U.S. to Train Libyan Military, Including Islamists

Ansar al Shariah supporters protest the United States' capture of Abu Anas al-Libi / AP

Ansar al Shariah supporters protest the United States’ capture of Abu Anas al-Libi / AP

BY: 

Simi Valley, Calif. — The U.S. military is preparing to conduct military and special operations training for Libya’s military and the training will risk including Islamist terrorists among the trainees, according to the commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command.

Adm. William McRaven, the commander who helped lead the covert raid to kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, said in a brief interview Saturday that the counterterrorism training operation has not begun. “We’re in the early stages,” he told the Free Beacon.

McRaven said a major gun battle erupted in Tripoli last week among opposing militias, a sign of instability in the North African country. The training is needed to stabilize Libya, an oil-rich country beset by mounting terrorism and Islamist militias.

During a panel discussion on the war on terrorism at the Reagan National Defense Forum, McRaven disclosed that the Libyan military training would include both conventional forces training and special operations training and that there will be risks.

“We are going to have to assume some risks,” McRaven said. “Right now we have the authorities to do that training, and I think as a country we have to say there is probably some risk that some of the people we will be training with do not have the most clean records, but at the end of the day it is the best solution we can find to train them to deal with their own problems.”

McRaven disclosed the plans for Libyan training when asked about problems encountered in training foreign special operations forces.

McRaven said the training would include a “very, very thorough review” of the Libyans who will take part.

Read more at Free Beacon

 

Obama Inc. Wants Libyans to Come to US, Work in “Aviation Maintenance” and “Nuclear Fields”

Libyan_Gernade-450x240By Daniel Greenfield at Front Page

I can’t think of a single possible thing that could go wrong with this plan. I only wish there was some way to get the Saudis, Iranians and Pakistanis involved to really improve our national security.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have obtained an internal Department of Homeland Security draft final regulation that would lift a 20 year ban on Libyans coming to the US to work in sensitive fields.

The document — highlighted Thursday by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz — shows that DHS is working to amend its regulations to eliminate the restrictions on Libyan nationals and foreign nationals acting on behalf of Libyan entities from coming to the United States to work in aviation maintenance, flight operations, or to study nuclear-related fields.

“It is shocking that the Obama Administration is turning a blind eye to real terrorist threats that exist in Libya today,” Goodlatte said in a statement. “Just over a year ago, four Americans were killed in the pre-planned terrorist attacks on the American Consulate in Benghazi.”

Libya is basically run by terrorists after we helped the terrorists overthrow their government. The country is in the middle on an ongoing civil war fought by militias. Central authority is a myth.

So this is the perfect time to find us some Libyans to study nuclear fields and work in aviation maintenance. It couldn’t be more perfect.

 

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Connection to Benghazi

By Kevin McCullough:

On Wednesday June 26, 2013 reports began to pop up across the Arabic world citing an internal Libyan government memo that has not yet been acknowledged in the American press.

The memo is pictured here:


*Photo Courtesy of Raymond Ibrahim

Multiple sources have confirmed this document details several confessions of the six Egyptians in Libyan custody for the 9.11.12 bombing of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

The document details the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi as being involved with and in the funding, support, planning, and execution of the attack.

What is unique about this document is that its content wasn’t leaked to the press in some sort of salacious move. This is simply an interdepartmental memo from the Libyan National Security offices in Tripoli to the Ministry of the Interior. Written solely as a perfunctory after-action report as the results of the Libyan investigation in the events of that night.

It was prepared by Mahmoud Ibrahim Sharif, the Director of National Security of Libya.

In his report Sharif conveys that the Libyan investigation unearthed an Egyptian (terror) cell that had been involved in the planning and execution of the attack. Six confessions from those arrested at the scene–all of them Egyptian–and all connected to the U.S. terror watch listed group Ansar al-Sharia.

