Archive for October 10, 2012

State Dept. officials: We didn’t link Libya attack to anti-Islam video

October 10, 2012

State Dept. officials: We didn’t link Libya attack to anti-Islam video | The Times of Israel.

Handling of Benghazi consulate assault becoming a major elections issue

October 10, 2012, 7:33 am 1
A Libyan man investigates the inside of the U.S. Consulate, after an attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens on the night of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya (photo credit: AP/Mohammad Hannon)

A Libyan man investigates the inside of the U.S. Consulate, after an attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens on the night of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya (photo credit: AP/Mohammad Hannon)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.

But asked about the administration’s initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, “That was not our conclusion.” He called it a question for “others” to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.

The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, featuring prominently in Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s latest foreign policy address on Monday. He called it an example of President Barack Obama’s weakness in foreign policy matters, noting: “As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists.”

The administration counters that it has provided its best intelligence on the attack, and that it refined its explanation as more information came to light. But five days after the attack, Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, gave a series of interviews saying the administration believed the violence was unplanned and that extremists with heavier weapons “hijacked” the protest and turned it into an outright attack.

She has since denied trying to mislead Congress, and a concurrent CIA memo that was obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi “were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” and “evolved into a direct assault” on the diplomatic posts by “extremists.”

Alongside defining the nature of the Benghazi attack, Congress is looking into whether adequate security was in place.

According to an email obtained Tuesday by the AP, the top State Department security official in Libya told a congressional investigator that he had argued unsuccessfully for more security in the weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs were killed. But department officials instead wanted to “normalize operations and reduce security resources,” he wrote.

Eric Nordstrom, who was the regional security officer in Libya, also referenced a State Department document detailing 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012 that demonstrated the danger there to Americans.

Nordstrom is among the witnesses set to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. According to the panel’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and the head of a subcommittee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the State Department refused repeated requests to provide more security for U.S. diplomats in Libya.

“You will note that there were a number of incidents that targeted diplomatic missions and underscored the GoL’s (government of Libya) inability to secure and protect diplomatic missions,” Nordstrom’s email stated.

“This was a significant part of (the diplomatic) post’s and my argument for maintaining continued DS (diplomatic security) and DOD (Department of Defense) security assets into Sept/Oct. 2012; the GoL was overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection.

“Sadly, that point was reaffirmed on Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi,” he added.

Nordstrom said the incidents demonstrated that security in Libya was fragile and could degrade quickly. He added that Libya was “certainly not an environment where (the diplomatic) post would be directed to ‘normalize’ operations and reduce security resources in accordance with an artificial time table.”

Nordstrom also said diplomats in Libya were told not to request an extension of a 16-member special operations military team that left in August, according to an official of the Oversight panel. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and thus spoke only on the condition of anonymity.

The State Department has said it never received a request to extend the military team beyond August, and added that its members were replaced with a security team that had the same skills.

Democrats on the Oversight committee were sharply critical of Issa, the chairman, calling his investigation “extremely partisan.”

“The chairman and his staff failed to consult with Democratic members prior to issuing public letters with unverified allegations, concealed witnesses and refused to make one hearing witness available to Democratic staff, withheld documents obtained by the committee during the investigation, and effectively excluded Democratic committee members from joining a poorly-planned congressional delegation to Libya,” a Democratic memo said.

It said in the previous two years, House Republicans voted to cut the Obama administration’s requests for embassy security by some $459 million.

The Democratic memo said Nordstrom told committee investigators that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses.

He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low and that Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.

Issa had a phone conversation Monday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton about the committee’s investigation.

The FBI is still investigating the attack. Clinton also has named a State Department review panel to look into the security arrangements in Libya.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.

U.S. Military Sent to Jordan on Syria Crisis – NYTimes.com

October 10, 2012

U.S. Military Sent to Jordan on Syria Crisis – NYTimes.com.

 

WASHINGTON — The United States military has secretly sent a task force of more than 150 planners and other specialists to Jordan to help the armed forces there handle a flood of Syrian refugees, prepare for the possibility that Syria will lose control of its chemical weapons and be positioned should the turmoil in Syria expand into a wider conflict.

The task force, which has been led by a senior American officer, is based at a Jordanian military training center built into an old rock quarry north of Amman. It is now largely focused on helping Jordanians handle the estimated 180,000 Syrian refugees who have crossed the border and are severely straining the country’s resources.

