[House Hearing, 113 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] BENGHAZI, INSTABILITY, AND A NEW GOVERNMENT: SUCCESS AND FAILURES OF U.S. INTERVENTION IN LIBYA ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ MAY 1, 2014 __________ Serial No. 113-110 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov http://www.house.gov/reform ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 88-089 WASHINGTON : 2014 ____________________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois DOC HASTINGS, Washington ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois ROB WOODALL, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan Vacancy RON DeSANTIS, Florida Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director Stephen Castor, General Counsel Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on May 1, 2014...................................... 1 WITNESSES Brigadier General Robert Lovell, U.S. Air Force (Retired), Former Deputy Director for Intelligence and Knowledge Development Directorate (J-2), U.S. Africa Command, Former Deputy Commanding General of Joint Task Force Odyssey Guard Oral Statement............................................... 6 Written Statement............................................ 8 Kori Schake, Ph.D., Research Fellow Hoover Institution Oral Statement............................................... 11 Written Statement............................................ 13 Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies Oral Statement............................................... 16 Written Statement............................................ 18 Frederic Wehrey, Ph.D., Senior Associate, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Oral Statement............................................... 33 Written Statement............................................ 35 APPENDIX ``Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene'' Policy Brief from September 2013 Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center, submitted by Rep. Chaffetz............................................... 88 ``Libya's Guns Free-for-All Fuels Region's Turmoil'' Article by Maggie Michael, submitted by Rep. Chaffetz..................... 92 NATO's ``Humanitarian Intervention'' in Libya: Transforming a Country into a ``Failed State'' Article by Iskandar Arfaoui, Gloval Research, submitted by Rep. Chaffetz.................... 96 ``West Should Have Put Boots on the Ground in Libya, says Former Prime Minister'' Article by Mick Krever, CNN, submitted by Rep. Chaffetz....................................................... 98 E-mails from State Department regarding Libya timeline, submitted by Rep. Chaffetz............................................... 101 March 11, 2014, letter to the President regarding the Benghazi attacks signed by over 60 members, submitted by Rep. Mica...... 138 Statement from Rep. Cartwright................................... 141 BENGHAZI, INSTABILITY, AND A NEW GOVERNMENT: ---------- SUCCESS AND FAILURES OF U.S. INTERVENTION IN LIBYA Thursday, May 1, 2014 House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:33 a.m., in Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa [chairman of the committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Issa, Mica, Duncan, Jordan, Chaffetz, Walberg, Lankford, Amash, Gosar, DesJarlais, Gowdy, Farenthold, Lummis, Woodall, Massie, Meadows, DeSantis, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Tierney, Lynch, Connolly, Speier, Duckworth, Kelly, Horsford, and Lujan Grisham. Staff Present: Alexa Armstrong, Staff Assistant; Brien A. Beattie, Professional Staff Member; Molly Boyl, Deputy General Counsel and Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director; Caitlin Carroll, Press Secretary; Sharon Casey, Senior Assistant Clerk; Steve Castor, General Counsel; John Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director; Jessica L. Donlon, Senior Counsel; Kate Dunbar, Professional Staff Member; Adam P. Fromm, Director of Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Chief Clerk; Frederick Hill, Deputy Staff Director for Communications and Strategy; Christopher Hixon, Chief Counsel, Oversight; Caroline Ingram, Professional Staff Member; Jim Lewis, Senior Policy Advisor; Mark D. Marin, Deputy Staff Director of Oversight; Ashok M. Pinto, Chief Counsel, Investigations; Andrew Rezendes, Counsel; Laura Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk; Jessica Seale, Digital Director; Jonathan J. Skladany, Deputy General Counsel; Rebecca Watkins, Communications Director; Aryele Bradford, Press Secretary; Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Communications Director; Peter Kenny, Minority Counsel; Chris Knauer, Minority Senior Investigator; Elisa LaNier, Minority Director of Operations; Lucinda Lessley, Minority Policy Director; Juan McCullum, Minority Clerk; Dave Rapallo, Minority Staff Director; and Valerie Shen, Minority Counsel. Chairman Issa. The Committee on Government Oversight will come to order. Today's hearing on Benghazi Instability and a New Government: Successes and Failures of U.S. Intervention in Libya. The Oversight Committee's mission statement is that we exist to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent; and second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers. It's our job to work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. This is our mission. Today, the Oversight Committee convenes a fourth hearing related to the security situation in Libya before, during, and after the September 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi which claimed the lives of four Americans. The committee has previously brought forward important witnesses who offered new enlightening testimony on security failures that forced the administration to walk back, false claims about the nature of the terrorist attack. The testimony of previous witnesses also identified key questions in the interagency process that only this committee has the jurisdiction and the charge to investigate. While much of the committee's effort in the investigation has focused on the Department of State, we have recently conducted several joint interviews of relevant military personnel with the House Armed Services Committee. While we had requested that these interviews be conducted as unclassified, the Pentagon leadership insisted that they occur at the inexplicable and unreasonable level of Top Secret. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called for an end to this investigation. These calls are clearly premature, and only raise public concerns about the political agenda to stop an important investigation before it has completed gathering facts about this interagency Obama administration debacle. In particular, the committee seeks insight into communications and directions that flowed between the State Department, the Department of Defense and, yes, the White House. It is essential that we fully understand areas of responsibility before, during, and after the attacks. It's my hope that today's hearing will help us add to our investigation's expanding body of knowledge, and I am pleased that we will be proceeding on an entirely unclassified basis. We do so because the American people, more than anyone else in this body, have the absolute right to know why four men are dead in an attack that could have been prevented. We have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us today that will bring expertise to us about the current situation in Libya. One of our witnesses, retired United States Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell, brings with him firsthand knowledge of U.S. military efforts in Libya as he served at U.S. African Command. U.S. African Command is sometimes called AFRICOM. In the military command lingo, this is the organization that had responsibility, not just for Libya, but for the entire continent of Africa. This unit's mission included both the Libyan revolution and the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on a diplomatic compound in Benghazi. At the U.S. African Command, General Lovell served as the Deputy Director For Intelligence and Knowledge Development and as Deputy Commanding General of Joint Task Force Odyssey Guard. In this assignment, he was tasked with helping the State Department reopen the U.S. embassy in Tripoli after the fall of Qadhafi. We appreciate all of our witnesses taking time to testify and enlighten the public about the situation in Libya and the effects of U.S. decisions. In addition to pursuing the relevant information about the military's involvement in Libya, we continue to receive documents from the State Department. Since late March alone, we have received over 3,200 new documents, many of which have never been seen before by anyone outside of the administration and all of which, and I repeat, all of which, should have been turned over more than a year and a half ago when the committee launched its investigation. Some of these documents which were brought to light only days ago through a FOIA request by an organization known as Judicial Watch, show a direct White House role outside--I'm going to repeat this. The documents from Judicial Watch's FOIA which were pursuant to our request more than a year and a half ago, show a direct White House role outside of talking points prepared by the Intelligence Community. The White House produced the talking points that Ambassador Rice used, not the Intelligence Community. In pushing the false narrative that a YouTube video was responsible for the deaths of four brave Americans, it is disturbing, and perhaps criminal, that documents like these were hidden by the Obama administration from Congress and the public alike, particularly after Secretary Kerry pledged cooperation, and the President himself told the American people in November of 2012 that, ``every bit of information we have on Benghazi has been provided.'' This committee's job is to get to the facts and to the truth. I, for one, will continue to chip away at this until we get the whole truth. The American people--sorry. The Americans who lost their lives in Benghazi, those who were wounded, and the American people deserve nothing less. So today's hearing is critical for what our witnesses will give us, and I welcome you and I thank you for being here. But it comes in a week in which the American people have learned that you cannot believe what the White House says. You cannot believe what the spokespeople say, and you cannot believe what the President says, and the facts are coming out that, in fact, this administration has knowingly withheld documents pursuant to congressional subpoenas in violation of any reasonable transparency or historic precedent at least since Richard Milhous Nixon. I now recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. Mr. Cummings. Thank the chairman for yielding, and thank you for this hearing. In 2011, the people of Libya rose up against their dictator, Muammar Qadhafi, to end his oppressive role which lasted more than four decades. At the time, Republicans and Democrats alike strongly supported helping armed rebels in their efforts to overthrow Qadhafi. For example, in April 2011, Senator John McCain traveled to Libya and met with the rebels, after which he proclaimed, ``They are my heroes.'' During a national television appearance on July 3, 2011, Senator McCain warned that allowing Qadhafi to remain in power would be far more dangerous to the United States than the alternative. He stated, ``This notion that we should fear who comes after or what comes after Qadhafi ignores that if Qadhafi stays in power, it is then a direct threat to our national security.'' During a television appearance on April 24 of 2011, Senator Lindsey Graham agreed that taking the fight directly to Qadhafi would protect our national security. He stated, ``You cannot protect our vital national security interests if Qadhafi stays.'' He also stated, ``The focus should now be to cut the head of the snake off.'' As the revolution grew stronger, Qadhafi embarked on a brutal crackdown, and on March 17, 2011, he threatened his own people and warned that he would show them ``no mercy.'' The next day, President Obama explained to the world why the United States was joining the effort to remove Qadhafi, and he said this: The world has watched events unfold in Libya with hope and alarm. Last month protestors took to the streets across the country to demand their universal rights in a government that is accountable to them and responsive to their aspirations. But they were met with an iron fist. Instead of respecting the rights of his own people, Qadhafi chose the path of brutal suppression. Innocent civilians were beaten, imprisoned, and in some cases, killed. Senator McCain applauded the President's decision by the way. During a press conference in Libya, he stated, and ``Had President Obama and our allies not acted, history would have remembered Benghazi in the same breath as former Yugoslavia, a scene of mass atrocities and a source of international shame.'' In an op ed in April 2011, Senator McCain wrote this: ``The President was right to intervene. He now deserves our support as we and our coalition partners do all that is necessary to help the Libyan people secure future freedom.'' In October 2011, Qadhafi finally met his ugly demise. During his oppressive rule, he was an extremely dangerous tyrant. During the 1980s, he supported international terrorism, including the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which claimed the lives of 270 innocent civilians. He also reportedly pursued chemical, nuclear and biological weapons. In fact, after Qadhafi was killed, the new Libyan government reportedly uncovered two tons of chemical weapons that Qadhafi had kept hidden from the world, yet armed and ready to use. As we all know our dedicated and patriotic special envoy named Christopher Stevens arrived in Benghazi to work with the Libyan people on their transition to democracy. He had forged deep connections and affiliations with the Libyan people during his career. He understood the challenges caused by 40 years of oppression. Ambassador Stevens believed in the promise of a new future for this country. Today Libya is at a crossroads. Open a newspaper and you will read about persistent violence in a country awash in weapons and a central government that has not yet consolidated its control over the country. On the other hand, the Libyan people continue to look to the West with respect and with hope. They aspire to work with the United States to build a stable, pro-democratic country. If we want the people of Libya to succeed, we must find a way to reengage the world and ourselves on behalf of a nation that desires our help. This was the bipartisan goal shared by Republicans like Lindsey Graham and John McCain who called on the United States, ``to build a partnership with a democratic and pro-American Libya that contributes to the expansion of security, prosperity and freedom across a pivotal region at a time of revolutionary change.'' I hope today is a step towards this goal. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we can assist the people of Libya. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. All members may have 7 days in which to submit opening statements for the record and any quotes of Senator Lindsey Graham or John McCain they wish. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Chairman, I have four documents I would lack to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record. One is from the Harvard Kennedy School, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, entitled Lessons From Libya, How Not to Intervene, dated September 2013. Another is an Associated Press article of March 22, 2014, entitled Libya's Guns, Free for All Fuels Regions' Turmoil. Another one is the Global Research of April 5, 2014. Headline is, NATO's Humanitarian Intervention in Libya, Transforming a Country Into a Failed State. The final one is a document that's listed as unclassified. It's a State Department document that I previously referenced by Congressman Trey Gowdy, and the subject line is Libya update from Beth Jones. The date is September 12 at 12:46 p.m. There's a paragraph in here that I think is pertinent to our discussions today. It's referencing the Libyan ambassador: ``When he said his government suspected that former Qadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.'' This coming from the State Department going to Victoria Nuland, Patrick Kennedy, Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton's chief of staff. I'd like to enter this into the record which has not been out there in the public. Chairman Issa. One question. What was the date and time on that? Mr. Chaffetz. Date is September 12, 2012, 12:46 p.m. This is hours after the attack. It is what the State Department told the Libyan government what was happening, ``I told him,'' meaning the Libyan ambassador, ``that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.'' Those were the facts as the State Department knew them and I think everybody should see this. Chairman Issa. Without objection. So ordered and copies will be distributed to all members on the dais. Chairman Issa. We now welcome our guest and witnesses. Brigadier General Robert Lovell is the Former Deputy Director for Intelligence and Knowledge Development Directorate at United States African Command, and the Former Deputy Commanding General of Joint Task Force Odyssey Guard. Ms. Kori Schake, Ph.D. Is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Mr. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mr. Frederic Wehrey is a Ph.D. He is a senior associate for Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. General, your title is impressive, but they're all doctorates. Pursuant to the rules, if all witnesses would please rise to take the oath and raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. In order to allow sufficient time for questions, I would ask that each witness summarize their opening statements which will be placed in the record in the entirety in addition to other extraneous material you may want to submit as a result of this hearing, but please try to stay close to the 5 minutes. And as my predecessor, Mr. Towns, often said, green means go everywhere. Yellow means hurry up through the intersection, and red means stop, so please observe that on the little countdown clocks. And with that, General, you're recognized. WITNESS STATEMENTS STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT LOVELL General Lovell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Issa. And for all the witnesses, pull your mic close to you when you speak because they're fairly insensitive in that sense. Thank you, General. General Lovell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and members of the committee. I retired this past year after 33-plus years of service. My service began in 1979 upon enlistment in the United States Air Force. It's also been my honor and privilege to serve as an officer since earning my commission in 1985. Throughout these years I've served with many brave and distinguished men and women, both uniformed and civilian. I thank them for their service and their example. My time in service was filled with many great and humbling opportunities. I'm thankful for these as well. Over the span of my career, I've been shaped by professional education, training, and experience. These and other personal influences have formed my thoughts on today's subject. To present a sense of context, here's a brief outline of my previous service most relevant at hand. The chairman has already covered some. What I would like to add is as an AFRICOM plank holder, I twice served in Africa Command, first as Colonel as the NRO representative to the command, and next as a general officer as the Deputy Director of Intelligence and Knowledge Development Division. Additionally, I served as a JOC watch officer for Joint Operations Center during Odyssey Dawn and Operation Unified Protector. And in addition to that, I also served as the senior military liaison to National Science Foundation. That's relevant since the Science Foundation was also an interagency partner that greatly influenced my views on how interagency partnership works. My theme is three topics are submitted in my written statement. First topic, U.S. Africa Command and the interagency nature of that command. Second, Military Operations With Regard to Libya, discusses strategy, supporting policy, and policy in a highly dynamic and limiting--can be highly dynamic and limit strategy when it's challenged to achieve a desired result. Benghazi in 2012. This is the most serious of the themes. There are many sayings in the military. One saying that rings most true is you fight the way you train, and in Benghazi we did. Many with firsthand knowledge have recounted the heroism displayed by the brave Americans in Benghazi that night. They fought the way they trained. That's in the record. Outside of Libya there were discussions that churned on about what we should do. These elements also fought the way they were trained, specifically the predisposition to interagency influence had the military structure in the spirit of expeditionary government support waiting for a request for assistance from the State Department. There are accounts of time, space and capability, discussions of the question could we have gotten there in time to make a difference. While the discussion is not, could or could not of time, space and capability, the point is we should have tried. As another saying goes, always move to the sound of the guns. We didn't know how long this would last when we became aware of the distress, nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, if we had a kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all of the above. But what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was no demonstration gone terribly awry. To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The AFRICOM J2 was focused on attribution. The attacks became attributable very soon after the event. Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee. I'm here because I take this matter very seriously. I'm prepared to take your questions. Chairman Issa. Thank you, General. [Prepared statement of General Lovell follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.003 Chairman Issa. Ms. Schake. STATEMENT OF KORI SCHAKE Ms. Schake. Sir, I think the starting point for our conversation about Libya is that this is a failing state. Right? Security is eroding. Governance is ebbing, and as a result of those two things, Libya is unable to capitalize on its one big advantage which is the oil revenue on which its economy is predominantly based. And unless we are uninterested in this outcome, both for Libyans themselves and from the threats that are emanating to us from them, American policy should actually work to strengthen security in Libya and to strengthen governance in Libya so that the economy can help buffer the transition period of a fragile democratizing government. Our policies are not doing that. Our policies are principally interested in limiting our involvement, and as a result of that, the problems inherent in all transitioning societies, in societies that have lived 40 years under repressive governments and had dysfunctional economies, they need structured assistance and help. The United States knows how to do that in terms of security sector reform, in terms of governance, and yet we helped overthrow a government without helping establish security or governance. We have largely ignored the growing restiveness of militia in Libya and the migration of jihadists to Libya where, you know, the jihadists are now in possession of a Libyan government military base less than 20 miles from the capitol. And in overtaking that base, they also got some pretty valuable American military equipment which we are going to be seeing in Syria, in Libya, and even in our own country unless we really help manage the problem of jihadism in Libya and elsewhere. Building government capacity is the key to doing that. That is, we cannot expect that the Libyan government is going to be able to disarm militia or to control the spread of jihadism in their territory. That will be the result of political negotiation. It cannot lead political negotiation because militia will not disarm until they have a high level of confidence that the reason, the political vacuum that exists in Libya, is actually going to be managed by political means. The Libyans are having a very messy, very slow, one-step-forward/ one-step-back conversation about governance in their country, but this is what democratization looks like, and they deserve an awful lot more help from us and from nongovernmental institutions that the United States supports, the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute. Instead, we have been largely silent on an election that was marred by violence and in which, you know, yesterday's parliamentary vote in Tripoli was prevented from coming to conclusion by storming of the parliament by armed men. As Mr. Cummings said, we need to do all that is necessary to help the Libyan government transition, and we are not. The last thing I would say is that if American policies won't help this fragile government transition to establish security and governance, that we ought actually to encourage other states to do so, states in the region that can situate it politically amongst its neighbors, or states from outside the country, and predominantly this administration's policies have criticized both the motives and the actions of others instead of encouraging them into a void our own policies are leaving. Chairman Issa. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Ms. Schake follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.006 Chairman Issa. Dr. Gartenstein-Ross. STATEMENT OF DAVEED GARTENSTEIN-ROSS Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, distinguished members, it's an honor to appear before you to discuss the successes and failures of the NATO intervention in Libya. Two days ago, it seemed that we were seeing rare good news out of Libya. Oil exports were about to resume from the Zueitina port after rebels holding it had come to an agreement with the government. On another optimistic note, the interim parliament had convened to select a new prime minister. The previous prime minister had resigned only after 6 days after his family was attacked. The prime minister before him was actually kidnapped by rebels. But the prime minister vote didn't go well. Gunmen stormed the parliamentary building and forced lawmakers to abandon their plans. This is Libya today. Each step forward seems to produce another step or two back usually driven by security problems. The central government can't execute basic sovereign functions in its own capital building. Last year gunmen shut down the ministries of justice and foreign affairs for two weeks due to a political dispute, the equivalent of gunmen here shutting down the Departments of Justice and State. Outside countries are questioning whether it's safe to even keep diplomats in Libya. Jordan's ambassador was kidnapped last month. Two Tunisian diplomats are being held by jihadists, and there have been many other attacks on embassies and diplomatic staff. I need not remind anyone here of what happened to our own Ambassador Stevens. I've submitted 15 pages of written testimony explaining at some length why I conclude that the cost of NATO'sintervention in Libya outweigh the benefits. It's worth acknowledging that the war was superbly executed. NATO responded with extraordinary speed to the situation and saved the lives that Qadhafi would have taken had he overrun Benghazi, the rebel stronghold that he was threatening when the intervention began. This was accomplished with no allied casualties and only a $1.1 billion cost, but the question remains: Was going to war in Libya the right choice? I would suggest that the strategy of intervention should be called into question. Several advocates of military action argue that the Arab Spring had stalled at the time and that intervening could help breathe new life and new momentum into the revolutionary events. The desire to see dictators fall is, of course, noble, but noble intentions do not automatically make for wise actions. NATO's intervention came when there was already wrenching changes and an unpredictable regional situation. The Tunisian and Egyptian leaders had fallen, and there were other revolutionary rumblings. Intervening represented not just a decision to stop Qadhafi's advance, but also to speed up the pace of change. The problems associated with speeding up events can be seen in the intervention's second order consequences. The most well-known occurred in north Mali where a collection of Al Qaeda-linked jihadists, including Al Qaeda's North African affiliate, and Tuareg separatist groups, gained control over broad swaths of territory prompting a French-led intervention in January 2013. Mali's Tuareg rebellion has a long history, but Qadhafi's overthrow transformed the dynamics. Libya's dictator had been a long-time supporter of Tuareg separatism, and with him gone, the Tuaregs had lost a major patron. Jihadist groups exploited the Tuaregs' loss of Qadhafi. There were other ways that NATO's intervention contributed to the jihadist takeover in Mali. Thousands of Tuareg rebels fought for Qadhafi as mercenaries, and after the dictator's defeat, they raided his weapons caches. Their heavily armed return to Mali reinvigorated a longstanding rebellion. The French military intervention pushed the jihadists from areas that they controlled, but there are signs that now a year later the jihadists may be back and, indeed, southern Libya has played a role in their comeback. Fighters from Ansar al-dine and Al Qaeda Islamic Maghreb fled from the advancing French and allied forces into southwest Libya and blended with local militants. The jihadists in North Africa have also been able to gain from the situation in Libya. A variety of Jihadist groups operate training camps there. Militants have benefited from the flow of arms into neighboring countries, and these factors make Libya a concern as a possible staging ground for future terrorist attacks, something vividly illustrated in the January 2013 hostage crisis at Algeria's In Amenas gas plant, 30 miles from the Libya-Algeria border, which had multiple links to Libya, including training, weapons and point of origin. Despite the superb execution of NATO's intervention, it has created a much more complicated regional dynamic for the U.S. It has helped jihadist groups, and it has had negative consequences for Libya's neighbors. Further, it isn't clear that the intervention saved lives. Some scholars, including in the Belfer Center document that Representative Chaffetz introduced, argue that the fact that the NATO intervention prolonged the war, meant that on net it cost more lives than it saved. And even if it saved lives in Libya, further lives were lost as a result in places like Mali, Egypt and Algeria. This is why I cannot join with those who proclaim NATO's intervention to be a strategic success. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering your questions. Chairman Issa. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Gartenstein-Ross follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.021 Chairman Issa. Dr. Wehrey. STATEMENT OF FREDERIC WEHREY Mr. Wehrey. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and distinguished committee members, I'm grateful for this opportunity to speak with you about Libya's security crisis and what the international community can do to assist. I bring the perspective of both a scholar who travels frequently to the country and a reserve military officer who served in Tripoli prior to the revolution. During my four visits to Libya, I have spoken with Libyan government officials, military officers, Islamists and militia leaders across the country including in Benghazi. At the core of Libya's crisis is the power of its militias who draw support from a wide array of local, tribal, ethnic and religious constituencies. Their persistence is rooted in the absence of effective municipal governance, representative institutions and a strong central army and police. Since 2012, these militias have become politicized. They have used armed force to compel the passage of a sweeping law barring Qadhafi era officials from the government, kidnapped the prime minister, and blocked oil production in the east. Weapons are now the de facto currency through which demands are pressed and concessions obtained. Militias have also captured illicit trafficking networks. Libya's instability has been aggravated by a decision by the weak transitional government to put the militias on its payroll under the loose authority of the Ministries of Defense and Interior. The idea then was to harness the manpower of the revolutionaries to fill the security void left by the nonexistent army which was kept deliberately weak by Qadhafi who feared its potential for coups. By all accounts, this has been a disastrous Faustian bargain. It has attracted new recruits to the militias through the promise of high salaries, and it has given the militia bosses even more political power. That power is especially evident in the East where Islamist militias demand the removal of Qadhafi era personnel from state institutions and the implementation of a Sharia-based constitution before they surrender arms. These actors, however, remain on the outer fringes of Libya's politics and security institutions. Overwhelmingly, the country's Islamists reject violence for political means. Faced with the weakness of the central government, an array of informal societal actors, tribal elders, NGOs, municipal councils and religious authorities have mobilized against the militias, especially radical groups like Ansar al-Sharia. They have demonstrated a societal resilience and a moderation that has kept the country from sliding down the path of civil war. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that every Libyan I spoke with attributed Libya's crisis to the enduring legacy of Qadhafi's rule rather than the policies or decisions during the NATO-led intervention. It was Qadhafi's 42-year tyranny that deprived Libyans of even a basic role in governance, pitted tribe against tribe and region against region, wrecked the economy, kept the security institutions deliberately weak, and marginalized the eastern part of the country. Overwhelmingly Libyans remain supportive of the NATO-led operation, and they welcome outside assistance. What are the areas where this assistance can be best applied? Obviously the most important task is reforming the security sector in training and equipping a new generation of Army and police. The U.S. and its allies are currently engaged in just such a project under the auspices of what is known as the general purpose force, but in doing so, they must ensure that the ranks of this new force are inclusive of Libya's diverse tribes and region and that effective civilian oversight is in place so that political factions do not capture the new security entities as their personal militias. It is important to recognize that lasting security cannot be achieved without addressing the economic and political motives that drive support for the militias. The government has tried with various schemes to disarm, demobilize, and integrate the young men of the militias. None of these efforts has succeeded because the country is paralyzed between opposing political factions. Each side sees any movement on the security sector as a win for its rivals. In essence, Libya suffers from a balance of weakness amongst its factions and militias. No single entity can compel the others to coercion, but every entity is strong enough to veto the others. With this in mind, the ultimate solution for Libya's woes lies in the political realm, in the drafting of a constitution, the reform of its elected legislature, and a broad-based reconciliation under the auspices of the national dialogue. These are areas where outsiders can lend advice and measured assistance, but where the ultimate burden must be borne by Libyans themselves. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you here today. [Prepared statement of Mr. Wehrey follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.031 Chairman Issa. Thank you. I'll now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning. General Lovell, you were not on this or the Armed Services Committee's primary list of people that were interviewed in this process, and yet you came forward here today, came forward to the committee. Could you explain to us why you believe it was necessary to come forward to offer us your testimony? General Lovell. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I came forward because as a retired officer, most importantly, having served a number of years, I felt it was my duty to come forward. The young men and women that serve in uniform, those that serve along with us in civilian clothes, the circumstances of what occurred there in Benghazi that day need to be known. And with all of the discussion that ensues over a full forthcoming to the American people, it's important. It's a duty to be here. Chairman Issa. Thank you. Our committee has interviewed a number of people, including those downrange people, both in Libya and in Benghazi, but as I said earlier, we for the most part have not interviewed people at AFRICOM with the exception, of course, being General Ham, although Carter Ham was at the Pentagon on September 11. Do you believe it is appropriate for us to interview other officers and enlisted personnel that served with you in Stuttgart that day as part of our discovery of what they believe could have been done, not just in what the military people call the 2 shop, but also in the 3 shop and so on. General Lovell. Sir, I think if it's any information that gives the most well-rounded picture of the occurrences at the time are important to obtain. Chairman Issa. One of the questions as we fan out here, but one of the questions that I have for you is, your primary job is, in fact, knowing the risk, knowing who the bad guys are and where they are and knowing what might face them. Is that correct? General Lovell. Yes, sir. Chairman Issa. So your expertise is not in the operational response of what refuelers were where and could have reacted within a certain amount of time; is that correct? General Lovell. That's correct. Chairman Issa. However, you were intimately familiar with the risk of extremist groups in Egypt, Libya and throughout North Africa, and for that matter, all of Africa. Is that correct? General Lovell. That's correct. Chairman Issa. Now, African Command basically doesn't have any jets. It doesn't have any conventional divisions. Is that correct? General Lovell. That's correct. Chairman Issa. So you leverage all the other commands when you need physical boots on the ground. Is that right? General Lovell. Boots on the ground, planes in the air, ships in the sea, et cetera. Right. Chairman Issa. However, the role of African Command, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I'm even a little off. General Lovell. I will. Chairman Issa. Is, in fact, to look at a continent in which we have almost no troops and almost no basing. We have a small joint base in Djibouti, I believe, but for the most part we have no major military assets in Africa. Is it fair to say that counterterrorism, looking for and being aware and working with the governments in Africa with, or without if necessary, to combat terrorism and, in fact, to make sure that governments are stable and able to support our missions, USAID and the aid missions and the embassies, is that really, to a great extent, why there is a unique command with a four star general in charge of it that focuses on this continent of a billion people larger than North America? General Lovell. That's precisely the understanding. It's to help Africans help Africans, and to work with Africans and our other partners to do so. Chairman Issa. So in that role, on September 11 earlier there was an attack in Egypt. Did you know of, anticipate, or do you believe that the attack in Egypt was based on seeing a YouTube video? General Lovell. Personally no. Chairman Issa. So that never came to you even though intelligence and what may have caused something would have been right up your, if you will, 2 alley? General Lovell. Yes, sir. Chairman Issa. And in the hours that ensued after the attack on our compound in Benghazi, did you hear YouTube video? General Lovell. Briefly discussed but not from any serious standpoint. Chairman Issa. What time did you first hear that there was a video roughly? General Lovell. It was early on in the evening of September 11. Chairman Issa. Before 3:15 in the morning? General Lovell. Absolutely. We were--absolutely. We were, I would have to say, probably dismissed that notion by then by working with other sources. Chairman Issa. Okay. I just want to follow-up this one last thing. You heard about this early on, and you, as the deputy and the highest ranking person that moment working these issues, you dismissed the idea that this attack was, in fact, a demonstration that went awry and was based on a YouTube video out of Los Angeles? General Lovell. Yes, sir. Chairman Issa. Thank you. Recognize the ranking member. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. More than 3 years ago, a wave of political change swept through the Middle East and North Africa. This Arab Spring promised hope for people oppressed by dictators for decades, but it also led to abrupt change and sometimes budding conflicts. I'm looking forward to hearing about how this movement has evolved over the last 3 years and how the United States can support a peaceful democratic transition in the region. I'd also like to focus on the choice our country faced when the uprising against dictator Muammar Qadhafi began in 2011. At that time, the United States could have done nothing and allowed Qadhafi to remain in power, or we could have supported the liberation of the people of Libya. At the time, both Republicans and Democrats called on the President to support the rebels and oust Qadhafi. For example, on April 24, 2011, Senator Lindsey Graham said this, ``You cannot protect our vital national interests if Qadhafi stays.'' General Lovell, I want to thank you for coming forth. I really do. Do you agree with Senator Graham that Qadhafi was a threat to our national security? General Lovell. Yes, I do. Mr. Cummings. And, Dr. Schake, how about you? Do you agree with that? Ms. Schake. Yes, I do. Mr. Cummings. And I think you, a little bit earlier, agreed with me that there are things that we need to do to be supportive of the government. What would those things be, Doctor, the present situation? Ms. Schake. There are several things. First as several panelists mentioned, helping establish a Libyan national army that can actually police Libya's territory, reign in the militia as you begin to get political solutions to problems that will permit their disarmament. Second, support and help structure and help organize civil society and elections in Libya. We are doing much, much, much too little in helping the Libyans move a political process forward and we do that largely with examples, our own example, but also what all of us know about democratizing societies. We know how to do this. We're just not doing it nearly enough. Mr. Cummings. Well, 3 months later on July 3, 2011, Senator John McCain stated, ``If Qadhafi stays, it is then a direct threat to our national security.'' Dr. Gartenstein-Ross, what's your view, and did you agree with Senators McCain and Graham? Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. I do not, sir. Qadhafi was a brutal dictator. Nobody should have tears for him, but he was also about as rehabilitated as a dictator could be. I think that the statement that he threatened our national security would have been very true in the 1980s, true in the 1990s, but by 2011, he was, at most, a third or fourth tier security concern, in my view. Mr. Cummings. So therefore you disagree with the Senators? Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Yes, I do, sir. Mr. Cummings. Dr. Wehrey, do you agree with the Senators? Mr. Wehrey. Well, I believe that Qadhafi was keeping a lid on a lot of things that were brewing. I mean, he was probably not a direct security threat the way he was in the 80s, but it depends on how we define security. I mean, many of the ills that spilled over from Libya and the current problems with Libya were because of his rule, because of the way he kept things clamped down, didn't permit civil society, marginalized the East. I mean, the seeds of extremism were sown during his regime. So in that sense, it was a security threat I think, and we know that Libyans were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, so he was exporting a lot of those problems beyond his borders. Mr. Cummings. And what do you think we should be doing? What steps should the United States be taking to improve the situation in Libya? Mr. Wehrey. Well, I think under the circumstances the U.S. is doing quite a lot with other partners in Europe and elsewhere. The U.S. is committed to train over 19,000 new Libyan soldiers as part of the general purpose force along with Turkey, Britain, Italy, and Morocco. This proposal is underway. We're engaged in civil society. Much of the problem is the lack of a partner on the other side. There's such a disarray in the Libyan government that we can't really interface with them. So for instance, the Libyan government has not agreed to provide payment for the general purpose force, which is why we're unable to move forward with this training of the new Army. But during my four travels to Libya since the revolution, I found the international community has been engaged, and the U.S. is there in terms of reforming the defense sector, helping with ministerial oversight, reaching out to Libya's vibrant civil society. A lot of this, the problem is access. The security situation doesn't permit our diplomats to go out and reach Libyans. Mr. Cummings. And General Lovell, what would you have us do there now to make the situation better in Libya? General Lovell. Well, sir, no longer serving and having access to a lot of the pertinent information and data, I wouldn't be able to give you a strong military answer to that. My personal answer to that would be one where it's a set of circumstances where we would have to work together to develop, that development would have to be very engaged on the ground with the people to make that happen. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Chairman Issa. Thank you, and I ask unanimous consent just to put something in the record at this time. Our records show that or agreed to be made public that we have interviewed, as I said, the Combatant Commander, General Ham. We have also interviewed the Vice Commander, Admiral Leidig, Admiral Landolt and Losey, or Rear Admiral Losey, who's the SOC commander. Would you agree to provide the committee additional suggestions of the people that from your recollection are, outside of this hearing so that it not be public, the people you believe would be most helpful to gain knowledge directly of the facts on the ground on that day? General Lovell. Yes, sir. Mr. Cummings. May I? Chairman Issa. Of course. Mr. Cummings. Of the list of people that we have already interviewed, I'm sure you're familiar with those titles, would they be people that would be able to render an opinion like you were able to--and I'm not saying you would come up with the same conclusion, but would have the same type of information to render an opinion? These are people who are public servants who are military people. I'm just curious. General Lovell. Sir, I know each of those gentlemen and served with them. Mr. Cummings. An what do you think of them? General Lovell. Fine officers. Mr. Cummings. And so would they be in a position to render an opinion as you have? General Lovell. Yes, sir. Mr. Cummings. Very well. Chairman Issa. Okay. So I think we have established that we'll get additional names and that the names that we have already interviewed would be ones that would have been on your list? Yes. General Lovell. Yes. Chairman Issa. Thank you. And I thank the gentleman from Florida. Recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Lovell, a couple of questions. First of all, you have testified that we knew the night of September 11 that this was not just, say, the result of some of the video that had been shown. We knew this wasn't just a demonstration. We knew this was a concerted attack? General Lovell. Yes, I did. Mr. Mica. Okay. That being said, in your position, you would know sort of who knew what. The State Department also would have known pretty instantaneously that there was a pretty serious incident going on in Benghazi. I've seen videos of it. Some of that was transmitted into the State Department and other locations. So we had a pretty good idea of what was going on there. You did. Would you say the State Department should have or could have? General Lovell. It could or should, yes, sir. Mr. Mica. Okay. The attack started at 9:40, which was 3:40 in the afternoon here, approximately a 6-hour difference, I think. Is that correct? General Lovell. Yes. Mr. Mica. So it wasn't an unusual time here in the United States that appropriate people and the highest level people should have been alerted that something serious was going on at one of our posts; is that correct? General Lovell. It was during the duty day here in the United States, yes, sir. Mr. Mica. I don't know if we could have saved the Ambassador and aide that was with him. They may have been killed in the smoke or the first part of that. Would you say that was a pretty good assumption, that they were not, it was not possible to save them because they were probably killed within an hour or two--the U.S. really doesn't have a capability of responding there. Not that we shouldn't have had on the ground the capability to respond to some kind of attack. Would that be a correct assumption? General Lovell. You would typically, greatest desire for whatever situation you were going to be in to have adequate security. Mr. Mica. I know we have over 100 posts, and there were about 14 listed on sort of the endangered or high risk list, and Benghazi was one of them. Isn't that correct? General Lovell. You would have to look to the State Department for that. I don't know. Mr. Mica. We were told that in the past, so if someone failed, they failed to have the proper protections were the posts at risk. Every post doesn't have the same risk. Every point we don't have the same risk, but that was one of the major ones. The time frame didn't allow us maybe to save the Ambassador because they came in and attacked. It was an attack. It wasn't a little demonstration in the street. I believe we had enough time to save the two former Navy SEALS that were trying to protect the post. They were killed at approximately 5:15 a.m. It started at 9:40. That's a good 6 hours. I've been to Italy. I've been to Spain. I've been to Turkey. I've been to Stuttgart. I was informed, as a Member of Congress, if we had an incident, this is before Benghazi, that we could respond, we had the capability of responding in a short order to save American personnel, particularly an ambassador or key assets or American citizens from points, and North Africa isn't exactly the toughest spot. There are places deeper in Africa that are tougher to get to, but I believe we could have saved those two if someone had taken action. Do you think we had the ability to do that? General Lovell. Presently or at the time? Mr. Mica. At the time. General Lovell. At the time, it didn't happen that way, and others have discussed the time sequence. Mr. Mica. Did the United States of America have the ability to protect its, again, people at that post within 6 hours? General Lovell. The State Department would be responsible for the time on the ground. Military could have made a response of some sort. Mr. Mica. The military could have made a response. General Lovell. Of some sort. Mr. Mica. I believe those two individuals were not saved-- Mr. Issa and I went to Roda. We interviewed people. Our military personnel, they were not given the go-ahead. They were not given the assets. No one responded to go in and save the two individuals who were lost at approximately 5:50, and I believe we had that capability. Can you tell the committee if you think we had the capability of saving them at that time once again? General Lovell. You just mentioned personnel, assets and time and distance. Do I think we had all of those things put together at that moment? I wasn't in operations---- Mr. Mica. But again, it's not--again, we had that capability, I believe. I was told even before this that if we had an incident, that we could go in and rescue or save or resolve the situation, and do you believe we had that capability? General Lovell. If capabilities were in hand, then they could be employed. Mr. Jordan. [Presiding.] The gentleman from Virginia is recognized. Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair. Welcome to our panel. General, let me pick up on that. You were not in the operational chain of command, is that correct, at the time of the tragedy? General Lovell. Not in the chain of command. I was serving in a staff role at that point in time. Mr. Connolly. Right. So you weren't making decisions? General Lovell. That's correct. Mr. Connolly. I don't know if you're familiar with the fact that the House Armed Services Committee on February 10th issued a report, the Republican majority issued a report, and I want to quote from it and see what part of this you disagree with, because my friend from Florida suggests we could have, should have done something from, for example, Rota, Italy. Secretary Panetta--I'm quoting from the report--I mean Spain rather--in consultation with General Ham, General Dempsey, and others verbally authorized three specific actions. First, two Marine FAST platoons in Rota, Spain, were ordered to prepare to deploy, one bound for Benghazi and one destined for Tripoli. Second, a Special Operations unit assigned to the European Command known as Commander's In-Extremis Force, CIF, training in Croatia was ordered to move to a U.S. Naval air station in Italy and await further instructions. And third, a Special Operations unit in the United States also dispatched to the region. These orders were issued approximately 2 to 4 hours after the initial attack. Is it your contention that we could have done it sooner or should have done more of it? Or do you deny this happened? General Lovell. My belief, as I put in my statement, has to do with we should have continued to move forward with whatever forces we were going to move forward with. The timeline and what specifically happened there was in the operational channels. What I'm looking at is the future, and how we choose to respond in the future really needs to be along the lines of the military feeling empowered to take action under the authorities that it has---- Mr. Connolly. Yes. General Lovell. --so that they can move forward and do that when the capabilities exist. Mr. Connolly. I want to read you the conclusion of the committee, the Republican chairman, Buck McKeon, who conducted formal briefings and oversaw that report. He said, ``I'm pretty well satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how quickly it dissipated, we probably couldn't have done much more than we did.'' Do you take issue with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in that conclusion? General Lovell. His conclusion that he couldn't have done much more than they did with the capability and the way they executed it? Mr. Connolly. Given the time frame. General Lovell. That's a fact in the record, the way it is written, the way he stated it. Mr. Connolly. Okay. All right. Because I'm sure you can appreciate, General, there might be some who for various and sundry reasons would like to distort your testimony and suggest that you're testifying that we could have, should have done a lot more than we did because we had capabilities we simply didn't utilize. That is not your testimony? General Lovell. No, that is not my testimony, no, sir. Mr. Connolly. I thank you very much, General. Well, actually, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, if I understood your testimony, Libya is a mess. I mean, it's a very unstable, violent environment. There is no central government control, and that's the environment in which we're trying to work and in which we were working at the time of the tragedy in Benghazi; is that correct? Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Yes, that's correct, sir. Mr. Connolly. And no amount of U.S. troops, security forces even at the time of the tragedy in Benghazi was going to change that environment; is that correct? Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Yeah. I mean, certainly you're not going to change the fact that the central government can't exercise a writ. Mr. Connolly. You know, like my friend from Utah, I went to Tripoli, not Benghazi, and the airport at the time was-- security at the airport was controlled by a militia---- Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Yeah. Mr. Connolly. --not by the government. I don't know if that's changed. Has it? Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. I'm not aware if--of whether it has now. Mr. Connolly. Yeah. That made one very uneasy about security, you know. Let's hope they're friendly. But it's obviously painful transparent symbolism of the lack of any central authority. And I see you shaking your head, Ms. Schake, as well. Did you want to comment? Ms. Schake. I agree with you. Mr. Connolly. Yeah. I just think that's also very important, the testimony the three of you have provided, which I very much appreciate. But, I mean, you know, again people can play politics with a tragedy all they want. The fact of the matter is at the time of the tragedy and even to this day, Libya is a very unstable situation postrevolution, and the object is to do the best we can to try to change that dynamic to create a more stable government that can provide security not only for us and our diplomats, but also for its own people. Fair statement, Dr. Wehrey? Mr. Wehrey. Absolutely. I mean, as I mentioned, we--I mean, since, I think, 2013 the U.S. has been planning for helping the Libyan Government with its security forces. Our diplomats are involved with reaching out to civil society, but it's a tough challenge, and, I mean, I really want to emphasize that a lot of this is on the Libyans' shoulders. I mean, this is a country that needs to reach a broad political reconciliation among its factions before they can be in a position to receive outside help. So when I talk to people from AFRICOM and State Department, there's just this sense that there's a lack of partnership on the other side, and you need that. And I think much of this is taking time. I mean, Libyans are moving forward. They are writing a Constitution. They held elections in 2012 that by all accounts were relatively transparent and fair, and they remain very pro-American, which is in contrast to many other countries in the region. Mr. Connolly. Thank you very much, and I want to thank all four of you for your testimony. I think it's very enlightening, and actually it's a contribution to what has heretofore been a rather desultory conversation about the tragedy in Libya. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Issa. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman. For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida seek recognition? Mr. Mica. A unanimous consent request. March 11th, along with more than 60 Members, sent this letter to the President saying it had been a year and a half since the Benghazi attacks, nothing had been done to bring these people to justice, and asking for the administration to act. I would like that to be part of the record. Chairman Issa. Without objection, so ordered. Chairman Issa. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Chaffetz. Thank the chairman, and thank you all for being here. Thank you for your service to your country, and, General, God bless you. Thank you for your service, over 33 years. What was--on September 11, 2012, what was your rank and title? General Lovell. Brigadier general, United States Air Force, and I served as the Deputy Director for Intelligence and Knowledge Development, J2. Mr. Chaffetz. J2. Where were you the night of September 12th, September 11th and 12th? General Lovell. I was at my home until I was recalled to the JOC, Joint Operations Center. Mr. Chaffetz. Joint Operations Center in Germany? General Lovell. Yes, sir. Mr. Chaffetz. You were in the room? General Lovell. Yes, sir. Mr. Chaffetz. You were able to see, hear, feel, understand what was going on in that room? General Lovell. We work towards understanding. That's the job of the J2, yes, sir. Mr. Chaffetz. Were you ever interviewed by the Accountability Review Board, the ARB? General Lovell. No, sir. Mr. Chaffetz. CIA station chief--your prime responsibility was to try to--as you say in the last sentence of your testimony, that the attacks--the AFRICOM J2 was focused on attribution; that attacks became attributable very soon after the event. What do you believe they were attributable to? General Lovell. That they were attributable to an Islamist extremist group. Mr. Chaffetz. Al Qaeda? General Lovell. It was--we felt it was Ansar al-Sharia. Mr. Chaffetz. Which is affiliated with Al Qaeda? General Lovell. Yeah. Yes, sir. Mr. Chaffetz. AQIM, were they involved? General Lovell. The AAS is who we most principally looked at, but all of the groups at large. Mr. Chaffetz. How quickly did you come to the conclusion that you believed that there were Al Qaeda affiliates or Al Qaeda themselves involved and engaged in this attack? General Lovell. Very, very soon, when we were still in the very early, early hours of this activity. Mr. Chaffetz. Was it a video? General Lovell. No, sir. Mr. Chaffetz. Was it a video that sparked a protest? General Lovell. No, sir. Mr. Chaffetz. What I want to get at, Mr. Chairman, are the facts at the time. That's what the White House keeps talking about, the facts at the time. The CIA station chief is quoted as saying, ``quote, quote, quote, not not an escalation of protest, end quote.'' Would you agree or disagree with the CIA station chief's analysis? General Lovell. That it is not not an escalation? Absolutely. It was an attack. Mr. Chaffetz. Beth Jones at the State Department, in an email that went to, among others, Hillary Clinton's Chief of Staff, says that she told the Libyan Ambassador--this is September 12th, 12:46 p.m.--``I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists. Would you agree or disagree with that statement? General Lovell. I would agree with it. The timing of it, I don't know, but the content, yes. Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Chairman, the scandal that is here that some choose to ignore as a phony scandal is the fact that the CIA, the CIA station chief, the military themselves, you have the person sitting in front of us who is the head of intelligence, he is looking at the intelligence, they come to the conclusion that it's Ansar al-Sharia. And then you also have the Department of State telling the Libyans that it was Ansar al-Sharia. None of them think it's a video. None of them; the military, the CIA, the CIA station chief, the State Department, all of them. The facts at the time, Mr. Chairman, the facts do not point to a video. That only comes from the White House. What was going on in the room, General? Our people are under attack. There are people dying. What is the military doing? General Lovell. Desperately trying to gain situational awareness in an area where we had a dearth of it. Mr. Chaffetz. Were they moving to the sound of the guns? Were they doing what they were trained to do, or were they sitting around waiting for the State Department and Hillary Clinton to call them up and say, do something? What did they actually do? General Lovell. We sent a Predator drone overhead to be able to---- Mr. Chaffetz. Did we do enough, General? General Lovell. Sir---- Mr. Chaffetz. Your professional opinion. You are retired, sir. I know you care deeply about this. General Lovell. Yes. Mr. Chaffetz. What was the mood in the room? What was the feeling? Was it to save our people? General Lovell. It was desperation there to be able to gain---- Mr. Chaffetz. It was what? General Lovell. Desperation there to gain situational awareness and to be able to do something to save people's lives. Mr. Chaffetz. Did they actually do it? Did they actually do it? The three actions that we talk about, a FAST team, FAST team is not--they're not even trained to go in to engage into a fight. The other force they talk about is coming from the United States of America. We had assets there in Europe. Did they actually go to the sound of the guns? Did they actually go into Benghazi? General Lovell. No, sir, those assets did not. Mr. Chaffetz. Why not? General Lovell. Basically there was a lot of looking to the State Department for what it was that they wanted, and in the deference to the Libyan people and the sense of deference to the desires of the State Department in terms of what they would like to have. Mr. Chaffetz. Did they ever tell you to go save the people in Benghazi? General Lovell. Not to my knowledge, sir. Mr. Chaffetz. We didn't run to the sound of the guns. They were issuing press releases. We had Americans dying. We had dead people, we had wounded people, and our military didn't try to engage in that fight. Would you disagree with that? Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has expired, but the gentleman may answer on any of the questions if you didn't think you got enough time to answer fully. General Lovell. Four individuals died, sir; we obviously did not respond in time to get there. Mr. Chaffetz. Could we have? Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has expired. Go ahead. General Lovell. We may have been able to, but we'll never know. Mr. Chaffetz. Because we didn't try. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now recognize the gentlelady from the District of Columbia Ms. Norton. Ms. Norton. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This hearing is interesting. It seems to be based on the notion that there were unintended consequences after the intervention into Libya. Let me begin by saying it's the nature of the beast, if one is talking about the Mideast, and it's interesting to note in contrast that when we intervene in Iraq where the consequences were--indeed, where we could have prevented by simply letting the monitors on the ground continue to look for weapons of mass destruction, we just went in willy- nilly. We didn't have anything like that in Libya. And, of course, in Iraq clearly one of the unintended consequences surely would have been renewed conflict between the Sunni and Shi'a, and yet we went in head first, perhaps the most catastrophic war of the 20th century, invasion by the United States of America. Well, many of us were very doubtful about Libya, to be sure, and many Democrats, frankly, followed our Republican colleagues, who argued very forcefully for intervention in Libya. Democrats were quite split on it. Senator McCain, who I think should be quoted here, he was the Republican standard bearer in the last Presidential--or in the Presidential election of 2008, and he is a leader on foreign policy. He said in 2011, some critics still argue that we should be cautious about helping the Libyan opposition, warning that we do not know enough about them or that their victory could pave the way for an Al Qaeda takeover. Both arguments, he said, were hollow. Dr. Gartenstein-Ross, how do you respond to Senator McCain's arguments? Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. I think that Senator McCain, with respect, was incorrect. I think that we did not know enough about the rebels at the time, something which was testified to contemporaneously by members of the Intelligence Community. Ms. Norton. Do we ever know? Do we know enough about them now in Syria? I mean, as I said in the beginning, and I agree we didn't know enough about them, and even if we did, one wonders whether that could have moved us one way or the other as we saw this dictator in power. Dr. Wehrey, it seems that McCain was saying--Senator McCain was saying that if we did not intervene, the war might have dragged on even longer, and that Al Qaeda would have been strengthened. Now, do you agree that that was a risk? Mr. Wehrey. I do agree. I think if the war had dragged on, you might have seen sort of the de facto partition of Libya, Qadhafi holding on to certain loyalist areas. The country might have become a magnet for jihadism. Al Qaeda might have gained an even greater foothold. Ms. Norton. Were these rebels generally seen as pro- Western? Why do you think Senator McCain praised them so powerfully? Mr. Wehrey. Well, because they were. I mean, in my interactions with them after the revolution, even Islamists in the East were supportive of NATO's help, and they interfaced with NATO, and so by and large they remain pro-Western. Now, certainly what happens in any opposition is there are splinters, and there are fissures, and so you had groups peel off that are more radical and have formed links with radical groups, but I think he was accurate. Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I yield back. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady. I would let Members know that there will be a vote on the floor at approximately 10:55. We will remain here, taking questioning probably for the first 10 or so minutes after they call the vote. We will then recess until approximately 10 minutes after the last vote is called, meaning if you vote quickly and head back, you'll be here when I regavel us open again. We now go to the gentleman from Ohio Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, I want to pick up where my colleague Congressman Chaffetz was at. You had two statements in your testimony that I think are most telling. The first is always move to the sound of the guns. That means something to you, doesn't it, General? General Lovell. Yes, sir. Mr. Jordan. It means something to anyone who has ever worn the uniform of our country, doesn't it? General Lovell. Yes, sir. Mr. Jordan. We take seriously the airmen who have been under your command, the soldiers, the sailors, the airmen who you've had a chance to be an officer for, you take that seriously? General Lovell. Yes, sir. Mr. Jordan. And you couldn't do that on September 11th because you say in your testimony we were, ``waiting for a request for assistance from the State Department.'' You couldn't react normally, customarily the way the military always react; in this situation, you couldn't do what the military always does. Is that accurate? General Lovell. From my perspective, yes, sir. Mr. Jordan. And you've been in the military 33 years, deployed all over the planet, all over the world. Has there ever been a situation prior to this where you couldn't react in the normal, customary way that the military reacts? General Lovell. No situation in---- Mr. Jordan. First time in your 33 years rising to the rank of general, first time in your 33 years you couldn't do what the military always does, run to the sound of the guns? General Lovell. Yes, sir, for me. Mr. Jordan. And why was that the case? What had the State Department done in your time at African Command; what had they done, what was the culture, what was the climate, what had happened where you couldn't do what you normally do? General Lovell. This was a command that was created to be a bit different. It was created to work with an interagency environment to ensure that---- Mr. Jordan. I get that. General Lovell. Yes. Mr. Jordan. That's in your testimony, too. I get that. But what specifically--I mean, we have soldiers down, you have people under attack. You knew, as everyone now knows, it was a terrorist attack. So when you have soldiers, seamen, airmen under attack, you run to the sound of the guns. You couldn't do that. So what specifically had the State Department done or said that prevented you from doing--I don't care about--we know this is unique in that it was a little different in the way it was set up, but still when that happens, you still react the way you're supposed to react, the way the military always reacts, and yet you couldn't. What specifically had the State Department--what had they done, or what prevented you from doing that? General Lovell. Well, it's not what they did in that particular situation, it's what they didn't do. They didn't come forward with stronger requests for action. Mr. Jordan. So--and previously in your time dealing with Libya, when there was a situation, the State Department said, okay, let's do this. Now suddenly they're hesitating and not giving you any guidance at all. General Lovell. Prior to that our conditioning was, obviously, with Odyssey Guard, we were there to support the State Department in setting up and establishing the embassy in Tripoli. Therefore, the work that was done relative to Libya was one where the State Department was in the lead, and we worked to support them to achieve the goals of the United States. Mr. Jordan. Who at the State Department did you and your-- and the officers directly above you, who did you directly interface with? General Lovell. Well, in varying circumstances, but for me I had interactions when I was in Langare, Italy, working with Odyssey Guard, would--had talked on occasion with Ambassador Cretz. Mr. Jordan. Anyone else at the State Department you interacted with? General Lovell. Well, briefings back at AFRICOM over that other summer. Mr. Andrew Shapiro came there as well, he was briefed. And then, of course, Ambassador Johnnie Carson, who was African Bureau, was very engaged, obviously, in what went on. Mr. Jordan. And this is the Andrew Shapiro who was senior adviser to Secretary of State Clinton, Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs; is that correct? General Lovell. That was his role. He was Assistant Secretary for, right, Political Military Affairs. Mr. Jordan. Currently Andrew Shapiro who is part of Beacon Global Strategies, correct? General Lovell. That could be where he works, I don't know. Mr. Jordan. That's definitely where he works. Did the general urge the State Department to take a specific action? Did you and/or the general urge the State Department to take specific action on the night of September 11th when you knew a terrorist attack had taken place on our people at our facility in Benghazi? General Lovell. I can't speak for anyone other than myself. That was not my place to encourage them to do that. Mr. Jordan. And you don't know if the general urged? General Lovell. Oh, I don't know that they urged to take action. There was definitely dialogue over what action wanted to be taken. Mr. Jordan. But the general, just like you, is trained in the culture that says when you have seamen, airmen, soldiers under attack, you respond, right? General Lovell. On location where I was located, it was a senior admiral that was in charge there, but General Ham was engaged back in D.C. Mr. Jordan. I understand. General Lovell. Yes. Mr. Jordan. Thank you, chairman. I yield back. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. If I could have just 10 seconds. You mentioned Mr. Shapiro and the engagement. Was Libya different in State Department interface with AFRICOM than the rest of Africa, and if so, how? General Lovell. This was the--other than the--the answer is yes, it was different, and it was different because our other engagements where we were engaged militarily, where there was obviously--we were supporting the military strategy, the policy of the United States, we obviously worked with a CT-type focus, counterterrorism focus. This was the first activity that did not start out as a counterterrorism effort that employed military combat power for Africa Command since it had stood up. Chairman Issa. Thank you. Mr. Lynch, are you next or Ms. Duckworth? The gentlelady is recognized. Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to Mr. Lynch as well. Given the atrocities that Qadhafi committed, it's no question that the people of Libya are much better off without him. However, after 42 years of authoritarian rule, we have a pretty delicate transition to a democracy. Dr. Wehrey, you testified previously that overwhelmingly the country's political leaders are rejecting violence for political means, and that they're committed to some sort of a democratic path forward, and that they welcome greater cooperation with the U.S. Can you explain in more detail what their willingness is, or how that willingness to cooperate with the U.S. is manifesting itself, and what can we do? Mr. Wehrey. Well, again, I think it's really significant that a lot of--some Islamists who at one time were foes of the United States, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, these leaders are now in the Parliament, they're in ministries, they're meeting with United States diplomats, they're meeting with our Ambassador there, and, again, it goes back to the tremendous goodwill that stems from our intervention there. And I think they look at the areas where we can help as applying our own expertise in democracy, how do you run a Parliament. You have to remember, and I was in Libya under Qadhafi, it was an Orwellian state where people had absolutely no role in their own self-governance. They had absolutely no experience at things that you and I take for granted at the very basic local level, so it's all very new to them. So what they're doing is having to learn to scratch. They're sending delegations to other countries to learn how do you run a town council, how do you--what are some structures for federalism, how do you oversee a budget, just basic things, and I think the U.S. has an important role to play. As I mentioned, there's a tremendous need for security, and they are--you know, the former Prime Minister Zeidan came to the United States and asked for U.S. help in training the new Libyan Army. The United States has stepped up to that request along with Turkey, Britain, Italy, and Morocco, so we are helping and are prepared to help in that respect. But, again, I would also say engaging with the people of Libya, when I talk to the U.S. diplomats, they tell me that Libyan society is tremendously vibrant, there's an educated class, there's young people, there's a thirst for openness. We're training their media. We're reaching out to youth groups, to women. And I think these are all incredibly, you know, valuable areas. And, yes, the country does have a terrorism problem, but I urge policymakers to not be consumed by that terrorist problem and not let that be the only lens through which we view this country. Ms. Duckworth. Can you speak about their police forces? You said needing help to train their military. Are they asking for help to train their police forces as well from the U.S. or any other allies? Mr. Wehrey. Other allies. I believe that much of this training is already going on in places like Italy. The Italians are involved, the Jordanians, the Turks. So many countries are stepping up and training their police, and this training, again, is happening overseas at other countries for security reasons. Ms. Duckworth. Are there additional risks to consider as we support Libya's effort towards its transition? For example, are there risks from a program for demobilization, disarmament and reintegration of the militia members? You talked about combating terrorism. You know, as the United States helps Libya move forward, I also want to make sure that we minimize risks to our Nation and to our citizens as well, so are there any risks that we should be sort of keeping an eye on as we try to help them move forward? Mr. Wehrey. Well, absolutely. I think when we train the new Libyan security forces, we want to make sure we're doing a thorough vetting of these individuals to make sure we're not imparting training and equipment to bad actors. I mean, we do this in our security engagement elsewhere in a number of states, and there's always risks involved. And as I understand it, you know, AFRICOM, they're asking the tough questions; okay, we're going to step in and help train this force, but what are the unintended consequences down the road? We don't want to create a military that steps in and subverts the democratic process in this country, that, you know, becomes more authoritarian or goes back to the old ways of Qadhafi. I think that's a risk. I think border control is a huge area that we need to focus on. The European Union is heavily involved in this. I think the United States needs to, I think, push the Europeans to take on more of the burden. Much of their security is directly impacted by what happens in Libya. Ms. Duckworth. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady. We now go to the gentleman from Michigan Mr. Walberg. Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And General Lovell, I thank you for your service, and I thank you for your willingness and desire to be here. General Lovell. You're welcome, sir. Mr. Walberg. I recognize the fact that you led as a commander, but you were under command as well, and the frustrations of being under command at times and in this situation appear to be very evident, but I appreciate you being here. You mention in your written testimony that AFRICOM's ability to mobilize and supply combat power with, ``limited boots on the ground, and in the implied time frame, was commendable.'' What do you mean by ``the implied time frame''? General Lovell. The United States was acting under Odyssey Dawn and then was supporting under the U.N. resolution. So in working through the compressed time frame prior to OUP taking place, the United States was acting with allied partners, and then a more focused NATO-plus effort, if you will, with OUP. So there was a definite desire to get done what we could get done prior to that and then moving forward. Also there is so much you can do without boots on the ground. Obviously I wasn't in an operational role at that time, but just military knowledge tells you you need boots on the ground to hold and make changes, much as the rest of the panel has discussed here today. Mr. Walberg. So the effectiveness, could you elaborate, of this policy? General Lovell. Of a ``no boots on ground policy,'' sir? Mr. Walberg. Yes, yes, sir. General Lovell. Well, you can effect from the sea, you can effect from the air, but you hold and have lasting change by being present on the ground. In a situation where you need more than, say, diplomacy or economic influence, and the military is called in, that's serious business, and the change takes place on the ground. Mr. Walberg. So am I to understand, then, that the effectiveness was compromised, that it wasn't complete, that it wasn't as full as possible, that it wasn't satisfactory without having this boots on the ground available to you? General Lovell. I would characterize it as you would obviously have had a different outcome and effect had you had boots on the ground than you had without it. Mr. Walberg. Without it. When did AFRICOM start becoming aware of political turmoil in Libya? General Lovell. Well, Libya was a country that we watched, as we watched all of the--I'm speaking from a J2 perspective, we kept tabs on all of the countries there. In the Arab Spring we knew especially that there could be other effects going across that area. There were really things that we watched that were CT oriented, and then other things that we watched that were more broadly politically affecting, and that began to happen. Mr. Walberg. When you began monitoring it, when was that? General Lovell. That would be in the early 2000--2011 time frame. Mr. Walberg. Did AFRICOM have any role in the decisionmaking process to intervene in Libya, and what type of role? General Lovell. I'm sorry, sir, would you please repeat? Mr. Walberg. Did AFRICOM have any role in the decisionmaking process, direct decisionmaking process, to intervene into Libya, and what was that role? General Lovell. That would be more at the commander's--the combatant commander's level than my own. I wouldn't have that information. Mr. Walberg. What was AFRICOM's role during Odyssey Dawn? General Lovell. Their role is to work with other allied partners prior to the U.N. resolution taking effect to assist the rebels in Libya. Mr. Walberg. What about Unified Protector? General Lovell. That was a more broad effort sanctioned by the United Nations to assist the rebels in Libya. Mr. Walberg. Dr. Gartenstein-Ross, some have praised the NATO intervention as a model intervention, but your testimony points to consequences of the intervention. What are some of the most pronounced consequences of this Libyan intervention? Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. The largest consequence is what happened in north Mali. There's---- Mr. Walberg. Well, excuse me---- Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has expired. You can finish your answer. Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. The largest consequence is what happened in north Mali. A direct line can be drawn between the intervention in NATO and the Jihadist takeover of north Mali, something that became an issue in the 2012 campaign both because the Tuareg separatist groups, who are not themselves Jihadists, lost a major sponsor in Qadhafi, and Jihadists were able to exploit that; but also because the returning Tuareg mercenaries who fought for Qadhafi both pillaged his armories and came back heavily armed. There are other consequences that can be felt with the flow of arms throughout the region going to places like Egypt, Algeria, and Tunisia. Lives have been directly lost there, and one thing that we can see that happened in January of this year is the shoot-down of an Egyptian military helicopter. We don't know for sure where those arms came from, but both the U.N. panel of experts which looks at the diffusion of Libyan arms and also contemporaneous media accounts believe that Qadhafi's armories are the most likely place that militants were able to get this weaponry to shoot down the helicopter. I think that when you look at the unintended consequences, it has made the region much less stable. Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Issa. Thank you. The gentleman from Nevada. Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses who are here today to testify before this committee. And it's important to recognize that before us today is a panel of experts for whom we as a committee can gather critically important information and advice as well as insight into the on-the-ground and geopolitical realities in Libya and the greater Middle East region. The tragedy that occurred in Benghazi is that, a tragedy, and out of respect for those who died serving our country, and for the safety of those who continue to do so around the world, it's imperative that this committee gain actionable policy reforms so that we can prevent similar disasters from occurring again. So I want to ask the panel, and I'll start with Dr. Wehrey, in your testimony you discussed at length the challenges that outside assistance, including from countries like the United States, Turkey, Britain, Morocco, and Italy, face in terms of providing training assistance in the developing--development of an effective Libyan Army. Can you elaborate in what your recommendations to this committee would be? Mr. Wehrey. Well, again, I think I would recognize that before this training can really take effect, or before you can build a real security sector, you have to have political reconciliation in this country. The Libyans have to get together and hammer out a broad pact, there has to be democratic structures in place, they have to go forward with this national dialogue. Much of the paralysis and why outside assistance has not had an effect is because there hasn't been this reconciliation among these factions. So I would really urge outsiders to focus on sequencing; that we need to support the Libyans in these political issues, in reforming their parliaments, in the national dialogue, in the Constitution so that this training can take full effect. Now, it's sort of, you know, the horse before the wagon. I mean, there has to be security in the country for these institutions to function. So we do have to help them to a certain degree create the space for these institutions. But, again, I think the United States since at least last year has recognized that this country needs greater help. When I speak to people in the Defense Department, in AFRICOM, there's a willingness and appreciation for the situation. NATO is engaged, there are other Arab countries, Europe. So the willingness is there. Mr. Horsford. Thank you. General or the other panelists, would you propose specific actionable reforms that this committee could recommend? Ms. Schake. In addition to what Dr. Wehrey said, all of which I agree with, there are several other specific things we could do. One of the United States' great strengths in helping transitioning countries is to emphasize how federalism works in the United States not just politically, but also militarily. The balance of the National Guard and Reservists and their functions in the States is for Libya, in my judgment, a very useful model because their political reconciliation is not going to progress without a more activist federalism that makes the regions of the country and the tribes of the country feel more politically secure than they now feel, and you're not going to get disarmament of the militia until then. So I would put a lot of focus on that. Second, we need to be a much more vibrant voice talking about how the violence damaged the elections, how much it matters that only 15 percent of the Libyan people were represented in the 48 people elected for the Constitutional Council. We need to create political attention to this, and that will help them to the political reconciliation they need to make. It's not enough for us to say--and I don't think Dr. Wehrey was doing this, but some people do say nothing can be done because the Libyans themselves need to make progress. They won't make progress without us helping them have the security to make brave domestic political choices, and we're underinvesting in that. Mr. Horsford. Anyone else, last 17 seconds? Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. One specific reform that I would recommend is that while the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group which Dr. Wehrey referred to did issue revisions breaking from Al Qaeda, I think that it's important for the U.S. to be aware of whether some figures within government are also helping Jihadist groups. One thing that I think we learned from our experience in Egypt is that that can be very damaging. One figure in particular I would draw attention to is Abdul Hakim Belhadj, former Libyan Islamic Fighting Group member, whose media adviser had been a member of the Global Islamic Media Forum, which is a Jihadist forum. Online Jihadist celebrated his advances within government, and according to regional media, he's been providing shelter to Abu Iyad al- Tunisi, who is the emir of Ansar al-Sharia, a Jihadist group in that country, so even while we help Libya, I think it's also good to be aware of and to bring political pressure down on those who are supporting America's enemies. Mr. Horsford. Thank you. Mr. Lankford. [Presiding.] Thank you all. Let me walk through a couple things, and I'll be the final questioner, and then we'll take a short recess after this for the votes, and then come back and be able to finish up. So let me walk through about 5 minutes or so of some brief questions. General Lovell, thank you for your service and for all of you in your service and your research and everything. I want to be able to ask just a couple of quick questions. Based on what you were watching that night, do you feel like the United States was doing everything it could do to protect the people, its facilities abroad--that the United States was doing everything it could do to protect our people and our facilities abroad based on what you saw that night? General Lovell. No, sir. Mr. Lankford. Do you believe that night, and even during that night did you believe, that this was a protest rooted in an Internet video? General Lovell. No, sir. Mr. Lankford. Did you have any sort of sense that night based on what you were hearing, the communication between State and DOD and what was happening on the ground trying to gather information, that there was a steadiness and a strength through that evening in trying to make the decisions? General Lovell. There was a bit of--there was definitely a strong desire to come to decisions. There was a period of time where gaining an understanding of what was needed from folks on the ground because we didn't have a lot of insight---- Mr. Lankford. So was there ongoing communication and coordination? Were you spending time waiting on the State Department to try to get your information? General Lovell. There was a lot of back and forth, yes, sir. Mr. Lankford. No question for that, but do you feel like there were clear lines of communication and steadiness of leadership that was happening that night, so there was a consistent here's who is in the lead, here's what we're going to do, and a plan that was unfolding? General Lovell. It was continually strived for in that room. We were looking back to the United States for more. Mr. Lankford. Were you getting it from the United States? In the room they were planning and strategizing, were you getting clear communication and leadership from Washington, from the United States on what to do next? General Lovell. My observations were that they were still looking for more decisions. Mr. Lankford. Does anyone know if we brought the people to justice that did this in our embassy and our facilities? Is anyone aware if justice has been carried out? Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. We have not. General Lovell. No, sir. Mr. Lankford. So the four things that I just walked through were the four talking points that were presented by Ben Rhodes saying these were the areas we're going to talk about when we go on the Sunday shows. All four of those things we knew in the initial days are not true, and we are still waiting for this statement that came out from the beginning--we will take these individuals to justice--2 years later. So the four things the White House put out, three of them are factually not true, and one of them was a promise that is still unkept. What were you tracking that evening? Were you watching video? Were you tracking phone calls? How were you gathering information through the course of the evening? General Lovell. Obviously there were national means being used to gain intelligence. There were the actual communiqus that we received either directly or indirectly from individuals that were on the ground. Mr. Lankford. So you're talking about the email traffic and such of when they were trying to email out and get information. General Lovell. They work through Chat, yes, sir. Mr. Lankford. Correct. General Lovell. And then the analysts work through Chat, and then in addition to that, the operational channels do the same thing. We also had a Pred feed at a certain point in time. We were able to swing a bird over there and then relieve that and gain more. That was an unmanned UAV or--unmanned. Mr. Lankford. Then there's phone conversations happening at different points where the individuals on the ground are in phone communication with other individuals. Were you getting any information about that as well? General Lovell. We knew that the--we would have information filtered back to us, yes, that people on the ground were back in communication. Mr. Lankford. Were you aware there was closed-circuit TV that was also on the compound itself, video feed? General Lovell. No, sir, I wasn't aware of that. Mr. Lankford. Okay. There is video feed of that night that's fairly extensive, both leading up to the event that you can actually look down the street and see that there's no protest going on on the street, and you can actually see the actions on the compound and be able to go through that. So that video obviously you didn't have a feed to, weren't able to track, but that closed-circuit TV does exist as well as the Predator feed that you're dealing with as well. So all this information is gathering and trying to walk through this, and you're trying to make decisions, and you're in the process of all these decisions being made and trying to gather all this information and be able to give advice to what was going to happen. Did you get from State--or let me say it this way: Did you know who from State would call you if they wanted you to take action? Was there a clear line of communication; okay, the military is getting into a position of readiness, who are you waiting for from State to call you? General Lovell. We--those calls would go back through the operational chain of command, so those people that were engaged were back in Washington, D.C. General Ham was dealing with that as well as Admiral Leidig. Mr. Lankford. So there was a clear line of communication; you knew who would make the call and where that would come from as far as that is concerned? General Lovell. Those gentlemen would be in contact with people, we would hear back at that command center from--at my level from a military authority to do something. Mr. Lankford. Okay. Did we have Americans' back that night? General Lovell. Sir? Mr. Lankford. The United States military always watches for other Americans and their back. Did we have their back that night? General Lovell. Obviously not, sir. Mr. Lankford. Based on the situation in Libya now or 2 years ago, would you consider the security situation normal for one of our facilities? Was this a normal security situation? Prior--obviously when the attack is going on, that's not normal. Prior to that attack, was this a normal environment for our personnel? General Lovell. No, sir. Mr. Lankford. Does anyone else have a comment on that? Was this a normal security environment? Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. It was not a normal security environment. Mr. Lankford. I've heard over and over again from the State Department there was a push to normalize security and actually withdraw individuals that were our own, that were Americans, to provide security and to put in country security folks, which is typical for us, that we have a larger force in our embassies and facilities that are provided from in country. We had a militia watching our front door from Libya. So the front door of the facility, a local militia was actually providing the security for it. Just a quick question for anyone. If you went to Libya right now, would you be okay if one of the local militias guarded your front door? Would anyone be open to that? Mr. Wehrey. With all due respect, that's the way security is functioning in this country, and I think---- Mr. Lankford. No, I understand. Mr. Wehrey. Yes, but---- Mr. Lankford. Was it a normal security environment that we would run it with one of the local militias? I understand local security is typically provided in Libya. At that point were we in a normal environment that we would have one of the local militias, would you trust their loyalty at that time to provide your security for your front door? Mr. Wehrey. As a matter of embassy protocol, I would make sure that they were vetted; I mean, that they're loyal. But, I mean, this is the nature of Libya right now. These militias consider themselves the army. There is no army. Mr. Lankford. Did you vet the militia at that time based on where we were---- Mr. Wehrey. I don't know. I wasn't there. But, I mean---- Mr. Lankford. Just your guess. Mr. Wehrey. I mean, this is the challenge that we have in this country is, you know, there is--as I mentioned, there was no central army. Mr. Lankford. Correct. So you would assume if there is no central army, then we're not going to try to normalize the security situation. It's not normal. The British have already been run out based on an attack on their facility. The Red Cross has already been run out based on an attack on their facility. Instead, we reduce the number of gun toters, American gun toters, and increase local militia that we can't vet. Mr. Wehrey. From an embassy standpoint it is highly, I would say, risky. I am saying from my own perspective traveling to Libya, you can go and feel relatively safe, because these militias, as Dr. Schake mentioned, they do provide a sort of neighborhood watch program. Many of them are filling the void of the security forces. So I think we need to look at how we use the term ``militia'' very carefully, because these are the groups that are for all intents and purposes the security forces in the country. Mr. Lankford. Right. But 2 years ago it was not normal in a situation. It was as dramatic or more dramatic than it is now and insecure, no way to be able to vet people, unknown on that, and yet we reduced the number of American folks that are providing security and increased local folks that we did not know how to vet. They were watching our front door, and it's now clear they walked away from the front door, and we had Ansar al-Sharia walk through the front door that they walked away from, and the attack was on. So with that, let me take a recess. We're going to move towards votes, and then we will be able to come back and be able to visit again. So we'll stand in recess until the call of the chair. [Recess.] Chairman Issa. [Presiding.] The committee will come to order. We now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Arizona. No, I'm sorry, the distinguished other doctor, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais. Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the panel for being here for this very important hearing. And, General Lovell, special kudos to you. I know you're exceptionally well trained because you were commissioned in our great State of Tennessee. I wanted to talk to you a little bit about the DOD timeline of Benghazi-related events. It says it wasn't until 6:05 a.m. that AFRICOM ordered a C-17 in Germany to prepare to deploy to Libya to evacuate the Americans wounded in the attack; and furthermore, the timeline says it wasn't until 2:15 p.m., over 8 hours later, that the plane took off from Germany for Libya. Can you explain why that took so long? General Lovell. No, sir, I cannot. Mr. DesJarlais. General, are you familiar with the term ``the golden hour?'' General Lovell. Yes, sir, I am. Mr. DesJarlais. Can you tell us what that means to military personnel who have been wounded? General Lovell. Yes, sir. The golden hour is absolutely the period of time from when you're wounded in an engagement or accident and you receive medical treatment. The golden hour, the greatest ability for you or a buddy to survive is during that period of time. Mr. DesJarlais. And if I'm correct, the survival rate, if they do not die on the battlefield, the chance of survival is about 95 percent if they're reached within that golden hour? General Lovell. That's why it's the golden hour, yes, sir. Mr. DesJarlais. In this case it looks like they were functioning under maybe what would be called the golden day by this timeline? General Lovell. You could characterize it that way, sir. Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Were there, indeed, assets in the region that could have been deployed sooner, in your opinion? General Lovell. Again, those are--in the operational area, looking back at it reflectively, there were assets in the area, but, you know, operations responded the way they did. My contention is that we need more dedicated assets available to the command continuously in order to make a difference in the future. Mr. DesJarlais. In your opinion, if you were given the green light to pick up the phone and make the call to get someone there to help our bleeding Americans, how long would it have taken? Having that opportunity to just make the call, how quickly could someone have gotten there, in your opinion? General Lovell. With the assets available, I don't have an answer to that question, sir, in the operational environment. I don't know. Mr. DesJarlais. Do you believe it's much quicker than it was? General Lovell. Oh, I would certainly hope it would be much quicker than it was, yes. Mr. DesJarlais. So one thing our soldiers, we talked about this earlier in today's hearing, you're taught to run towards the gun, all the military people that I know want to run towards danger, not away from it, but they were not able to do so. Why was that? General Lovell. The--within the authorities to move, given the desire to move, it appeared to me from my perspective working there as a staff member of the J2 in there that there were dialogues ensuing with the State Department as to how they wanted to have it approached within Libya as to whether deference to State or deference to Libya. Mr. DesJarlais. I know General Ham was in Washington that night, which left his deputy commander as the senior-most officer at AFRICOM. Was he consulting with the State Department about what he should do in response to the attack in Benghazi? General Lovell. From my observations sitting in that room with him when I saw it there, he was absolutely leaning forward to get answers so he could do something, yes. Mr. DesJarlais. So, in your opinion, what was the hold-up? You testified earlier that the CIA knew, the military knew, the State Department knew that this was a terrorist attack, yet somebody was holding this process back. Who was it? General Lovell. I wish I knew, sir. From my perspective, it appeared that State Department was the conduit for the ask by the Africa Command. Mr. DesJarlais. So I can say this, you might not be able to, but as an American and you as now a civilian, having bravely served our country for 33 years, the fact is that there was a Presidential election just a few weeks away, and there was a White House that knew all the same things these agencies knew, but yet they were busy concocting a story, a cover-up, an alibi, that we all know now isn't true because they were more concerned about protecting their image in a Presidential election than saving American lives. The IRS targeting to effect the outcome of an election is criminal. This is just sickening. And I'm sure that you're here today partly because you have similar feelings. Not to speak for you, but you're welcome to respond. General Lovell. I will say that I'm here today because as a military professional for over 33 years, as well as a citizen of this country, a father of a previously serving military person, father-in-law of serving military people, neighbor to a young man down at Parris Island going through basic training in the Marine Corps, and just having served, as I said earlier, with a number of brave men and women in uniform and in civilian clothes in this Nation, we need to get this right. We need to get it right. That's what brings me here today. Not that I have all the answers, I don't say that I do, but attention needs to be paid in the most serious way possible to cut through any games and get to the point that we as a Nation are able to support through our military forces the policy and efforts of this country anywhere in the world, and we need to be able to do it and secure American lives as we get the job done. Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you for that. Chairman Issa. Ms. Schake, it looked like you wanted to answer. The gentleman's time has expired, but if you need to answer, you may. Ms. Schake. I didn't want to answer, but I did want to endorse the doctor's suggestion that there was information available from the CIS station chief in Libya, from the deputy chief of mission in Libya, from elsewhere in the Central Intelligence Agency, as your committee's investigations have brought out. The White House made a political choice that the President was running for reelection, campaigning on the basis that Al Qaeda was on the run and the tide of war was receding, and the tragedy in Benghazi was an extraordinarily inconvenient outlier to that story line, and I think that's the basis on which the White House--the choices that people made during the attacks in Benghazi, in my judgment, are unfortunate and had tragic consequences, but the choices the White House made about pretending that we didn't know things that we did know I think are an overt politicization of the events. Chairman Issa. Thank you. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy. You're next on my hit parade, I think. Mr. Gowdy. I am, your--Mr. Chairman? Chairman Issa. Yes. Mr. Gowdy. I started to say Your Honor. That was a previous job. Chairman Issa. Yeah. No, I still get a gavel, but you're shown as next. Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and General, I am confounded, in fact I continue to be confounded, and what I find so confounding is the administration's mantra hasn't changed from Jay Carney to Hillary Clinton, to the President himself, to Ben Rhodes, to even yesterday Bernadette Meehan, the National Security Council. And maybe, Mr. Chairman, instead of teaching reading comprehension, maybe we ought to teach writing comprehension, because I don't understand what this statement means except the end of it: The content reflects what the administration was saying at the time--whatever that means--and what we understood to be the facts at the time. So that's the mantra, Mr. Chairman and General, is that we used the best evidence we had at the time, the facts that we had at the time. So you can imagine, General, that that would make someone who is interested in facts and evidence to say, okay, well, then, cite all the facts for me. Cite the evidence. If your mantra really is that we used the best facts and the best evidence we had at the time, then cite the facts for me. Call your first witness. Introduce your first piece of evidence. Because I'll tell you the first piece of evidence I would introduce is from the State Department. Beth Jones to Cheryl Mills, Mr. Chairman--you know who Cheryl Mills is--Jake Sullivan. This is September the 12th, Mr. Chairman. This is well before the administration started misleading the American people. We've got an email from Beth Jones to Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan and a plethora of other people: I told him, with ``him'' being the Libyan Ambassador, the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists. So that's the State Department that knew the day after that this video had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi. So that's the State Department. CIA station chief in Tripoli, Mr. Chairman, not--and for those who don't know what that word means, he repeated it again--not not an escalation of protest. This is someone in Libya at the time. CIA says video had nothing to do with it. Mr. Gowdy. Now we go to DOD, military. What evidence did you have that this was an escalation of a protest rooted in spontaneity that got out of control and resulted in the murder of our four fellow Americans? Did the military have any evidence supporting the video narrative? General Lovell. No, sir, there was none. Mr. Gowdy. Well, that's what's so confounding, Mr. Chairman, is the State Department knew it wasn't a video, the CIA knew it wasn't a video, and for those that are a little bit slow, they repeated the word ``not'' twice. The military knew it had nothing to do with a video. But that brings us to the White House. And I know, Mr. Chairman, initially we were told that the White House had nothing to do with the drafting points, that Mike Morell is the one who sanitized those and changed the word terrorist to extremist and changed it from attack to demonstration and did whatever he could to cast the administration in the most favorable light. We thought that it was just Mr. Morell doing that, until we got an email from Ben Rhodes, Mr. Chairman. Goal number one: to convey that the United States is doing everything we can to protect our people and facilities. I'm glad that this is dated September 14, 2012, Mr. Chairman, because it sure as hell was not their goal before September 11. We have had hearing after hearing about the failure to provide security at our facility in Benghazi. So I'm glad that that was their goal after four of our fellow Americans were murdered, but it sure as hell was not their goal beforehand or they would not have refused to provide security to that facility. Goal number two: to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video and not a broader failure of policy. And therein we have our answer. The goal was to do everything we can to deflect attention away from this feckless foreign policy we have in the Middle East that isn't working. Remember the mantra, Mr. Chairman--Al Qaeda is on the run, GM is alive, Osama bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is on the run--when really they're standing at the front door of our facility in Benghazi getting ready to murder our Ambassador and burn it down. And then yesterday, Mr. Chairman, you may remember the White House--I'm going to edit out all the stumbling and stammering that Jay Carney did, I'm just going to give you the nuts and bolts of what he said--is that this memo I just made reference to has nothing to do with Benghazi. Well, I find that interesting because of the third point, and I know I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman, but the third goal was to show that we are resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice. If that's not talking about Benghazi, where else did we have people harmed other than Benghazi, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. And our goal is to bring people to justice, too. We now recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes. Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, General, I appreciate your service. Thank you for your service. Appreciate your being here today. In your testimony you talked about your training and natural impulse as a member of the American military is to run towards the gunfire. And we have heard testimony today about what we should have done, and we're kind of unclear about what we could have done and whether or not we had the forces that could have gotten there in time. I'm going to say we definitely should have tried. But as an American citizen, I'm not asking you to give away any secrets, as an American citizen, does it trouble you that we can't respond in a timely manner to threats to an American Embassy anywhere in the world. General Lovell. That's part of the reason I sit here today, sir. Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. I think it's something we should all be concerned about. Let's talk a little bit about your role the evening of the Benghazi attacks. You talk about you fight your way to the train, and the brave men and women in Libya did in running toward the sound of the guns. You also say that outside of Libya there were discussions going on about how to respond to the attack and that these folks also fought the way they were trained. Are you referring to the AFRICOM headquarters with that comment? General Lovell. AFRICOM headquarters---- Mr. Farenthold. Right. General Lovell. --and interagency interactions. Mr. Farenthold. All right. So you wrote, ``The predisposition to interagency influences had the military structure--in the spirit of expeditionary government support-- waiting for a request for assistance from the State Department.'' That kind of sounds like bureaucratese of saying that the military that night was not its own master as far as taking steps to go to the rescue of the Americans in Benghazi but were waiting for directions from the State Department. Would that be a fair assessment? General Lovell. That characterization is part of what's in that comment, yes. Mr. Farenthold. That just seems crazy. We have got Americans who need help. You ought to be able to hop on an airplane, and they could have been ordered to stand down if the situation warranted that. I know General Ham was in Washington that night and left his deputy commander as the senior most officer at AFRICOM. Was he consulting the State Department about what to do during the attacks at Benghazi? General Lovell. The Admiral worked tirelessly to do that. Mr. Farenthold. Obviously, we didn't have much of a response there. Let me go to Ms. Schake. I apologize if I mispronounced your name. In your testimony you talked about in the Arab spring how we should be focusing on helping these countries out. You look at the track record that we have under the Obama administration with nation building. You look at Iraq. A lot of blood, a lot of treasure shed in Iraq. Yet we see Al Qaeda flags flying in Fallujah. We have seen instability all throughout that region. You look at the civil war going on in Syria. Obviously, I mean, it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys without a playbook, but we draw a red line and step back from it. We can even go over into Crimea and see some problems. Are we sure we really want to be involved in that based on our track record there? Ms. Schake. I share your skepticism about the administration's choices in the Middle East. It does seem to me that one of the fundamental mistakes the Obama administration is making is they act as though taking action is something that sets in motion all sorts of consequences, but that taking no action means we have no moral responsibility for any consequences. And as I think Daveed's testimony made really clear, there are consequences for what we have not done in Libya, and Mali is bearing them out at the moment, Libya is bearing them out at the moment. And the gap between what the administration claims it is achieving and what we are actually doing in the region is encouraging people to take---- Mr. Farenthold. I'm almost out of time, and I had one more question for General Lovell. The U.S. intervention in Libya was constrained by the White House's strict prohibition of boots on the ground. Do you think that limited boots on the ground and that policy might have been one of the driving forces in the fact that we didn't send a response there to Benghazi? General Lovell. Well, I would say if there were boots on ground and there were marines in uniform as part of a security team that were around any of the State Department facilities, I would say that would intimidate most that were going to try to make an attack. And boots on the ground are the best and only way to hold the ground, if that's what you're looking to do. Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. I just want to point out quickly before I yield back, Mr. Chairman, that as we investigated embassy security together, some of the key factors that are considerations are the willingness and ability of the host country to provide security. And I think that's a common understanding at the State Department. At a time a government is undergoing change both the ability and willingness to provide security for embassies should be severely in question, and that should be an indication to immediately prepare to take care of ourselves. And maybe we could have avoided the loss of life in Benghazi had we followed our own directives in evaluating the ability and willingness of the host country. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman for his comments. We now go to the gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar. Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. General Lovell, now, you were the deputy commander of Operation Odyssey Guard, which you describe as the missions to help the State Department reestablish the Embassy in Tripoli, Libya. Can you describe what the mission involved? General Lovell. Yes. The mission involved being supporting to the desires of the Ambassador, Ambassador Cretz, and there was a 16-person DOD team that was in place working directly for him. Our job was to help monitor that situation as well, even though they worked for the State Department. We also worked to help plan for any other activities that might be developing in that particular area. We worked with a group to help with the EOD, for example, in one of the areas, and we also helped to provide some of the watch and communication when other senior U.S. officials visited the country. Mr. Gosar. How would that differ in a normal protocol under military jurisdiction? General Lovell. Well, we, as a JTF deputy commander---- Mr. Gosar. Does it change the chain of command any? General Lovell. Yes, sir. Absolutely. That's the point I was getting to, absolutely. The SST team worked not for DOD, it worked for Department of State, and there were no other forces on the ground specifically that belonged to us. Mr. Gosar. In your testimony that the State Department was in the lead, as we just confirmed, for the effort to get back Libya on its feet, one of the things this committee has encountered in its investigation of the State Department's conduct in Libya is the overwhelming focus on normalization, whether it be the attempt to reduce security personnel at the diplomatic facilities, or so-called normal levels or attempt to view the government of Libya as normal host nation partners capable of providing meaningful protection like my colleague from Texas just talked about. Did you encounter this normalization philosophy in your dealings with the State Department during Operation Odyssey Guard? General Lovell. Yes, sir, I did. Mr. Gosar. Could you elaborate a little bit on that? General Lovell. Yes. For instance, a desire to create a new normal within this environment was basically redefining what I would consider a suboptimal situation. Mr. Gosar. Would you consider it hostile? General Lovell. Yes, sir. Mr. Gosar. Go ahead and continue. General Lovell. The hostile environment that we were dealing with, yeah. Our interaction certainly was not with our interagency counterparts. But to keep a low profile by the American Government and the U.S. military in that environment at the time we weren't deploying our forces. There was no Marine security detachment, et cetera, some of the other things that you might have seen in place in other areas where you'd consider a normal type of an environment that was secure. And I guess that's what it really comes down to, is how much security are you willing to--how insecure are you willing to be and still be present is really what it comes down to. And let's face it, our diplomats take risks every day, but in certain situations. It's always measured risk. And when we measure risk in an environment whereby some yardsticks it comes out, the measurement comes out short, and it seems to be hostile, you know, if it looks hostile and it smells hostile, it probably is a hostile environment. Mr. Gosar. Well, you complement, you make this worse, because we had an email in regards to what Al Qaeda was looking to do. Number one, take out the British Embassy, consulate, the international Red Cross, and then Benghazi, the consulate. We accomplished that, too, your intelligence. So wouldn't that have heightened the awareness that we were in a fractionalized, more hostile environment? General Lovell. You just described it, yes. Mr. Gosar. So, I mean, this is absurd to me. I mean, I'm talking to a man that's spent his life on the defense of our country. Are you aware of any other operation that was this disjointed in your career, the flagrant---- General Lovell. In my career and in my experience, this operation absolutely in terms of the--yeah, no, sir, no. Mr. Gosar. So, I mean, you just made a comment just earlier that the best force is to put our forces there in a fragmented aspect, that's the best deterrent. So without those, aren't you inviting an attack? General Lovell. You very well could be through your own vulnerability. Mr. Gosar. Yeah. Okay. What was AFRICOM's role in Libya after Odyssey Guard ended? Did Libya receive any sort of heightened monitoring---- Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has expired, but you can finish quickly. Mr. Gosar. Yeah. Did Libya receive any sort of heightened monitoring after Odyssey Guard ended? General Lovell. Most certainly, as some of the other panelists have stated here today, we absolutely had a keen watch from a CT perspective, absolutely, as well as also just helping to monitor things going on in the nation in general. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Gosar. Thank you. Chairman Issa. We now go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis. Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, can you explain the significance of the fact that the J2 shop at AFRICOM wasn't just the intelligence shop, but the intelligence and knowledge development shop? General Lovell. Yes. As I also provided in the written statement, the IKD, Intelligence and Knowledge Development Division, was the nomenclature used to identify what would be a typical 2 shop in other commands. Later on it became a J2 shop but retained a knowledge development piece. Knowledge development also has more to do with many sources that may be unclassified, open-source type reporting, et cetera. So you are trying to bring in and coalesce a more comprehensive intelligence picture utilizing knowledge. In a command and in a theater of operations such as Africa where you have a great need for intelligence and information but not many resources to go get it, using open source and other types of things could be your best source of information in some instances. Mr. DeSantis. So in that position you were able to observe the interplay between the military and the State Department as it relates to those issues, correct? General Lovell. The exchange of information, others as well, our three letter partners. Mr. DeSantis. In terms of the military response, I mean sometimes people, and we have had other hearings and they've said, well, look, we would not have been able to get there in time. And my response has always been once you know that you have men in contact, you don't know how long the whole enterprise is going to last. I mean, once the first word that we have problems at this annex, it could have lasted 12 hours, 24, 48 hours. So the idea that somehow looking back in hindsight and saying, oh, well, we didn't marshal forces, we wouldn't have gotten there in time, that just doesn't satisfy me. Am I wrong in that? General Lovell. No, sir, I don't believe you are. It's one of the motivating factors for me to be here in this environment right now, so that we don't do this again. Mr. DeSantis. And my thing is, is you guys are waiting for the State Department, and State Department said we need to help these guys. And even if you ended up getting there a little bit late, I think it matters to the American people that there was the effort made and that we were willing as a Nation to devote the resources we had to try to save those men. I think it would matter to those families that that was done. And so I appreciate you coming here today. I mean, it seems to me this whole idea with the video, this deception that was propagated to the American people, one, it actually hurt the counterterrorism efforts, we have heard on this committee, immediately after. Libyans were upset with us because they had actually tried to take action against terrorists and here we're saying it's just a video and trying to downplay the fact, our own administration, that it was a terrorist attack. It actually I think brought more attention to the video throughout the Islamic world and gave Islamists a pretext to pursue more violence. And so you have a situation where the American people, based on the emails we have seen in this investigation, and the families of the fallen were deceived about who perpetrated that attack and have not been level with about our government's response. And so to this day, and we spend a lot of time talking about who did what in the White House and the emails, that's very important because the truth matters, but even to this day the perpetrators have not been brought to justice at all. I mean, if forces really couldn't have made it there in time to prevent these Americans from being killed, then at least we would like to see the administration avenge their death by bringing these terrorists to justice. And yet to this day, this has just been something that has happened, and we have not responded in kind, and I think that that really is something that bothers me to this day. So I thank the witnesses for coming, and I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DeSantis. Yes. Chairman Issa. General, as the 2 shop, you weren't doing operational. So I don't want to get into the operational side. But from an intelligence standpoint, you earlier said that you knew, and I'll paraphrase, from the get-go that this was not a video inciting some sort of a demonstration but, in fact, a terrorist attack. That is correct? General Lovell. That's correct. Chairman Issa. And when you knew it, did the deputy, the Vice Admiral, did he know it? General Lovell. Most certainly. We kept him--I worked directly for him. Chairman Issa. And to your knowledge, did General Carter Ham then know it back on stateside? General Lovell. He certainly should. He was in the NMCC. Chairman Issa. And from your experience long time in the military, it is reasonable to assume that the Secretary of Defense also would have known what each of you in the chain of command knew since he was standing by General Ham? General Lovell. That's the way it should work, sir. Chairman Issa. So is there any conceivable way at 3:00 in the morning Libyan/Stuttgart time, is there any conceivable way that anyone could reasonably be promoting the YouTube video from the White House or from anywhere in the know in government? General Lovell. If they were in the know, with relative information that we were putting out, no, sir. Chairman Issa. So for someone to do that at 3:00 in the morning Stuttgart time, they would have to either not know what you, your boss and your boss' boss knew and presumably people above him, or they would have to be working contrary to what was known? General Lovell. That's correct. Chairman Issa. Thank you. We now go to the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Lummis. Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, I'm late to this hearing, but I have the advantage of your written testimony, so if these questions are a bit redundant, forgive me. But some things caught me in your written testimony. You said, ``We didn't know how long this would last''--``this'' meaning the attacks on 9/11/12--``We didn't know how long this would last when we became aware of the distress nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us, be it a kidnapping, rescue,'' or a protracted hostile engagement. Can you elaborate on that? What was it like watching from Stuttgart, watching what was happening in Benghazi? General Lovell. And I further went on to say or any or all of those things. It was a situation where we were very much in the hunt for information from the J2 shop perspective so we could give the commander, the vice on station and the commander back in D.C., the best information possible. So for us, we were very much on the trail through chat rooms, et cetera, using the mechanisms--not to go into it too deeply--but using the mechanisms that are out there for an intelligence organization to formulate understanding based upon facts. That's what we pursued, and we provided that to our on- scene commander, the Vice Admiral, as well as up-channeled that and sent it across to other organizations so that we were sharing to the maximum extent possible in order to help build that picture of understanding and flesh it out even further. It's not good enough to know what's going on right there. We need to find attribution so that then you can take action. You want actionable intelligence. Mrs. Lummis. Okay. And at what point did you know that no assets were going to be sent to Benghazi that night, no special ops, no units? General Lovell. It began to become more and more evident. As the morning went on, it appeared as though that was to take place. But it even continued on further as we tried to help, you know, FBI and others get in there after, if you will, the death of those Americans, to go into the pursuit mode. As I just described, actionable intelligence is what you provide to an operator. Mrs. Lummis. And who was making the decisions not to go in, not to respond? General Lovell. That would be, from my perspective, it appeared that it was up-channeled beyond the Department of Defense, somewhere outside of DOD. We respond to civilian leadership, and that's what we would be looking for, civilian leadership. Mrs. Lummis. So normally those kinds of decisions would be made after the military conferred with civilian leadership in Washington? General Lovell. Yes. Now we're into my boss' boss' business, but indeed that would be who he would be talking with. Mrs. Lummis. Okay. And that would be the normal chain of discussion? General Lovell. Yes. Mrs. Lummis. Okay. Did you assume that those discussions were going on, those discussions between the military chain of command, the State Department, the Defense Department, and the White House? General Lovell. Absolutely. And the reason I can state it emphatically is because part of what we did as an intelligence organization, and all intelligence organizations, you're looking for what's the next step so you can ferret out the next best pieces of information and fact to help inform so that those operations can be effective. Mrs. Lummis. In your military experience, what would have been a more normal response in the middle of the night, 3 a.m. Stuttgart time, when you knew you had an Ambassador down and later in the night you knew you had personnel on the CIA annex roof and there was an exchange of fire? What would you have expected in your military experience to happen? General Lovell. Go, go, go. Mrs. Lummis. And when did it become apparent to you there would be no go? General Lovell. As the morning progressed and we had some people moving at some points in time, they're asked to stop midway through some of their deployments reaching Europe, et cetera, or other locations. It did not appear to us that there was any momentum behind it to make it happen. Mrs. Lummis. And how many of you were together in Stuttgart watching this unfold? Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chaffetz. [Presiding] Go ahead. Mrs. Lummis. My time has expired, General. Thank you. Mr. Chaffetz. General, I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. I want to complete the thought from Congresswoman Lummis. I know you care deeply about our military family. You are one. We have parents, loved ones, brothers, sisters. What would you say to the mother of one of the people that was killed? Did we, did the military, did the Pentagon, did the United States of America do everything it could to save those people? General Lovell. I would say sorry for your loss and your sacrifice. We should have done more, whether it was in preparation prior to or execution at the time, even if we simply just burned gas in airplanes moving people. We have to have the confidence of the American people that provide us with their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, moms and dads, and continue to fill the uniforms and to fill those civilian positions that are so key and so brave as well out there in harm's way. We have to ensure that we rebuild the trust. This is Bob Lovell talking to you now. We have to rebuild their trust. It's a big part of why I want to be here, because we need to say to them, we should have done more, and we owe it to the memory of those four people that are fallen and to those that were hurt and wounded. Mr. Chaffetz. Could we have done more? General Lovell. Sure, we could have done more. Mr. Chaffetz. Secretary Hillary Clinton whispered, evidently, according to one of the mothers, whispered in the ear, said it was the video that had done this. Is that true? General Lovell. Absolutely not, sir. Mr. Chaffetz. When did you think it was over? When were Americans in harm's way? When were they safe? General Lovell. They're still not safe today, sir. Mr. Chaffetz. When did you think the fight was over? General Lovell. We're still there. Mr. Chaffetz. That night, though, September 12, while we still had people in Benghazi, when was the fight over? General Lovell. When the people from Benghazi finally made their way back and were extracted back to Tripoli. Mr. Chaffetz. Your opinion, your vantage point there in Libya, was Al Qaeda on the run? General Lovell. No, sir. Mr. Chaffetz. What was going on with Al Qaeda September 11, September 12, in the months leading up to that? Were they on the run? General Lovell. No, sir. They were actually, affiliates and other Islamic extremists, were actually responsible for the perpetration of these attacks. Mr. Chaffetz. Are they growing in strength, shrinking in strength? General Lovell. My estimation would be that they were growing in strength, in number and in capability. Mr. Chaffetz. My understanding is that your shop, J2, AFRICOM, on September 14, 17 hours, 17 hours before the Ben Rhodes email, they actually produced a document to my ranking member and other people on this committee, the front of this email is stamped Secret, but the second page, I believe, is not classified. It's not stamped with anything. In deference, I'm not putting it out there, but what I do hope this committee does, what I do hope the American people can see for themselves is what the military intelligence thought was happening there in Libya, and clearly, they put this out saying it says multiple times, I've read it myself. It says Al Qaeda. It says Ansar al-Sharia. It says AQIM. And that this was sent to the State Department as the best intelligence that you had, to the State Department, as to what happened at the attack and what the attack profile might look like if we wanted to counter. Do you have knowledge of this document? Are you familiar with this document, and as I described it, would that be an accurate representation? General Lovell. Not seeing the document itself, but I will certainly comment on the information that you just characterized and, yes, that was the picture that we were working with. Those were the facts we were working with. Mr. Chaffetz. And to my fellow colleagues here, again, the facts as we know them, the military intelligence, folks sharing with the IC community, sharing with the State Department, they believed that it was Al Qaeda, AQIM, Ansar al-Sharia, that was responsible for this attack. That was the best information. Those were the facts as we have them. My time is expired. I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings. I thank the gentleman for yielding. General, first of all, I want to thank you for your testimony. As I sit here and I listen to many witnesses as a lawyer, I could tell that this is something that is very important to you, and I thank you for coming forward. And you talked about the military and how we have to protect them and our State Department people and certainly, and I agree with you a million percent. And one of the things that I've done as a member of this committee is also try to protect the integrity of the people who come before us. We have had General Ham, Admiral Leidig, Admiral Losey, and they came to different opinions, and that's okay. They're probably watching this right now, and I want to make sure that just as you, I'm sure, feel very strongly about your opinion, I want to make sure that you're saying what I think you're saying, so that they are clear, because they are men who have given their lives for our country, too. And so I just want to ask you a few things. I want to go to you, because it seems like you're saying one thing in response to questions from this side of the room and another thing in response to questions from the other side of the room. In your written testimony to the committee you said this, ``The discussion is not in the could or could not in relation to time, space and capability. The point is we should have tried.'' But when Mr. Connolly was asking you questions, you said you were not in the chain of command. You said you weren't really talking about Benghazi, but about the future, and you said that you agreed with the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Buck McKeon, who said that the military did, in fact, try. So let me just go through the specific steps the military took on that night and ask you whether they are accurate because, again, we have got people here like General Ham who've testified before us and given statements that maybe give different opinions. First, Chairman McKeon found that our military, including General Ham, General Dempsey and others, authorized two Marine fast platoons in Rota, Spain to prepare to deploy. Do you agree that this did, in fact, occur? Did that happen? Do you know? General Lovell. That they moved forward, yes. Mr. Cummings. Yes or no? General Lovell. Yes. Mr. Cummings. Second, Chairman McKeon found that a special operations unit assigned to the European command known as Commander's In-extremis