Concerning the most important claim of the Libyan memo, Raymond Ibrahim, (an American research librarian, translator, and author, whose focus is Arabic history, language, and current events) indicates that “during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members ‘confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi…'”

Read more at Town Hall

 

Our Old Grand Fantasies About Radical Islam

 

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last" Winston Churchill

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last” Winston Churchill

By Victor Davis Hanson

Most things that we read in the popular media about radical Islam are fantasies. They are promulgated in the mistaken belief that such dogmas will appease terrorists, or at least direct their ire elsewhere. But given the recent news — murdering in Algeria, war in Mali, the Syrian mess, and Libyan chaos — let us reexamine some of these more common heresies. Such a review is especially timely, given that Mr. Brennan believed [1] that jihad is largely a personal quest for spiritual perfection; Mr. Kerry believed [2] that Bashar Assad was a potentially moderating reformer; and Mr. Hagel believed [3] that Iran was not worthy of sanctions, Hezbollah was not deserving of ostracism, and Israel is equally culpable for the Middle East mess.

1. Contact with the West Moderates Radical Muslims

In theory, residence in the West could instruct young Muslim immigrants on the advantages of free markets, constitutional government, and legally protected freedoms. But as we saw with many of the 9/11 hijackers, for a large subset of Muslim expatriates, a strange schizophrenia ensues: they enjoy — indeed, seek out — the material bounty of the West. But in the abstract, far too many either despise what wealth and affluence do to the citizenry (e.g., gay marriage, feminism, religious tolerance, secularism, etc.) or try to dream up conspiracy theories to explain why their adopted home is better off than the native one that they abandoned.

Finally, foreign students, journalists, and religious expatriates tend to congregate around American campuses and in liberal big cities. There, they are more often nursed on [4] American race/class/gender critiques of America, and so apparently believe that their own anti-Americanism must naturally be shared by millions of Americans from Bakersfield to Nashville. Take Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s new theocratic president. He should appreciate the U.S. It gave him refuge from persecution in Egypt. It allowed unfettered expression of his radical anti-American views. It schooled him in meritocratic fashion and offered him secure employment at the CSU system, despite his foreign national status. It gave citizenship to two of his daughters (apparently retained). But the result is that Mr. Morsi is an abject anti-Semite (“apes and pigs” [5]) and anti-American. He does not believe [6] terrorists caused 9/11. He wants the imprisoned, murderous blind sheik, who was the architect of the first World Trade Center bombing, sent home to Egypt. And he is pushing Egypt into a Sunni version of Iran.

2. The West Must Atone for Its Past Behavior

I have noted elsewhere [7] both the fantasies found in Barack Obama’s Cairo speech [8] and their general irrelevance to the Muslim world. Polls from Pakistan to Palestine — both recipients of massive U.S. aid — show that the U.S. is as unpopular under Obama as it was under Bush. All small nations have writs against large ones, especially the globally ubiquitous U.S. But America must be seen in comparison to … what? Russia’s artillery and missile barrage that leveled Muslim Grozny (which the UN declared the most destroyed city in the world)? China, which outlaws free expression of Islam and persecutes Muslim minorities? Both are largely left alone by al-Qaeda, due to their unapologetic attitudes, possible unpredictable response, and inability to offer attackers a globalized media forum.

In contrast, no single nation lets in more Muslim immigrants than does the U.S. No non-Muslim nation gives more foreign aid than does the U.S. to the Muslim world — Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, and Palestine. No nation has so sought to save Muslims from dictatorial violence — whether bombing European Christians to save Muslims in the Balkans; jawboning Kuwaitis to spare Palestinian turncoats in 1991; trying to feed starving Somalis; aiding Muslims fighting Russians in Afghanistan; freeing Kuwaitis from Saddam; rebuilding Iraq; rebuilding Afghanistan from Taliban terror; trying to free Libyans from Gadhafi; and on and on.

The sources of radical Islam rage are thus not past U.S. actions. Read The Al Qaeda Reader [9] to chart all the bizarre excuses that bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri alleged were the roots of their anger at the U.S. So why exactly does radical Islam hate us? Mostly because of the age-old wages [10] of insecurity, envy, and a sense of inferiority — and the hunch that such gripes win apologies, attention, and sometimes money. In a globalized world, Muslims see daily that everyone from South Koreans to North Americans are better off. Why? In their view, not because of market economies, meritocracies, gender equality, religious pluralism, consensual government, and the Western menu of personal freedom. To draw that conclusion would mean to reject tribalism, gender apartheid, religious intolerance, anti-Semitism, statism, authoritarianism, and conspiracy theory — and to admit indigenous rather than foreign causation. Instead, it is far easier to blame “them” for turning the majestic Islamic empire of old into the chaos of modern Islam — as well as to fault Arab secularists whose lack of religious zealotry allowed the West to move ahead. All antidotes to these deductive beliefs — foreign aid, democratization, outreach, better communications — have so far proved ambiguous at best.

