September 17, 2013
by Helen Tansey
The T-Room dot us
On Thursday Chair and Vice Chair, Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen respectively, of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board (ARB) will be testifying before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. In preparation for the meeting the Oversight Committee chair, Darrell Issa, issued the below report which highlights “Key Concerns” as well as “Unanswered Questions” to the ARB’s investigative report which was released while the nation was distracted with the Newtown shooting tragedy on December 18, 2013.
The Oversight Committee’s concerns and questions are
Benghazi Accountability Review Board: Key Concerns
• The structure of the ARB and culture within the State Department raised questions about the independence and integrity of the review.
• The ARB blamed systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies within two bureaus, but downplayed the importance of decisions made at senior levels of the Department. Witnesses questioned how much these decisions influenced the weaknesses that led to the inadequate security posture in Benghazi.
• Witnesses questioned whether the ARB went far enough in considering the challenges of expeditionary diplomacy.
•The ARB’s decision to cite certain officials as accountable for what happened in Benghazi appears to have been based on factors that had little or no connection to the security posture at U.S. diplomatic facilities in Libya.
• The haphazard decision to place the four officials cited by the ARB on paid administrative leave created the appearance that former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s decision to announce action against the individuals named in the ARB report was more of a public relations strategy than a measured response to a tragedy.
Benghazi Accountability Review Board: Unanswered Questions
• What specific documentary evidence and witness testimony did the ARB review to reach its conclusions?
• What changes are necessary to eliminate the real or perceived lack of independence in the ARB structure?
• Did Secretary Clinton have views on the need to extend the Benghazi mission, both in the fall of 2011 and summer of 2012? Was she consulted on these questions and what, if any, influence did her opinion have on the Department’s decisions?
• Is the State Department resistant to elevating the importance of security considerations?
• Why did the State Department fail to establish an Under Secretary for Security, as recommended by an external review and approved by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, following the attacks in East Africa in 1998?
• Why did the Best Practices Panel strongly recommend that the State Department establish an Under Secretary for Security?
•Why did the Benghazi ARB not recommend such a change?
• Why did it take the State Department eight months to evaluate the performance of the four individuals placed on administrative leave? What information did Secretary Kerry and his staff review as part of that process? Who was involved in the process?
• How much did the decision to extend the Benghazi mission as a temporary facility limit the Department’s ability to provide security resources?
• Who should be held accountable for deciding to extend the Benghazi mission as a temporary facility?
When filing her report, Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News touched on a key unanswered question leaving many doubting the credibility of the ARB’s report, that is
According to the official House Oversight Committee report, the ARB downplayed security decisions made by senior officials at the State Department, especially that of Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy, and instead blamed four subordinates who, in some cases, “had little to no” responsibility for the key events. In some cases, “the ARB correctly identified poor individual decisions while apparently failing to take into account decisions made by more senior [State] Department officials,” reads a draft of the report obtained by CBS News. “Such senior-level decisions played an equal if not greater role in the vulnerability of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.” (emphasis added)
In essence the ARB report places all ‘security’ related decisions regarding Benghazi on four underlings who lack said power to make such decisions. It has been reported recently all four of these individuals have returned to work after an eight month all paid hiatus. All the while those who are responsible for making said decisions continue to hold no ‘official’ accountability for the massive security lapse that led to four American’s losing their lives protecting America’s assets in a country, Libya, decimated with the help of our military.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.