Bharat Rakshak

US consulate attack in Benghazi 'disrupted major intelligence operation’
The attack on the American consulate in Benghazi in which the ambassador to Libya was killed seriously disrupted a major intelligence operation based there, according to briefings by Washington officials.
The burnt out interior of a room inside the US consulate, Benghazi.
Image 1 of 3
The burnt out interior of a room inside the US consulate, Benghazi. Photo: Esam Omran Al-Fetori/Reuters
Richard Spencer

By Richard Spencer, Benghazi

24 Sep 2012

A large number of Americans whose existence was unknown to Libyan leaders were evacuated from Benghazi even as fighting around the compound continued.

The new briefings admit they were involved in CIA or other intelligence operations targeting Islamist activity in the east of the country, as well as securing some of the more dangerous weapons with which the country is infested.

The revelations are being used by Islamist leaders, currently on the defensive after the attack and a subsequent backlash by secular forces which saw some of their bases stormed over the weekend, as justification for their anti-American rhetoric.

Ismail Sallabi, one of the most powerful Islamists in the country, told The Daily Telegraph on Monday he also objected to the American drones that have been circling Benghazi since the attack on the consulate.

“If the CIA were really there I regard that as an invasion of Libyan sovereignty, like the aeroplanes,” he said.
Related Articles

British security firm facing questions over role in Benghazi attack
30 Sep 2012

Libyan Islamists accused of killing US ambassador 'finished'
23 Sep 2012

CNN 'disgusting' for using US ambassador's diary
23 Sep 2012

Watch live: UN General Assembly
26 Sep 2012

British family was stuck in zoo during Benghazi conflict
23 Sep 2012

Libya: Protesters storm Islamist HQ
22 Sep 2012

“Of course it would be different if it had the agreement of the Libyan government and was declared – but we don’t want these agreements to be under the table.”

As the attack on the consulate was under way, around 30 Americans were driven at high speed to an accommodation block – sometimes referred to as a “safe house” though it was no better protected than the consulate itself – but came under renewed attack there.

They were then taken to the airport and flown directly to Tripoli and out of the country. According to the New York Times, they included at least 12 CIA agents who are now “scattered across Europe and the United States” – something which is hindering the FBI investigation into the killing of the ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other staff.

The paper said the CIA team had been playing a “crucial role in conducting surveillance and collecting information on an array of armed militant groups”. It quoted an official as saying its enforced withdrawal was a “catastrophic intelligence loss”.

Similar reports in the Wall Street Journal said that the Libyan government had only been informed of the extent of the intelligence operation after the attack.

The size of the US presence has led to speculation that Islamists targeted by the operation, including Ansar al-Sharia, a militant group, and al-Qaeda, had staged a pre-emptive attack. Washington has backed away from its original insistence that the assault was a protest that got out of hand and now describes it as a terrorist incident.

Mr Sallabi, who used to lead one of Libya’s biggest revolutionary militias, the February 17 brigade, said he had offered protection to the US ambassador, and had warned him that the city was becoming dangerous.

He is now a senior commander with the Rafallah al-Sehati militia, whose base was stormed after those of Ansar al-Sharia in a wave of anti-Islamist protests in Benghazi in Friday night.

He is now in delicate negotiations with the authorities and the army.

His men have arrested 113 people he said were involved in the attack, including soldiers, but at the same time stressed his loyalty to the newly elected parliament in Tripoli.

He said he accepted a decision announced on Monday to put army officers in charge of “approved” Islamist militias like his own to tie them more closely to the official military.

“We take our orders from the chief of staff,” he said. “My brigade is one of the closest of all the militias to the parliament.”

But he said he regretted the attacks on Ansar al-Sharia, described as an “illegitimate militia” and its subsequent disbandment. He said his men had been on the verge of a major operation to arrest those it believed responsible for the attack on the consulate, but following the attack on his base that would not now happen.

“The danger is now that the members of Ansar al-Sharia will go into the shadows,” he warned.

Philip wrote:US secret intel ops affected by the Benghazi tragedy.