3. Israel Is the Source of Muslim Rage

Note two facts about the current mass killing in the Muslim world, in Afghanistan, Algeria, Libya, Mali, Syria, and Yemen. First, it has nothing to do with Israel. Second, the Muslim world is largely silent about the carnage that dwarfs the toll of an Israeli response to missiles from Gaza. The Muslim world cannot do anything about Muslim-on-Muslim violence, but apparently thinks others can do a great deal about Israeli-on-Muslim violence, which is sporadic at best.

Why, then, do Westerners so often scapegoat Israel? A number of very human considerations, apart from the most obvious of anti-Semitism, the Arab world’s oil wealth, and the vast demographic fact of 1 billion persons versus 7 million. We have influence with Westernized and liberal Israel, none with Mr. Morsi or the Libyan assassins or the Algerian hostage-killers. Symbolic pressure is a psychological mechanism to excuse factual impotence. The Arab world is so complex and so torn by tribalism, religious schisms, and embedded pathologies that the Western mind seeks a simple sword stroke to Israel to cut such a complex Gordian knot. For now the problem is supposed to be Mr. Netanyahu, who in appearance and speech seems like an easily demonized American neocon. Yet every writ against Israel is elsewhere in the world commonplace and mostly ignored: our drone killings trump their targeted assassinations; a divided Nicosia trumps Jerusalem; occupied islands off Japan or Tibet trump the West Bank; a million ethnically cleansed Jews from Arab capitals or 13 million Germans cleansed from Eastern Europe trump the Arab flight from Palestine. For a displaced German now to speak of a right of return to “Danzig” is creepy; for a Palestinian to demand residence in Haifa after a similar seven decades of absence is appropriate.

4. The U.S. Can Solve the Muslim World’s Problems.

I supported the war in Iraq as a way of getting rid of a long-term enemy of the U.S., Saddam Hussein, in accordance with the 23 writs of action approved by the U.S. Congress. We did that, ended the 12-year containment and no-fly-zones, and defeated a huge Islamist coalition that flocked to Iraq to wage jihad. That said, Iraq is more stable than Syria or Libya largely because a U.S. presence baby-sat democratic change. To the degree that Iraq will revert to the usual Arab paradigm is probably contingent on the fact that the U.S. refused to leave even a small garrison and simply pulled out lock, stock, and barrel.

Elsewhere, I don’t think the Western intervention in Libya led to much of an improvement over Gadhafi’s nightmarish dictatorship. Morsi may make the kleptocratic Mubarak look good in another year. Take your pick in Syria: the murderous security of the Assad secret police or the murderous chaos of Islamist gangs. I am sure that there are Google execs among all the dissidents, but I am also sure that none will come to power — and most will soon flee their respective countries. No one now is pressuring 8th century Saudi Arabia to become a 21st century “democratic” Egypt. Eastern Europe — warped by a half-century of Soviet-imposed communism, torn by past wars between Russia and Europe, with a baleful legacy of Ottoman occupation in the southeast, and distant from the Renaissance, Reformation, and New World exploration — was saved by its Western heritage and its incorporation into Europe, at least for now. As far as the Muslim world, I see no such heritage or possible likeminded interventions from the West. Perhaps some day globalization or Westernized oil-fed elites in the manner of a Dubai may make a difference — or perhaps not.

In this regard, the Obama administration’s therapeutic approach [11] — jihad is a personal journey; Major Hasan committed workplace violence and endangered the Army’s diversity program; terrorism is a man-caused disaster; anti-terrorism is an overseas contingency operation; there is no war on Islamic terror; trying KSM in a civilian court; loud talk of shutting down Guantanamo; reading Miranda rights to terrorist suspects; loudly inventing underappreciated Islamic discoveries and inventions — is not just silly and embarrassing, but dangerous. The therapeutic approach sends the message to the young terrorist that we are in some way culpable for the violence that he intends to commit, that there may not be dangerous repercussions to his terrorist acts, or that we do not believe in the values of our culture as much as he does in his own.

