Get Involved!

Sign up as a Citizen Journalist and get involved in Information Activism.

Sign Up for Watchdog Updates!

Benghazi: Most Compelling Scenario not yet explored!

Was Ambassador Stevens a pawn in a diabolical yet simple plan for political gain?  Were the heroic actions of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty… the proverbial Fly in the ointment which will ultimately be the undoing of a “Diabolical Plan” to bolster U.S. / Egyptian relations and solidify Obama as a strong Commander in Chief in the eye’s of the American public just prior to the presidential elections?

Will the theory presented finally provide credible answers to the myriad of lingering questions?  Will it explain the multitude of otherwise irrational actions taken in the Benghazi debacle?  You decide!

Occam’s razor is a logical device intended to help a person select which theoretical alternative to accept. It states that a simple explanation is preferable to a complex one if it explains the data equally well.

Theories surrounding a Weapons Deal gone wrong have been offered regarding the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.  These explanations accurately and factually depict the situation on the ground; however none coherently explain the irrational Course of Actions taken in the weeks prior, during, and after the attack on the U.S. Embassy by Administration, the State Department, CIA, or the Military.  All of these explanations to date leave many unanswered questions;

  • Why were steps taken to reduce compound security in the weeks prior to the attack on Benghazi, as well as denying several request for additional security personnel requests by Ambassador Stevens?
  • How did the Turkish Ambassador walk out of the Embassy unscathed just prior to the attack?
  • Why were Embassy requests for support denied once an attack was eminent or underway?
  • Why were CIA agents less than a mile away told to STAND DOWN, once the embassy was under attack?
  • Why were apparent efforts made to smoke the ambassador out of the compound alive?  The Jihadist had ample manpower and weapons to end the siege quickly if it were a simple KILL mission.
  • Why were Military contingency assets in THEATRE denied and/or ordered to STAND DOWN?

More importantly, who had enough power to effect these changes, who logically had the most to gain, what did they have to gain, and why?

Who had the power reach across various agency and organizations to coordinate the removal of Embassy security in the weeks prior to the attack, who had the power to deny Ambassador Stevens request for additional security, and who had the power to order the CIA and Military contingent in theatre to stand down in a seemingly coordinated fashion leaving the Ambassador at the mercy of Al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood Jihadist?

It is widely acknowledged Ambassador Stevens was a key figure in the Libyan weapons supply pipeline and that he had a long working relationship with Abedehakim Belhadj, the leading authority in the region.  Odds are slim those in the region would want to destroy their main weapons supply route and had nothing tangible to gain from the death of Ambassador Stevens.

Al Qaida Leader Aymin Zawahiri, had recently issued orders for Jihadist to take western prisoners as captives to be used for prisoner exchanges.  Ambassador Stevens would be a very high value target; however when you consider the possible disruption to the flow of weapons to the region, Al Qaida, and the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as the possible political fallout similar to what we are seeing if such an attempt was botched…. The gamble would have to pay huge dividends in return.   A prisoner swap certainly would not rationally justify such a gamble.

Finally, is there a credible scenario which answers those lingering questions, satisfies the parameters of Occam’s razor by offering a logical and simple explanation which explains the data or facts surrounding the theory equally as well as other theories regarding a weapons deal gone awry?  I believe when you look at Benghazi from a global perspective rather than a geopolitical perspective the answer is yes.

In the run-up to the Presidential election, Obama’s foreign policies had come under sharp criticism.  Iran continues its efforts to procure nuclear armament in defiance of inept sanctions.  U.S. / Egyptian relations have declined in the eyes of the American public due to policies which continue to financially support and sell sensitive weapons systems to Egypt despite its trend towards a hard-line Sharia compliant government rather than a democracy, a significant and detrimental change in direction regarding Israel, as well as increased persecution of Coptic Christians and other minorities.

In recent months, Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi has requested the release of the Blind Sheik from the U.S. to which the Administration has expressed a desire to comply with this unpopular request.

In light of this, consider a Benghazi scenario, which would not only facilitate the release of the Blind Sheik, but do it with popular American support as a byproduct of its main objectives.  Objectives which would significantly bolster U.S. / Egyptian relations, improve the image and power of Egyptian President Morsi throughout the Middle East.  More importantly, a scenario which would portray Obama as a strong Commander-in-Chief, and simultaneously gain him desperately needed popularity among likely voters prior to the presidential debates and election.

Consider a scenario in which Al Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood Jihadist were ordered to capture Ambassador Stevens and transfer him to the custody of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  President Morsi, the benefactor of the prevailing Muslim Brotherhood “Freedom & Justice” party which won the popular vote in Egypt would then be in the unique position to help facilitate these many objectives.

President Obama would be in a position to make bold and certain statements in regard to securing the release of Ambassador Stevens by working with his “Allies” in the region.   Egyptian President Morsi could feign a successful negotiation between the Libyan Jihadist to save the Ambassador, while working out details within the framework of the negotiations which would result in the desired release of the blind Sheik and possibly other detainees in U.S. custody.

This is the only scenario  which logically and simply explains otherwise irrational security policies leading up to the attack, failures to support the Ambassador and CIA agents during the attack, the otherwise irrational cover-up by the administration, and answer most other questions surrounding Benghazi in comparison to other theories offered to date.   IN short, a successful mission would have paid HUGE DIVIDENDS……..All things being equal…Occam’s razor!

Randy McDaniels

Former United States Marine who occupational specialty was in Operation and later Counter Intelligence. Served 6 years before being honoraby discharged. A Chapter Leader for ACT! for America and Mentor for the South East. American by the grace of God, Christian by Choice, and Patriotic Warrior by necessity.

More PostsWebsiteTwitterFacebook

Categories: National Security, Politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

RELATED ARTICLES

  1. Florida Bill SB386 passes Senate Judiciary Committee
  2. FL: Sheriffs Association opposes citizen’s right to bear arms
  3. FL: Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz gets royal treatment
  4. OOPS: Turns out Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile is a fiction
  5. Could a Nairobi Mall attack happen in Florida?

COMMENTS

comments powered by Disqus

Latest Videos

What the state knows about your Google usage (VIDEO)

Login