These bureaus don’t exist in a vacuum? Oh, but they do – since …

…. the day before yesterday!

More from the ARB briefing with Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen:

MS. NULAND: Let’s go to New York Times. Michael Gordon, please.

QUESTION: Ambassador Pickering, your report was extremely critical of the performance of some individuals in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the NEA, the Middle East Bureau. And – but these bureaus don’t exist in a vacuum; they’re part of an hierarchical organization known as the Department of State, and each has a chain of command. The NEA reports up the policy chain, and Diplomatic Security, I presume, reports up the management chain, their Under Secretaries, and indeed deputy secretaries, and the Secretary herself, who oversees these bureaus. What is the highest level at the Department of State where you fix responsibility for what happened in Benghazi?

AMBASSADOR PICKERING: We fixed it at the Assistant Secretary level, which is in our view the appropriate place to look, where the decision-making in fact takes place, where, if you like, the rubber hits the road. And one of the interesting things about the statutory basis for the Review Board was that it clearly was biased against the idea that one could automatically hold, as one often does, the leader of a particular department or agency responsible without pinpointing the place where the failures took place and where the lessons that we derived from that ought to be important to fixing the problem. And so fixing the problem and finding the locus of the difficulties was the major task we had to undertake.

ADMIRAL MULLEN: And I would add to that, Michael, that, I mean, certainly that was a concern that we had as we initiated the review and we just found. And as someone who’s run large organizations, and the Secretary of State has been very clear about taking responsibility here, it was, from my perspective, not reasonable in terms of her having a specific level of knowledge that was very specifically resident in her staff, and over time, certainly didn’t bring that to her attention.

NYT’s Michael Gordon who later filed this report writes:

The report did not criticize more senior officials, including Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary for management, who has vigorously defended the State Department’s decision-making on Benghazi to Congress.
[...]
At the same time, the report that Mr. Pickering oversaw suggested that there was a culture of “husbanding resources” at senior levels of the State Department that contributed to the security deficiencies in Benghazi. Without identifying Mr. Kennedy or other senior officials, the report said that attitude “had the effect of conditioning a few State Department managers to favor restricting the use of resources as a general orientation.”

We are deeply bothered by that “We fixed it at the Assistant Secretary level” response.

The State Department is a traditional organization with a top-down hierarchy.  For as long as we’ve been studying it, it has never been a flat one, unless you’re talking about the base of a pyramid.  There are chains of command like any bureaucracy.  You can get in trouble for driving outside your lane.

Are we to believe that the decision to have a presence in Benghazi was done at the DS and NEA bureaus?

That the decision to have a light footprint in Benghazi was done at the DS or NEA bureau?

That the policy at embassies worldwide to hire a local guard force was fixed at DS alone?

That the practice of filling Benghazi with short TDY staff rotations was decided by DS or NEA but not DGHR?

That the allocation of 4-5 Regional Security Officers (RSOs) to Benghazi, as opposed to 200 assigned to US Mission Iraq was a DS bureau decision?

That the DS or the NEA bureau negotiated with the CIA on whatever security agreement there was in Benghazi?
C’mon folks, for us to believe that is like suspending disbelief as we do when we watch HBO’s Homeland.

The Cable’s Josh Rogin @joshrogin tweeted:

Assistant Secretaries are just high up enough to take the fall but not quite high up enough to do anything to defend themselves #Benghazi

Well, that’s not right.  We recognize that bureaucratic life isn’t fair, but this bothers us a great deal.

domani spero sig

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under Ambassadors, Diplomatic Attacks, FSOs, Govt Reports/Documents, Leadership and Management, Leaks|Controversies, State Department

4 responses to “These bureaus don’t exist in a vacuum? Oh, but they do – since …

  1. justagirlinseattle – go easy on the CAPS, girl, I can read you just as well.

    I’m not making an argument that four more security officers would have made a difference. I’m asking if the decisions to deploy 4 or 5 there as opposed to 200 in Iraq were decided at the bureau level or elsewhere. While you think its insane to have 200 RSO in Iraq, that’s just a fraction of the security force there to protect our diplomats. There are much, much more there under the category of private military contractors.

  2. Ed, I don’t believe there is a cover up just as I don’t believe Chaffetz claim that State is “hiding” the Benghazi survivors. Assigning blame is often tricky. The classified ARB potentially has the answers to your questions, or maybe not. Maybe the FBI investigation has those answers. Who knows? And that’s what is so frustrating.

    Amb Stevens was in Benghazi to open up the American space. I was told that by one of my sources before anything happened. I have no reason to believe that this was not true. Perhaps one of “our” biggest miscalculations is to trust that the people we helped liberate would not do our people any harm. I think we are sorely naive that way. Amb Stevens was supposed to be Libya’s #1 friend. And yet the guards ran away, the neighbors did not come to help, and the volunteer protectors of new Libya took too long to show up.

  3. Ed

    Unanswered questions :
    – why the cover up?
    – why was Stevens without his security detail?
    – what was he doing in Benghazi?
    – why was Gen Ham relived by his deputy on 9/11?
    – why did SecDef lie about Gen Ham being consulted?
    – why was Admiral G relieved ?

  4. Personally I think having an American Embassy in Iraq that takes 200 Security Officers is INSANE on so many levels…..

    HOWEVER…..

    Had there been 4 more Security Officers in Benghazi….. do you REALLY
    think that would have helped????

    They have ALL said that in no way would more security nor more wall
    would have helped in this attack…..

    It was a FLUKE attack….. having an AIR vent in the safe room would have been FAR more help……

Tell us what you think, but play nice.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s