Read more at PJ Media

Algerian Attack Was Carried Out Using Weapons and Gear Provided to Libyan Rebels

015350462_400By

Obama’s illegal regime change operation, carried out without Congressional approval, is continuing to reap its bloody benefits.

Many of the Islamist terrorists shot their way into the In Amenas compound on Thursday using the AK104 model of Kalashnikov, which was typically used by Libyan rebels in the war against Muammar Gaddafi.

They brought F5 rockets that also surfaced in the Libyan war, said the security source.

The Islamists wore the same type of outfits that Qatar provided to Libyan National Transitional Council rebels by Qatar – yellow flak jackets with brown patches, known as “chocolate chip” camouflage. The garments are copies of ones worn by Americans in the Gulf war.

The terrorists also employed 60mm gun-mortars used by France and Libyan rebels.

Can we have a conversation about missile and assault rifle control in Libya? If the Obama Administrations can control its obsessive need to arm terrorists and overthrow governments while leaving chaos in their wake, that might help save a lot of lives.

Muslim Brotherhood Using Benghazi as its Political Base

jp-benghazi1-articleLarge-450x262Front Page:

By Daniel Greenfield

The Economist story on the Muslim Brotherhood’s plans for Libya is interesting, and not just because it shreds the myth that the Libyan election led to the rise of a moderate secular government, but for the way that it highlights the Muslim Brotherhood’s political base in Islamist Benghazi.

We know that the US Mission was forced to rely on the Muslim Brotherhood for protection in Benghazi. And that’s a reflection of the political power of the Brotherhood in that city.

Starting from a much weaker base than in Egypt and Tunisia, where the Brothers have been strong for decades, the Libyan party has opened offices across the country, including a seven-floor tower in Benghazi, the second city. It has signed up hundreds of members in places where other parties have handfuls, including 1,500 in Benghazi’s central district alone.

In parliament the party won only 17 out of 80 seats that were competed for under party labels. But of the other 120 seats, reserved for people running as independents, about 60 have since joined a Brotherly caucus. It meets regularly and has an elected leader. Its cohesion enabled the party to play kingmaker during the selection of a prime minister, blocking candidates it deemed unfriendly. Its party leaders hope to use its numerical strength to give a new election law an Islamist flavour.

Outside Tripoli, the capital, the Brothers are represented in many local councils, often the best-functioning part of the new state. In Misrata, the third city, they ousted the elected mayor.

“Worries about some forms of Islamism are justified,” concedes Ramadan Eldarsi, a party bigwig in Benghazi. “But we just want to build a modern state. There is nothing new or scary that we will force people to do.”

Asked about Ansar al-Sharia, the extremist group that killed the American ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, four months ago, Mr Eldarsi says defensively, “we should have a conversation with them.”

This is what Obama’s regime change war in Libya has led to.

Muslim Brotherhood Fox Was Hired To Protect Our Benghazi Consulate Henhouse

LIBYA-UNREST-USLarry Bell interviews Joan Neuhaus Schaan:

Joan Neuhaus Schaan is a Fellow in Homeland Security and Terrorism at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston.  Her first involvement in the field of terrorism and homeland security came as an officer with the United States Naval Reserve in the mid-1990’s, where she served as an anti-terrorism training officer for her squadron and was responsible for the force protection briefings for deployments to the Americas and Pacific. She was appointed to the Texas Commission on Private Security by Governor George W. Bush in 1999, and was later reappointed by Governor Rick Perry.

Larry Bell: Joan, in our discussions you have pointed out that our Benghazi consulate which was attacked on 9/11 was being “guarded” by a militia with Muslim Brotherhood ties, and that the Al Qaeda-associated assailants may have used weapons provided to Libyan rebel militias with support from the U.S.  Please provide some background.

Joan Neuhaus Schaan: Yes, this is my concern.  To begin, the U.S. supported rebels in the overthrow of  Mu’ammar al-Gadhafi, even though our government was aware that a significant portion of the Libyan rebels were comprised of Muslim Brotherhood and/or al-Qaeda affiliates who subsequently formed a coalition in Libya’s  new transitional government. That support was provided on the basis of a secret presidential order that bypassed congressional approval under the War Powers Act

The Muslim Brotherhood had been outlawed in Egypt prior to the fall of Hosni Mubarak, and in its 80 year history it has been responsible for the founding of many foreign terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East and Africa named on the U.S. State Department list. Much of the Al-Qaeda senior leadership came from these same terror organizations.