American officials familiar with the operation said the mission also includes drawing up plans to try to insulate Jordan, an important American ally in the region, from the upheaval in Syria and to avoid the kind of clashes now occurring along the border of Syria and Turkey.

The officials said the idea of establishing a buffer zone between Syria and Jordan — which would be enforced by Jordanian forces on the Syrian side of the border and supported politically and perhaps logistically by the United States — had been discussed. But at this point the buffer is only a contingency.

The Obama administration has declined to intervene in the Syrian conflict beyond providing communications equipment and other nonlethal assistance to the rebels opposing the government of President Bashar al-Assad. But the outpost near Amman could play a broader role should American policy change. It is less than 35 miles from the Syrian border and is the closest American military presence to the conflict.

Officials from the Pentagon and Central Command, which oversees American military operations in the Middle East, declined to comment on the task force or its mission. A spokesman for the Jordanian Embassy in Washington would also not comment on Tuesday.

As the crisis in Syria has deepened, there has been mounting concern in Washington that the violence could spread through the region. Over the past week, Syria and Turkey have exchanged artillery and mortar fire across Syria’s northern border, which has been a crossing point for rebel fighters. In western Syria, intense fighting recently broke out in villages near the border crossing that leads to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. To the east, the Syrian government has lost control of some border crossings, including the one near Al Qaim in Iraq.

Jordan has also been touched by the fighting. Recent skirmishes have broken out between the Syrian military and Jordanians guarding the country’s northern border, where many families have ties to Syria. In August, a 4-year-old girl in a Jordanian border town was injured when a Syrian shell struck her house, and there are concerns in Jordan that a sharp upsurge in the fighting in Syria might lead to an even greater influx of refugees.

Jordan, which was one of the first Arab countries to call for Mr. Assad’s resignation, has become increasingly concerned that Islamic militants coming to join the fight in Syria could cross the porous border between the two countries.

The American mission in Jordan quietly began this summer. In May, the United States organized a major training exercise, which was dubbed Eager Lion. About 12,000 troops from 19 countries, including Special Forces troops, participated in the exercise.

After it ended, the small American contingent stayed on and the task force was established at a Jordanian training center north of Amman. It includes communications specialists, logistics experts, planners, trainers and headquarters staff members, American officials said. An official from the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugee Affairs and Migration is also assigned to the task force.

“We have been working closely with our Jordanian partners on a variety of issues related to Syria for some time now,” said George Little, the Pentagon press secretary, who added that a specific concern was the security of Syria’s stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. “As we’ve said before, we have been planning for various contingencies, both unilaterally and with our regional partners.”

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta met in Amman in August with King Abdullah II of Jordan and at that time pledged continuing American help with the flow of Syrian refugees. Mr. Panetta was followed in September by Gen. James N. Mattis, the head of Central Command, who met with senior Jordanian officials in Amman.

Members of the American task force are spending the bulk of their time working with the Jordanian military on logistics — figuring out how to deploy tons of food, water and latrines to the border, for example, and training the Jordanian military to handle the refugees. A month ago, as many as 3,000 a day were coming over the border. But as the Syrian army has consolidated its position in southern Syria, the number of refugees has declined to several hundred a day.

According to the United Nations, Jordan is currently hosting around 100,000 Syrians who have either registered or are awaiting registration.   American officials say the total number may be almost twice that.

The American military is also sending medical kits to the border and has provided gravel to help keep down the dust at the Zaatari refugee camp, which the task force helped set up and is now home to 35,000 Syrians. It has also provided four large prefabricated buildings to be used at Zaatari as schools. One official estimated the cost so far at less than $1 million.

Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington, and Ranya Kadri from Amman, Jordan.

Insiders: Israel Will Attack Iran

October 10, 2012

Insiders: Israel Will Attack Iran – NationalJournal.com.

October 9, 2012 | 8:00 p.m.

Two-thirds of National Journal‘s National Security Insiders believe Israel will attack Iran to try to derail its nuclear program, but they are divided over whether military action would take place in the coming months or at a later date.

Speculation abounds over whether the Jewish state may strike, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently called upon the United Nations General Assembly to draw a clear “red line” to stop Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. While President Obama has insisted that no option is off the table to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the administration has so far advocated for a strategy of tougher sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

“If the U.S. strategy in 2013 does not produce noticeable changes in Iran’s behavior,” one Insider said, “then either Israel will convince the U.S. to strike (their preferred option) or they will go it alone (and the U.S. will share in the consequences).”

