA, the typical scapegoat for all of our policy problems.

  • majrod

    AUNITEDPEOPLE majrod RVN SF VET Woke up and realized we live in a Banana Republic.  The IRS obstructs, investigates, harrasses the regime's oppsotionand releases personal data to the regime as ammunition to attack it.  The FBI investigates ONE HUNDRED journalists and says it's because of national security but doesn't say the regime's message at the time was there was no plot from AQ on the anniversary of Bin Laden's death.  Then we have a State Dep't with WH muscle pressuring the CIA to dumb down the truth and inject a totally erroneous line that a video was to blame that was repeated later using flag draped coffins as props. Nah, nothing here just some isolated rogue agents and we can't expect a Pres to keep track of everything that happens. Bogus as well as the apologists for this now pattern of behavior. On a separate note I don't see the CIA involvement being a major issue.  Sure it may have likely given reasons for the enemy to be attacked but that doesn't excuse the lightly secured diplomatic facility that BTW had been previously attacked!  (the wall breach wasn't a small matter). I also don't buy the premise from the srticle you shared, that the CIA annex was lightly held.  As Jack has documented in his book dozens of bad guys were killed even when they were coming over the wall at the annex whose defenders had Mk46 & Mk48 light and medium machineguns.  Heck, how heavy is it supposed to be defended?  Even an embassy can fall with a full Marine complement but anyway it's a distractor from the real issues.  I understand why the CIA angle gets traction.  It's sexy but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with how the consulate was secured, the response for security by STATE, the lack of reaction after the Egyptian embassy was stormed (which BTW we know now the CIA warned State about) or when the ambassador came up missing for HOURS. Nor does the CIA/JSOC ops provide a reason for the coverup.  So we were doing stuff in Libya.  Big Whoop!  How does that justify not hardening the consulate or even having it there?  Again, the CIA/JSOC angle is sexy, interesting even fascinating but it's irrelevant to ho security sucked leading up the Benghazi, the response or the fake video story and coverup.  That annex defense didn't happen at the consulate (or whatever you want to call it because that's another smokescreen) because IT was lightly defended and had subpar physical security.  FYI, security requirements for a "diplomatic facility" aren't less than a consulate unless SecState or superintendant diplomatic facilities sign a waiver.  Who signed the waiver?  Why?  That's the question to ask but won't because it will clarify further our policy towards Libya was a failure.