KLNMurthy wrote:Anyway, if, despite the above problems, it is still somehow the case that "democratic Sunni" MB in Egypt somehow getting into bed with "democratic Shia" Iran, does it mean that there is some sort of drive in West Asia for Sunni-Shia rapprochement? No such drive is there in TSP, quite the opposite, is that because the TSP jihadi-boys are nothing more than the rent-boys of Saudi?

Can we have some informed analysis / opinion about this?

KIM SENGUPTA MONDAY 01 OCTOBER 2012

Stockpiles of arms, including anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, are being held in Turkey for use by rebels in Syria's civil war, but their distribution is being held up because of disunity and feuding between the different groups of fighters, The Independent has learned.

In high-level discussions, Qatari and Turkish suppliers told opposition representatives that heavy weapons would not be made available until the various factions agreed to form a coherent command structure.

After 18 months of fighting and an estimated 30,000 people dead, rebel fighters are convinced that the time for a negotiated end to the conflict is over. But they have been forced back from many areas by tanks, artillery and air strikes. The regime, meanwhile, has not faced any significant shortage of supplies, with US officials claiming that daily flights bearing arms are coming in from President Bashar al-Assad's ally, Iran.

One attempt to set up an arms supply chain took place in the Turkish capital, Ankara, in early August. Opposition representatives were seeking weapons for Aleppo where the regime forces were beginning to push forward and recapture areas held by the rebels. According to those present, the Turks were acting as facilitators while the Qataris controlled the flow of material. Both the Qataris and Turks are said to have stressed to the opposition emissaries that the revolutionaries in the main cities, starting with Aleppo, needed to form structured military councils and come up with co-ordinated operational plans.

"Instead of getting operational plans and what would be required to implement them, we were getting shopping lists from individual khatibas (battalions)," said a Turkish organiser of supplies of arms and communications equipment. "If you give to one khatiba, others get annoyed and ask why they are being left out."

It has been claimed during the Syrian uprising that a number of Gulf states, especially the Qataris and Saudis, have been funnelling arms and money to hard-line Islamist groups, favouring them over more moderate factions. The moderate militias have been increasingly alarmed at the emergence of extremist groups, many with large numbers of foreign fighters in their ranks. Their arrival had coincided with more attacks against minorities. There has been a marked rise in churches being targeted and Christian refugees fleeing across the border.

But the Qataris are said to have maintained that one reason for the request to form military councils was to ensure a more equitable distribution of weapons. They also stressed that heavier-calibre weapons needed to be returned when hostilities ended.

"They were very clear that we needed to get organised and present a proper plan," said one opposition leader present at the talks, who gave the nom-de-guerre, Abu Mohsin.

"The Qataris were concerned because they had not been able to get back a lot they gave to the Libyan [rebels] and they did not want the same situation to happen in Syria.

"The Qataris said that the Americans were very worried about this happening again."

The rebels have not, as yet, put in place the organisation demanded by the Qataris and Turks.

"We have tried to form the military councils as they wanted, but there some difficulties. There are too many people who have made themselves commanders and they don't want to give up power" said Abu Mohsin.

One reason for the failure to form a unified command in Aleppo was the refusal of two militia commanders – Haji Mari and Abu Juma – to give up their autonomy. The two men and their followers discouraged other rebel brigades from joining in their armed uprisings until an offensive by the regime made the need for reinforcements imperative.

Co-operation between the brigades was limited in Aleppo, even during the fiercest fighting. One particularly unco-operative faction was the Islamist Jubhat al-Nusra brigade which is linked to al-Qa'ida. A senior Al-Nusra operative, Abu Mohammed al-Shami al-Absi, disappeared earlier this month. His body was found at Samada near the Turkish border a few days later, with fellow rebels believed to be responsible for his execution.

Mr Al-Absi's group has accused the Al-Farouq brigade of Homs of carrying out the killing. The group, which has publicly stated its opposition to al-Qa'ida's involvement in the revolution, denies responsibility. But one of its officers, Amar Mohammed Abaddullah, stressed: "We are fighting for Syria to be a free country, a democracy where all our people, Muslims and Christians, have a part to play. Obviously we cannot work with those who want to impose their own [version of an] Islamist state and act against those who disagree with them."