Other Insiders believed an Israeli attack is imminent. “The drums of war are beating louder and louder, and the Israelis are concerned they are running out of time to mount an effective attack on the Iranian nuclear program,” one Insider said. “The Israelis have lost the element of surprise but believe their nation’s existence is threatened by the Iranian program, thus making it likely they will strike Iran in the coming months.”

Israel will strike soon, because time is not on its side, another Insider said. “Those who think a nuclear Iran can be deterred don’t live in Jerusalem.”

One-third of Insiders did not think Israel would attack Iran. “With the help of his U.S. supporters, Netanyahu’s strategy all along has been to try [to] bully the Obama administration into waging war against Iran on Israel’s behalf,” one Insider said. “Fortunately, Obama resisted the pressure, leaving Israel with the prospect of confronting Iran alone. As a result, Netanyahu, despite all of his saber-rattling and chest-beating, will back down, preferring a war of hot air to one of hot lead.”

The political window for an attack is before the U.S. presidential elections, one Insider said. “Netanyahu doesn’t have a political consensus at home in favor of an attack, so he is unlikely to follow through during what remains of that window.”

Another Insider said such a strike was unlikely because many Israeli military leaders oppose it, and it could be effective only if complemented by a U.S. strike or substantial American intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. “A strike against Iran would undermine broader U.S. interests by embittering many Arabs and some Iranians,” the Insider said. “The best Western strategy is to back political opponents in Iran and pursue regime change. Even if it were ever possible, it is too late now to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

1. Will Israel attack Iran to try and derail its nuclear program?

(52 votes)

  • Yes, eventually48%
  • Yes, probably in the coming months19%
  • No 33%

Yes, eventually:

“I wish the answer were ‘no,’ but the political cost of not attacking may eventually reach the point where it is greater than the actual cost of the inevitable response.”

“Probably, but not for sure. Also, the U.S.-Israel relationship is so pathological that Bibi might be able to chain-gang us into doing it.”

“The U.S. has made itself over the decades supine and hostage to extreme Zionists and the Israelis know it. It’s a matter of time.”

“If the U.S. strategy in 2013 does not produce noticeable changes in Iran’s behavior, then either Israel will convince the U.S. to strike (their preferred option) or they will go it alone (and the U.S. will share in the consequences).”

Yes, probably in the coming months:

“October to March remains the expectation in the [Gulf Cooperation Council]. No reason to think otherwise. U.S. military buildup in the Gulf is unsustainable—we are at a ‘use it or lose it’ moment. And based on the current agreement with Israel of no participation or coordination in a preemptive strike but assured defense in case of Iranian retaliation, the first Shahab [missile] into Tel Aviv means the U.S. just bought itself offensive action against Iran.”

“Obama’s behavior has made the Israelis even less confident of American support.”

“The drums of war are beating louder and louder, and the Israelis are concerned they are running out of time to mount an effective attack on the Iranian nuclear program. The Israelis have lost the element of surprise but believe their nation’s existence is threatened by the Iranian program, thus making it likely they will strike Iran in the coming months.”

“Israel will strike soon—time is not on its side. Those who think a nuclear Iran can be deterred don’t live in Jerusalem.”

No:

“Israel is quite unlikely to strike before the elections. After the elections, assuming there is no deal with Tehran, a U.S. strike is quite likely, regardless of who the next president is.”

“Israel does not have the capacity to conduct the sustained attack needed to destroy the Iranian nuclear program.”

“High political-military risk with questionable payoff.”

“U.S. will hold their hand.”

“The political window for an attack is between now and the U.S. election on Nov. 6. Netanyahu doesn’t have a political consensus at home in favor of an attack, so he is unlikely to follow through during what remains of that window.”

“With the help of his U.S. supporters, Netanyahu’s strategy all along has been to try [to] bully the Obama administration into waging war against Iran on Israel’s behalf. Fortunately, Obama resisted the pressure, leaving Israel with the prospect of confronting Iran alone. As a result, Netanyahu, despite all of his saber-rattling and chest-beating, will back down, preferring a war of hot air to one of hot lead.”