The press has reported that U.S. support to the Libyan rebels was provided with the assistance of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and some portion was funneled through the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.  I have not seen a report on the exact form U.S. support for the rebels took, but clearly at some point the support would have been translated into funding, intelligence, weapons and/or manpower from the U.S. and/or its partners.

For example, the European press reported that Qatar provided experts to help train fighters at a camp operated by a known member of Al Qaeda and the LIFG, Ismail Sallabi.  A blogger reported that Ismail Sallabi was the founder of the Feb. 17th Brigade, and held meetings with NATO officials in Qatar.  This would be the same Feb. 17th Brigade that provided the U.S. Benghazi consulate security.   Press reports immediately after the September 11th attack indicated that LIFG was in contact with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood just prior to the consulate attack.

The military leader chosen by the post-Gadhafi transitional government was Emir of the Libyan al-Qaeda affiliate Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which was founded upon Muslim Brotherhood ideology.

The Muslim Brotherhood had intimate ties with the February 17th Brigade which was assigned to provide security for our Benghazi consulate. In fact, the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood prime minister candidate, upon winning the election, had planned to have the February 17th Brigade commander become Minister of Defense.

And you believe that rebel organizations that benefitted from U.S. support may have had direct roles in the deadly attack?

Yes, there is a distinct possibility that the weapons, training and/or intelligence used in the assault that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens, were obtained as a result of aid we provided to the Libyan rebels or relationships we had developed with the rebels. The U.S. played an integral role in assisting militant Islamists with taking control of a country rich in resources and in close proximity to Europe. Ultimately, these resources can be used to finance the extremist Islamist agenda. A similar scenario appears to  now be playing out in Syria.

Joan, you also believe that the White House and CIA knew much about our dangerous partners before the attack?

That is clearly the case. As reported in the European press and in Wikileaks cables, Benghazi, and particularly near-by Derna, were well known strongholds for al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, and former U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz knew of the rebels’ Islamist tendencies from the onset.  So when President Obama signed the secret order for the CIA to help the Libyan rebels,  senior members of his administration must have known that their leader, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, had a long-time al-Qaeda affiliation, and also that many of the rebel military commanders were LIFG members. According to a New York Times interview, Belhadj had led fighting against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Incidentally, President Obama also signed a secret order to support rebels of a similar background in Syria. Libyans comprise one of the largest contingents of foreign fighters in Syria, and David Sanger has reported that most of the weapons are falling into the hands of the Islamists

And Ambassador Stevens was aware of all of this?

Chances are slim that he wasn’t aware of the circumstances. According to his resume published on the internet, Ambassador Stevens had been active in Libya since at least 2007, serving as Benghazi Deputy Chief of Mission, Interim Ambassador to Libya, Special Representative to the Libyan Transitional Government, and finally as Ambassador.  The ambassador had monitored the status of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the leader of the group that later killed him, upon his transfer from Guantanamo Bay to Libya, and Stevens  is believed to have personally  visited with Qumu  when he was being held in a Libyan prison. Abu Sufian, a member of LIFG, had joined al-Qaeda in Afghanistan where he was captured. Under pressure to release detainees, the Bush administration returned him to Libya to be imprisoned by Gadhafi, who also considered Al Qaeda a serious threat.

All of this obviously challenges any notion that the White House ever believed its own long-repeated talking points attributing the attack on our consulate to an anti-Muslim YouTube video protest in Cairo that spread to Benghazi.

As the Cairo protest was building on Sept. 10th, it was clear that the  crowd was protesting the  U.S. imprisonment of the Blind Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman who was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and provided the fatwa for the 9/11 attack in 2001…not about any video. President Mohamed Morsi, who replaced former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, had called for release of the Blind Sheikh in his inaugural address.

The brother of the Blind Sheikh, along with the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, participated in the protests that began on September 10th which resulted in the burning of the U.S. flag and hoisting of a jihad flag over the U.S. embassy in the early hours of Sept. 11th.  News footage of the ensuing Cairo protests show banners honoring the Blind Sheikh in the background.