Force, CIF, which was training in Croatia was ordered to move to a U.S. Naval air station in Sigonella, Italy. Do you dispute that? General Lovell. No, sir. Mr. Cummings. And, third, Chairman McKeon found that a special operations unit in the United States was also dispatched to the region. You don't dispute that, do you? General Lovell. No. Mr. Cummings. So I'm afraid I just don't understand why you are testifying here today under oath that the United States military did not try to help the night of the attacks, and how do you explain that? And if I'm misstating you, correct me. General Lovell. Yes, I did not say that they did not try the evening of those attacks. Mr. Cummings. So what did you say? I'm sorry. Again, I know General Ham is watching this, so I want him to be clear. General Lovell. I'm not disputing any of their actions or testimony in that. What I'm speaking to is as a Nation, we should try to do more, that the preparations prior to, the capability and capacity that we put forward in order to deal with situations such as this, so that in the future as we find ourselves out there in a expeditionary government environment or just in places around the world that we have provided as much military capacity and capability as we can muster so that we can support the people and have their backs in these situations. My testimony was not to counter the previous statements---- Mr. Cummings. I just wanted to make sure we were clear. That's all. And so we all agree that we would have liked, all of us would have liked the military to have responded more quickly, and changes have been made to allow the military to respond faster, but the facts are that the military did mobilize forces. It did act and it did try. So will you concede that point now that you have been presented with the actual evidence? I mean, so you agree that they did try? General Lovell. I have always stated that they had tried and acknowledged that. My point is that there is more that we should be able to do, and if there is a further line that we can move towards, if across the interagency, this is spoken about in the way that you described it to me, sir, as a DOD issue. This is not about a DOD issue. This is an interagency issue, and that's what we really need to look at here. And I respect absolutely what the House Armed Services Committee put together, but they looked at it from a DOD perspective. We need to look, and why I came to this body was because I felt that it looked more broadly across the spectrum of all of the agencies. And the fact of the matter is, that's the perspective we need to have so that we can see exactly across the board how did we interact? How did we behave? How did that translate into action? And most importantly in many situations, inaction. As we have heard from some of my colleagues here, inaction can, at times, even be worse so that we can do that in the future in a different way, but we need a comprehensive across-the-board interagency view so that we can move ourselves forward into those next steps. Mr. Cummings. Again, I want to thank you very much. General Lovell. Thank you, sir. Chairman Issa. [Presiding.] Mr. Cummings, would you yield for a question. I'm trying to understand. All of the units that you mentioned were deployed to Tripoli. None of them were ever headed to Benghazi. You know that; right? Mr. Cummings. Yes. Chairman Issa. So when it comes to what was done for the people dying in Benghazi, none of those were going to help them. They weren't activated for the people dying in Benghazi. Mr. Cummings. Well, I asked him what I wanted to ask him, and he was very clear, and I appreciate it. Chairman Issa. Thank you. We now go to the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Lummis. Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield such portion of my time to Mr. Chaffetz as he wishes to use. Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming. To follow up on the chairman's point, General, and to point the ranking member is trying to make. We had two fast teams that in a public setting General Ham has said can respond within hours. And I think that begs the question why, why, did the fast team go into Tripoli and it took them almost 24 hours to get there, 24 hours? These people operate on an end plus just a few hours, and yet it took them 24 hours. I think that begs the question. The other thing is it's very clear that the fast team was not intended to go engage in the fight. That's not what a fast team does. It's not what they're engaged to do. It's not what they train to do. They go in to secure an embassy. If you want to put somebody in the fight, somebody who's going to go extract people who are under the gun, there are other troops and other types of assets that you would put in there. But these people were not put into place to go into Benghazi. And the CIF, the Commanders In-Extremis Force, again, begs the question. This fight started as 9:40 p.m. The General has just said it was six something in the morning before they were able to get out of Benghazi. It was so bad in Tripoli that they had to evacuate the embassy in Tripoli and go to another secure facility. So, again, did they try to do what they were ordered to do? I think the General is absolutely right. Were they ordered to engage in the fight in Benghazi? The answer is unfortunately no. That's the question. That's the concern. General, do you have any comments about what I said? Is there anything that you would disagree with, take issue with or want to further comment on? General Lovell. No, sir, I would not. Mr. Chaffetz. What about the idea that the fast team is getting ready to deploy? People are dead. We're taking a fire. We're in a fight. Why did the fast team have to change clothes out of their military uniforms and into civilian clothes? Do you have any knowledge about that? General Lovell. The knowledge I have I was not directly related in, but I watched the conversation ensue in the room. It was a sensitivity to the impact potentially in Libya. Mr. Chaffetz. Well, what do you think about it? What do you think about it? General Lovell. Sir, at that point in time, someone must have thought it was a great idea to have Marines be out of uniform potentially to go in there, but I like Marines in uniform and Marines to---- Mr. Chaffetz. Why do they wear a uniform? General Lovell. Pardon me, sir? Mr. Chaffetz. Why? Why do they wear a uniform? General Lovell. Why wouldn't they? Mr. Chaffetz. Why do they wear a uniform? General Lovell. They wear a uniform because without saying a word, it's the visual symbol of the United States of America, the United States Marine Corps and what it's represented for hundreds of years. Mr. Chaffetz. The outrage here is we got to fight. We got Americans dying. And somebody at the State Department it looks like wanted them to change their clothes because they didn't want them going in there with the American flag. They didn't want them going in there wearing the American uniform. They wear it to carry ammunition, to carry weapons. They do it so they know who's on who's side. And it took them almost an hour later to get them to engage because they wanted them to look better. That's the outrage. General, do you have any other personal comment? You've been in the military for more than 33 years. Why, how, have you ever seen that happen before? We're in the fight. How does that make you feel? General Lovell. I don't want to see that happen again. If Marines are our choice, and they're going forward, they're in uniform because they're our Marines. We have other forces that can go places that aren't wearing that uniform. Mr. Chaffetz. And they were going to Tripoli, correct? They weren't going to Benghazi. General Lovell. That's right. Mr. Chaffetz. I'm sorry? General Lovell. Yes, sir. That's correct. Mr. Chaffetz. That were headed where? General Lovell. They were going into Tripoli. Mr. Chaffetz. They weren't even going to Benghazi. That's the point. I thank the gentlewoman for her time. Mrs. Lummis. Reclaiming my time. General, I have one last question. It's about a gentleman named Andrew Shapiro. This is someone who is a former Assistant Secretary of State, former Senate staffer to former Secretary Clinton, played a prominent role in coming out to AFRICOM and providing guidance on what the military would do with respect to Libya. Did Mr. Shapiro's prominence seem odd to you given your military experience? General Lovell. He was in the Pol-Mil Bureau. The Pol-Mil Bureau was active with Africa Command, especially through our J5 shop. His area was influential in that we would certainly need to coordinate what it is that we were doing with that interagency partner, and he did come to the command and interact with members in the command. Mrs. Lummis. My time is expired. I yield back. Thank you. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady. We now go not gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar. Mr. Gosar. General Lovell, in your testimony you described the new normal in Libya was a formerly intact country now fractured and divided along many lines. Was there anything normal about the so-called new normal in Libya after Qadhafi, and could you elaborate on that? General Lovell. Normal, by my definition, would be a functioning government that has intact a political process, a prospering economy, and a military that's disciplined and able to fend for the defense of the nation. That, as we have heard here today, the Libyans continue to struggle with as they move forward. Mr. Gosar. But particularly after the fall of Qadhafi, it becomes more chaotic. Would you agree? General Lovell. Absolutely. Mr. Gosar. Now, in your role as intelligence, could you highlight what you knew beforehand about eastern Libya? What were you predisposed as far as following intelligence? General Lovell. Well, in eastern Libya, obviously that's where, for us, some of the rebel activity at the time began. Much of what we also watched in that area was who were, what we would consider the good guys and the bad guys. What really were the roles that those forces were in that were militias or others. When you are in the J2 shop, you're continuously trying to identify, especially forces that are not part of government forces, you are trying to discern all the time how friendly to our viewpoint are those types of forces, so we spent a lot of time on eastern Libya as well other areas around the country because it's so fractionalized by militia groups and entities that have varying interests. Some can be interested in their community being a safe place to live and prosper and can be fairly what we would consider benign in their viewpoint, but then there are others where we would look at them, and we would consider them extremists, whether they would be Islamist extremists or others, so constantly trying to keep track of what was going on around the country, not just even in that particular portion. Mr. Gosar. But in that portion, would you consider maybe a hot bed? General Lovell. A hot bed, absolutely, that's where the strongest part of the revolution came from. Mr. Gosar. So a normal CEO, or somebody that's receiving this intelligence, has got to put higher priority on that; right? General Lovell. That's one of the areas in that country to put the high priority on, absolutely, yeah. Mr. Gosar. I want to go back to the Accountability Review Board from 1999 in Nairobi, Kenya. I mean, we outlined specifics that should have been in place, so the State Department should have known. I mean, we just had Admiral Pickering, who was part of that discussion, sitting here in front of this committee earlier. They should have known, because if we had have followed those protocols, we wouldn't have had this catastrophe. Do you believe this event was totally preventable, in Benghazi? General Lovell. Totally preventable? Mr. Gosar. Yep. General Lovell. No, not totally preventable. We're dealing in an environment--let me clarify my answer. The reason I don't believe it's totally preventable is because we're dealing in a hostile environment, in an environment where we're dealing with extremist organizations. Mr. Gosar. I guess let me qualify that. General Lovell. Okay. Mr. Gosar. Given the information that should have been normally going up the chain for somebody to make a decision, this was preventable? General Lovell. Oh, in order to perhaps not even expose yourself and be there. Mr. Gosar. Exactly. Are you familiar with the term ``malpractice''? General Lovell. I certainly don't want to have it happen to me, yeah. Mr. Gosar. Well, I mean, I'm a dentist impersonating a politician, so I mean, America doesn't understand a lot of our jargon, and what happens is when an executive who is in charge of facilitating knows that the Inman Standards of a consulate do not meet those qualifications, that they're on a hot bed of activity, they knew something was coming along those lines, that you should have prevented this, would you consider this malpractice? General Lovell. By the definition that you gave, I would go along with that.? Mr. Gosar. Ms. Schake? Ms. Schake. I am hesitant, to be honest. And the reason is because of the confidence I place in the good judgment of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who made a set of choices himself about his engagement, his trip to Benghazi, and while I absolutely agree with you that the State Department should have been paying more attention to the growing jihadist threat and the growing militancy of militia in Benghazi, I would not want to take away from an American ambassador the ability to assess risk of accomplishing his mission or putting himself in harm's way, which I think Chris Stevens did a lot of in Benghazi to tragic effect. Mr. Gosar. But doesn't he also have the impugned liability to those that are surrounding him as well? Ms. Schake. That's an excellent question. Mr. Gosar. Yeah. Last one, Mr. Ross. Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Since I wasn't in the room, I can't speak to whether it was or not. Mr. Gosar. But given the circumstances of what we have seen played out by the information, there was definite neglect. Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. I think we see a lot of deficiencies, both in terms of what happened at the time and particularly---- Mr. Gosar. And leading up to. Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Both leading up to what happened at the time and also thereafter the response. As you know, sir, malpractice is a very steep standard, so I couldn't speak to that, but the deficiencies are clear. Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentlemen and yield. Chairman Issa. I thank all of you, and I'll yield myself my final 5 minutes. General, and this really applies in some ways to all of you, but I'm going to concentrate on the General for a moment. General, when I was on active duty, I did joint exercises, had the opportunity to serve with a lot of other services, and they used terms like JAMFU and JAFU and all kinds of terms. They may not be as popular today, but they generally stood for joint Army-Air Force foul-up. Not always that way. Joint Army-Marine foul-up. But in your case, this wasn't about the joint command that's known as AFRICOM, this was about interagency. If I understand you correctly, on 9/11, leading up to it with the normalization policy, but on 9/11, with the assets that were available in and out of Libya, you had a State Department, to a certain extent, under Mr. Shapiro, under somebody who had special authority for one country in Africa while near east, the rest of it was run by other people. You had one country, Libya, that was being run by a different group of people, and you mentioned this earlier. And they determined whether or not you got to go. Is that correct? General Lovell. When you say ``got to go,'' you're talking about the---- Chairman Issa. If Deputy Assistant Secretary, I guess he is, Andrew Shapiro, if he had called the Deputy Combatant Commander and said we need you to put all assets on the target, would you have been taking action at that command in concert with the European command to begin moving assets toward Benghazi sooner? General Lovell. From my perspective working as a staff officer there in J2 as I saw what was going on surrounding, it appeared to me that had the State Department made such a request within the authority that existed on the part of the Combatant Commander, they could have done more. Chairman Issa. And within the joint---- General Lovell. That's my understanding. Chairman Issa. Right, and within the joint interagency arrangement, you saw before, during and after 9/11, 2012, the decision on movement, if I understand you correctly, did not belong to the Department of Defense. It belonged to the Department of State. General Lovell. There are certain things a Combatant Commander can do, but a greater sense of interaction and what it is that would happen within that country, absolutely, consultation with Department of State would have been warranted. Chairman Issa. So in your opinion, the Vice Admiral, General Ham, yourself, nobody out of Stuttgart had the authority to unilaterally launch combatant aircraft or personnel? General Lovell. Combatant Commander has certain authorities, absolutely. How coordinated they would be with the outcome desired by the State Department and the executive within our Nation, that's where that Combatant Commander has that dialogue along with the Secretary of Defense to ensure that we take the right action? Chairman Issa. Basically put a suit and tie on, dress nice, and hide your weapons to go in as Marines, to take a little liberty with the order that was given to get out of your uniforms before going into Tripoli, that was a State Department decision. That would not, to your knowledge, have been a Combatant Commander decision? General Lovell. I wouldn't think a Combatant Commander would say that, but it's not a typical approach to take with Marines that you're sending forward into harm's way, in my experience. Chairman Issa. Well, you know, we're an armed service, and if you show a heavy assault rifle or a machine gun, generally the uniform just emphasizes who you are because you're showing what you can do. The fast team did have a number of weapons. In your opinion, now I'll have you take off the September 11th hat, as a retired long-serving military officer who saw the relationship and the arrangements that existed for Africa at the African Command relative to how decisions were made to go or not go in support of Americans in harm's way, would you insist on material changes in how we do business so that there could be faster response in the future? General Lovell. Sir, one of the very first things I would look at would be the capacity and capability that's afforded to the Combatant Commander that would be immediately at his disposal. That is absolutely necessary just given the sheer size of the continent itself and the number of governments that exist on the continent, the number of countries. So many things can happen on that continent in any of those countries, and it can be anything from a need for a neo evacuation to, you know, use of force and power, anywhere along that spectrum. First and foremost would be to properly, or equip to the best extent possible, agreed there were other arrangements with CENTCOM and UCOM, et cetera, and we have finite resources, and we're doing the best we can. I understand that. But in this instance, it seems focused on this particular command, I would look and say if we're asking for them to do more and to ensure that we have got the backs of all of our Americans around the continent and we're partnering with the African partners that we have there on the continent, we certainly need these types of resources in locations proximate to where they would have to be engaged. Chairman Issa. Thank you. Any other witness have anything else? In that case, I'd like to thank the witnesses for taking time out of their busy schedules to appear before us today, and we stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:26 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] APPENDIX ---------- Material Submitted for the Hearing Record [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8089.085