Pranav wrote:

Philip wrote:US secret intel ops affected by the Benghazi tragedy.

Benghazi is from where a large number of fighters are shipped to Syria.

shyamd wrote:Eklavya - read the article - the key bit is the security agreement and what it actually states not the defence pact which is an element of the relationship.

RoyG - Any enemy - Iran or Iraq, but even if they think we will help allows for relationship to improve and whether we help or not is a different matter and will be decided when it happens.
Even in GW1, they asked what makes us want to trust the US? The US could cut a deal with saddam they were afraid of so they bought in extra troops from other countries. They will get assurances despite all the paper and billions of oil deals.

In Bahrain last year for example the US asked Saudi to stop their troops from being sent and also Mubarak was sold out in their eyes. KSA was angry about it. They don't trust the US fully - the US is backing the MB against the rulers there for example

JE Menon wrote:It is likely to be both the Americans and Indians jointly shouldering burdens if the shite really hits the fan in this part of the world. Our capacity to help is not miniscule. We do not want a change in the status quo in this area for the foreseeable future unless that change is of a kind that does not disrupt or endanger our economic interests.

JE Menon wrote:Maybe we will use them... I don't know.

shyamd wrote:RoyG

US will be always the number one security provider due to economics. Ours is growing. But our power projection and our capabilities are improving and if US doesn't help, India and other regional powers have the capabilities to intervene - that's the point. Even recently key strategists and advisors in the Gulf said India alone has the capabilities to protect the straits (assuming they did their research of course).

India may not currently have the capabilities to save the day for them or fight their wars but we can help in certain areas (significantly). But again whether we do or not is another matter in itself

There are technical reasons too for why India can help (they wanted Egyptian troops on the streets releasing the RSLF to actually fight in the event of war). TSPAF in air, naval duties and so on.

Re- coalition trust deficit - read Bandars biography and His and the kings comments/letters on that subject. And also the thought process about getting the US on board. Ive been fortunate to speak to serving military officers on the subject too.
Ask yourself one question - can they cut a deal with an invader in exchange of leaving the oil gas facilities alone and retaining ownership etc? Answer is Yes
Our presence there is minimal now but a growing one and it's one to watch for the long run.


--------------------------
@zaidbenjamin: #BREAKING: Sources in Libyan PM office tell state news agency that Moustafa Abou Shagour could announce his government formation tomorrow

Paving the way for MB to infiltrate the army and take control of state institutions

Pranav wrote:

Philip wrote:US secret intel ops affected by the Benghazi tragedy.

Benghazi is from where a large number of fighters are shipped to Syria.

nakul wrote:^^^

The US is the top dog and will continue to do so for the near future. We have to keep our options open after that to prevent some other power (read China) to make inroads into it. Pakistan has already become a rentier for anyone (look at them jumping up & down for Putin) after relations turned sour. If such a thing happens in West Asia, India should be the one to fill the vacuum, not France, China or Russia. As long as US remains, the present script will continue to play itself out. The idea is to keep the Indian Ocean Indian.

abhischekcc wrote: US power is not unlimited. Look at their refusal to get involved in Syria. They did not want to get involved in Libya also, but Obama was outmaneuvered by Hillary.

Today, the US cannot hold down two major fronts.

There is an additional danger for India if Syria flares up and US and Russia are at loggerheads militarily. China always attacks India when these two countries are in a military confrontation - 1962 (Bay of pigs), attacks on Indian outposts during Kargil war (Yugoslavia bombing going on).

Wednesday 0230 GMT October 3, 2012

· Afghanistan an innocuous article in the New York Times tells the US and the world that the US knows it has completely failed in Afghanistan. http://t.co/N7HPqzU1 Editor was about the last person to learn US was failing. It took him until 2008 to figure this out. Admitting to this to People In The Know earned Editor considerable derision along the lines “Now you find out?” Truthfully, Editor deserves the derision, because people WERE telling him the US was failing, but he refused to listen. He could not believe US Government would blandly lie to its people, not after the transparency of First Gulf, and the fiasco with the public trust in Second Indochina.