Read more at Forbes

 

#StandDown: Obama Let Benghazi 4 Die, Rather than Defy Libyan Authorities

By Daniel Greenfield

FOX News continues to do invaluable work by investigating Benghazigate and Jennifer Griffin and Adam Housley have a new article which raises serious questions about the so-called “Timeline” as well as continuing to pursue the question of why the Benghazi were allowed to die by the Obama Administration.

Now Obama had no problem bombing and invading Libya to prevent a fake massacre in Benghazi whose existence he lied about in a speech to the American people. But he did have a problem sending troops into Libya to prevent an actual massacre of Americans against the wishes of the Al-Qaeda linked Libyan authorities.

The closing paragraph says it all,

According to a source who debriefed those who were at the CIA annex that night, “When they asked for air support, they were told they could have an unarmed drone.”

Any show of air power was clearly off the table. The CIA rescue team chartered a plane too small to use. US rescue teams coming from outside the country were only allowed to enter by the Libyans after all the fighting was done.

That unarmed drone was sent over by General Ham. Meanwhile the rescue op moves as slowly as possible. “It isn’t until 2:53 a.m. (about five hours after the incident began) that those orders are formalized by Panetta and the teams are told they can leave.”

The Pentagon says that the European-based team of rescuers landed at Sigonella air base at 7:57 p.m. on Sept. 12, more than 20 hours after the attack began and 40 minutes after the last survivor was flown out of Tripoli on a U.S. C-17 transport plane.

What cannot be confirmed is what time that team could have been outside Libyan air space. The Pentagon won’t say when they took off from Croatia.

Multiple defense sources say that the plane did not have permission to enter Libya. That permission would have to be secured from the Libyans by the State Department.

And so the rescue was effectively delayed, by both the Libyans and Obama’s cronies, until there was no chance that they would be drawn into a firefight at the CIA annex.

The team was most likely flying on a modified MC-130 P Talon 2. A modified C-130 flying from Croatia about 900 miles from the Libyan coast could have been there under three hours from take-off. Croatia to Libya is the same distance approximately as Washington, D.C., to Miami.

The CIF, which included dozens of Special Operators, was never utilized to help rescue 30 Americans who had fought off attackers on the ground in Benghazi until 5:26 a.m. on Sept. 12. Pentagon officials say it did not arrive in time to help.

Of course not. Helping was not a priority. Collaborating with the Libyan Islamists running things and their precious sensibilities was.

Or this is how it would have been put in Diplospeak. “Armed intervention in Libya will shape a perception on the Arab Street of the new government as American puppets. During this crisis we must rely on indigenous support from Libyan police and military authorities while keeping our intervention as low key as possible. While the deaths of American personnel are regrettable, armed intervention would lead to further attacks and far more bloodshed. The cycle of violence must end with us.”

And so Obama watched while four Americans died.

US Relied on Muslim Brotherhood for Benghazi Consulate Security

By Daniel Greenfield at Front Page

The more we learn about what happened in Benghazi, the clearer things become.

Two U.S. intelligence officials told The Daily Beast that the intelligence community is currently analyzing an intercept between a Libyan politician whose sympathies are with al Qaeda and the Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade—which had been charged with providing local security to the consulate. In the intercept, the Libyan politician apparently asks an officer in the brigade to have his men stand down for a pending attack—another piece of evidence implying the violence was planned in advance.

The Martyrs of the Feb. 17 Revolution Brigade is Islamist and linked with the Muslim Brotherhood. It was repeatedly accused of engaging in atrocities during and after the Libyan Civil War.

Many more-secular politicians in Libya are suspicious of Mr. Bukatef and his brigade because of their own Islamist reputation. He has been a member of Libya’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and one of his group’s commanders reporting to him is Ismail al-Salabi, who leads a group of Islamist fighters and is the brother of Libya’s most prominent Islamist thinker, Ali al-Salabi.

The State Department puts its faith in the Islamists… and the Islamists repaid them the way they always do.

US security officers and the Libyan authorities did not call for help from any formal military or police force — there is none to speak of — but turned to the leader of another autonomous militia with its own Islamist ties.

‘‘We had to coordinate everything,’’ said that militia leader, Fawzi Bukatef, recalling a phone call about the attack that he received from the mission’s security team.

I’m sure there was a whole lot of coordinating going on.