Two years and $7 million later, a final report investigating the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission at Benghazi shows no new evidence of wrongdoing by either President Obama or then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and no evidence of a deliberate coverup.
That does not mean the report — as those that preceded it — doesn't raise troubling issues. Some of its recommendations are already in progress. But that fails to address why an unofficial diplomatic outpost in a high-risk region appeared to have been given short shrift in terms of security, an emergency backup plan and other basic procedures to safeguard the mission and its staff.
Clinton's commitment to improvements going forward is commendable — and no less than what she should do. But was there really a need for "actionable intelligence" before providing the same level of security that any official consulate or embassy would have received? The diplomatic staff at Benghazi was at higher risk in a region made unstable after the U.S. orchestrated attacks that ousted Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Bureaucratic inertia, inadequate resources and the lack of a clear, designated response to emerging situations are poor excuses for leaving U.S. personnel exposed to danger.
The House Select Committee on Benghazi's report has been characterized by Democrats as a witch hunt, and at times it has carried that tone. But it — along with the investigations by the State Department's Accountability Review Board and seven other congressional committees — has drawn attention to the mistakes made in the Benghazi incident. The investigations also revealed that Clinton used a private e-mail server while serving as secretary of state — a clear violation of State Department rules and a disturbing lapse in judgment.
There was no evidence, as some Republicans had speculated, that the Pentagon ordered troops to stand down when the mission was under attack. The truth was actually worse: No U.S. forces were in range to reach that outpost in time, despite ample warnings that it was in a dangerous environment and not properly secured. Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., concluded that "nothing could have reached Benghazi because nothing was ever headed to Benghazi. Not a single wheel of a single U.S. military asset had even turned toward Libya." Before help finally arrived, there apparently was time wasted on whether service members should wear military or civilian attire, and a high-level military official failed to join in on a video conference because he had to get back to hosting his dinner party.
That was too much risk and too little support for diplomatic staff to bear, and not justified by the outpost's "unofficial" status.
The recommendation for joint training exercises in high-threat locations, coordinated backup plans among agencies and plans for on-the-ground standby military support are all sound but so obvious it is painful to think about why such measures were not already in place.
Clinton has said that it is "time to move on" from Benghazi. That may be, but there also must be an ongoing commitment — by the next president, the State Department, the military and Congress — to do all it can in the future to protect those civilians we send into harm's way to conduct the serious — and sometimes deadly — business of diplomacy.