· It is said two things led to the end of trust Americans have traditionally reposed in the US Government. One was the assassination of President Kennedy; the other was the Vietnam War. Editor is still not sure how the first played into the end of trust, but he is only restating something that was said many, many times in the 1960s and 1970s. Vietnam as a corroding factor in the trust thing is obvious. Government on Monday would announce we’re beating the Reds, on Friday it would say its sending another 50,000 troops. After committing 550,000+ troops (actually 750,000 when you count the Navy, airpower based outside Vietnam, and air force units supporting the logistical effort), one day the country wakes up to the news that General Westmoreland is asking for 2250,000 more troops. Total freakout. Total, total freakout.

· Anyhows, what Editor did not realize is that around 2005 the Taliban had rebuilt from its losses consequent on the US invasion of Afghanistan, and slowly but surely Taliban steps up its activity. By 2008 it has reached the stage US has to up forces by 50%. This was an “Uh Oh” moment for Editor. Bright feller that he is, he said: “Something smells in the Kingdom of Denmark”. Probing deeper, it emerged the Taliban controlled 50% of Afghanistan by day, 80% by night. Editor, being the genius he is, goes “Yo, amigo, looks like we’re actually losing”. Now he starts looking more deeply at the situation, instead of ignoring it and relying on other blogs, which give the US viewpoint 100%. Then he realizes (a) US has no strategy to win; (b) US is massively failing to train the Afghans. Anything wrong that can be done, the US is doing.

· Editor at this point cannot emotionally handle it anymore, because the American failures are so massive and so total, that one either ignores the situation or one faces the reality that this country’s national security establishment and higher military leader is, like, totally incompetent. The consequences of this are so immense, that and aside from the occasional guerilla raid on conventional wisdom, Editor basically goes “La la la, I can’t hear you.”

· Okay, so now Editor has done the mea culpa thing, lets come back to the NY Times article. It says that the Americans now admit that we cannot bring the Taliban to the negotiating table, and that it’s up to the Afghans to work this out. Moreover, the article also says that until we leave in 2014, there will be no major progress in negotiations. And even more abjectly, the article says the americans will have to give Pakistan a major seat at the table. This is as clear an admission of defeat as you are getting from American leaders today.

· Editor has been saying, irregularly, moodily, and off-handedly that if there are Afghan-Taliban negotiations, they will solely be a Taliban deception to prepare its takeover. This means there will be NO real negotiations; the game is lost, and the leadership knows it.

· So: let’s repeat what we’ve said before. Taliban will whack the Afghan Army with greater ease than you whack the weeds in your garden because the Afghan Army’s fighting potential is about as close to zero as one can get. The only thing propping up the mockery of an Afghan Army is the US. With combat units gone, no amount of advisors is going to save the bacon, or however that expression goes. Once the US gets out of the way, the Pakistan Army is going to come right back into Afghanistan, and just as it did 1994-96, it is going to beat the daylights out of the Afghans.

· Now: there will this time be a major difference. Last time the world was basically keeping out of the dreadful civil war that erupted after the Soviet withdrawal of 1989 between the warlords, followed by the rise of the Taliban, who at that time were only an extension of the Pakistan Army. Toward the end of the rise of the Taliban, people like India and Russia were aiding anti-Pushtoon Afghans. At the time of the US invasion in 2001, the Northern Alliance had 15% of the country, Taliban had 85% (in so far as anyone can actually have control over Afghanistan – another question for another time). This time, however, India, Russia, and even the US are going to aid the west and north Afghan who are anti-Taliban (and anti Pushtoon). The core of new opposition army will come from the split-up Afghan Arm. With foreign assistance, there will be no scope for Pakistan to take over all of Afghanistan; and its not clear if Islamabad wants to.

· We don’t want to paint a rosy picture of Pakistan’s gains because there are going to be all sorts of problems for Pakistan this time as opposed to 1996-2001. Among these problems is that the Taliban have developed their own identity, and plus you have a bunch of Taliban who are anti-Pakistan. Again, this is another discussion for another time.

· The only question we should be asking is: are any American generals, bureaucrats, Administration officials, and media going to be held responsible for America’s defeat? Are there going to be inquiries, trials, and punishments? Of course not, you silly person. You see, America works on two tracks. There is you and me, the peasants, and there are the elite. When us peasants mess up, the elite makes darn sure we suffer the consequences. When the elite mess up, they get better jobs and after a decent interval return to make another, even bigger mess.