“Too many Israeli military leaders oppose it, and a strike could be effective only if complemented by a U.S. strike or supported by substantial U.S. intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and logistics. But a strike against Iran would undermine broader U.S. interests by embittering many Arabs and some Iranians. The best Western strategy is to back political opponents in Iran and pursue regime change. Even if it were ever possible, it is too late now to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

National Journal’s National Security Insiders Poll is a periodic survey of defense and foreign-policy experts.

They are:

National Security Insiders Gordon Adams, Charles Allen, Thad Allen, James Bamford, David Barno, Milt Bearden, Peter Bergen, Samuel “Sandy” Berger, David Berteau, Stephen Biddle, Nancy Birdsall, Kit Bond, Stuart Bowen, Paula Broadwell, Mike Breen, Steven Bucci, Nicholas Burns, Dan Byman, James Jay Carafano, Phillip Carter, Wendy Chamberlin, Michael Chertoff, Frank Cilluffo, James Clad, Richard Clarke, Steve Clemons, Joseph Collins, William Courtney, Roger Cressey, Gregory Dahlberg, Robert Danin, Richard Danzig, Paul Eaton, Andrew Exum, William Fallon, Eric Farnsworth, Jacques Gansler, Stephen Ganyard, Daniel Goure, Mike Green, Mark Gunzinger, Jim Harper, Michael Hayden, Pete Hoekstra, Bruce Hoffman, Paul Hughes, Colin Kahl, Donald Kerrick, Rachel Kleinfeld, Lawrence Korb, David Kramer, Andrew Krepinevich, Charlie Kupchan, W. Patrick Lang, Cedric Leighton, James Lindsay, Trent Lott, Peter Mansoor, Brian McCaffrey, Steven Metz, Franklin Miller, Philip Mudd, John Nagl, Shuja Nawaz, Kevin Nealer, Michael Oates, Thomas Pickering, Paul Pillar, Stephen Rademaker, Marc Raimondi, Celina Realuyo, Bruce Riedel, Barry Rhoads, Marc Rotenberg, Kori Schake, Mark Schneider, John Scofield, Tammy Schultz, Stephen Sestanovich, Sarah Sewall, Matthew Sherman, Jennifer Sims, Constanze Stelzenmüller, Frances Townsend, Mick Trainor, Suzanne Spaulding, Ted Stroup, Tamara Wittes, Dov Zakheim, and Juan Zarate.

Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.

Massive US-Israel air defense drill set for October

October 10, 2012

Massive US-Israel air defense drill set for Oc… JPost – Defense.

10/10/2012 01:21
Three-week exercise, postponed from spring, will be largest of its kind to date, simulate missile defense scenarios.

HOME FRONT troops take part missile defense drill

Photo: HOME FRONT troops take part in a missile defense d

The US and Israel will commence the largest-ever joint air defense drill of its kind in Israel on October 21, an army source said on Tuesday.

The exercise, named Austere Challenge 12, was originally scheduled for last spring but was postponed due to regional tensions with Iran.

On October 14, large numbers of American soldiers are expected to begin arriving in Israel, where they will set up aerial defense positions on Israeli territory and on US Navy vessels off the Israeli coastline.

The three-week drill will simulate various missile defense scenarios, and is expected to end with a live-fire interception of a decoy incoming Patriot missile.

One of the objectives of the drill is to facilitate the rapid deployment of US missile defense systems to Israel and test their ability to operate in conjunction with Israeli defense systems during a conflict.

The IDF Spokesman’s Office said Tuesday that “the US and Israel hold regular joint exercises between the militaries.

These exercises are planned ahead of time and form part of the routine training program, aimed at improving mutual operations.”

The AC12 drill forms “another milestone in the common strategic relations between the US and Israel,” the office added, stressing that the drill is “unrelated to any pinpoint developments in the region.”

At the end of August, the US said it would decrease the original number of American forces due to take part in AC12. An Israeli defense source said at the time that the exercise will still be the largest of its kind to date, adding, “Defense cooperation between Israel and the US has never been better.”

In 2009, the IDF and US European Command held the Juniper Cobra 10 air defense exercise, which involved 1,400 US soldiers and the same number of IDF soldiers.

The drill went through three phases: a field training exercise; computer simulation command post-exercise to test interoperability capabilities; and a live-fire exercise involving a Patriot missile interception.

The exercise was hailed as a success by Israeli and American military commanders.

Separately, the Home Front Command is expected to hold its sixth annual national emergency drill on October 21. The drill will focus on testing responses to earthquakes.