Sunday, November 4, 2012

Poor Security in Benghazi vs. Poor Security in Iraq

The Daily Caller published an interview with The Finish author Mark Bowden where Bowden answered the following question about the Benghazi assault and the Obama administration’s handling of it:
This is a tragedy that has been spun into a political attack. Once the election is over, the controversy will evaporate. Ambassador Stevens knew he was serving in a very risky place, and would have been the first to argue that surrounding himself with an armored platoon would have made it impossible for him to do his job. Foreign service officers routinely accept such risks. Diplomats rely on host governments for protection, they do not travel with beefed up forces of their own. Where local authority is weak, as in Benghazi, the risks are very high, indeed. But so, too, are the potential rewards.
I challenge multiple points of Bowden’s response. But the only question I will raise about it now is this. The Associated Press just published an article claiming that the federal government has joined in suing Triple Canopy for using “hundreds of poorly trained security guards to protect the Al Asad Airbase” in Iraq. If the poor security at Benghazi is a “non-story” per the Obama administration and Mark Bowden, why is the federal government suing Triple Canopy for so-called poor security at an Iraqi airbase that never experienced a security failure anywhere close to what happened in Benghazi?

No comments:

Post a Comment