The only way this is going to change if we, the peasants, get out the pitchforks and the flaming torches and the ropes, and go after the elite. In this struggle, please do not look to the Editor. He did his struggle thing in India for 20-years. It would be wrong to say he achieved nothing. He did achieve 0.00000000000000000001 of what he set out to achieve. After 22-years in America, and approaching 70, Editor is very, very tired. This country can make you very successful, but if you don’t make into that 1%, or you aren’t born into it, America can grind you down. Americans, this is your country. It’s up to you to revolt. Editor has been there, done that. Good luck to you all, and thanks for the fish, or something like that.

Iraq-Turkey: The Iraqi Cabinet has decided to dissolve a treaty that authorizes the Turkish armed forces to operate in Iraq. According to a senior Iraqi military official, the move is intended to end Turkey's military presence in the north, where the Turkish militant group, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), maintains bases.

Comment: The treaty dates to 1995, when Saddam Hussain's government authorized the deployment of Turkish forces to control and suppress the socialist PKK. At some times the Turkish contingent was the equivalent of an army division and never less than a regiment.

The treaty was a means of distributing the costs of regional security. Neither the Turks nor the Iraqi Sunni Arabs like the Kurds. A Turkish military enclave in northern Iraq to control the Kurdish communist insurgents was cheaper than stationing Iraqi Arab soldiers to control the Kurds.

The reasons for terminating the treaty are not clear, but the timing of the action suggests it is a ripple effect from the Syrian uprising. Turkey is a primary backer of the Sunni rebels; tolerates the secessionist impulses of the Syrian Kurds against the government in Damascus; and opposes Baghdad's support of Iran and Syria.

The government in Iraq evidently has decided to take action to stop Turkish meddling with Iraqi Kurds -- such as by encouraging greater autonomy. Turkish actions with the Iraqi Kurds are aimed at intimidating the pro-Iranian government in Baghdad to halt its support for the Syrian government.

Moreover, the Iraqi Arabs viscerally dislike the Turks who once ruled Iraq as a province of the Ottoman Empire.

ramana wrote:RoyG Read Nightwatch. Iraq is definitely supporting Syria by opposing Turkey.

http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/Ni ... 00188.aspx

Iraq-Turkey: The Iraqi Cabinet has decided to dissolve a treaty that authorizes the Turkish armed forces to operate in Iraq. According to a senior Iraqi military official, the move is intended to end Turkey's military presence in the north, where the Turkish militant group, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), maintains bases.

Comment: The treaty dates to 1995, when Saddam Hussain's government authorized the deployment of Turkish forces to control and suppress the socialist PKK. At some times the Turkish contingent was the equivalent of an army division and never less than a regiment.

The treaty was a means of distributing the costs of regional security. Neither the Turks nor the Iraqi Sunni Arabs like the Kurds. A Turkish military enclave in northern Iraq to control the Kurdish communist insurgents was cheaper than stationing Iraqi Arab soldiers to control the Kurds.

The reasons for terminating the treaty are not clear, but the timing of the action suggests it is a ripple effect from the Syrian uprising. Turkey is a primary backer of the Sunni rebels; tolerates the secessionist impulses of the Syrian Kurds against the government in Damascus; and opposes Baghdad's support of Iran and Syria.

The government in Iraq evidently has decided to take action to stop Turkish meddling with Iraqi Kurds -- such as by encouraging greater autonomy. Turkish actions with the Iraqi Kurds are aimed at intimidating the pro-Iranian government in Baghdad to halt its support for the Syrian government.

Moreover, the Iraqi Arabs viscerally dislike the Turks who once ruled Iraq as a province of the Ottoman Empire.

ramana wrote:We can see the slow emergence of Kurdistan from Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

Jhujar wrote:

ramana wrote:We can see the slow emergence of Kurdistan from Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

with population of 25-30 Millions and huge amount of oil deposits. Kurdistan will be a balancing power and 50/50 chance of going back to their civilizational roots. They are very much aware of their original No Arabic identity.