On 9/11, Al Qaeda & Attacks on US Consulate in Benghazi, by Michael Werner

            George Santayana said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."  In fact, that history may not have occurred that long ago.  Americans remember September 11, 2001.  The events of that date are etched in the memories of all most all Americans.  They have been recorded in the written achieves, so all can draw upon them, remember them, and learn from them.   It was on this date that Al Qaeda attached America.  They high jacked four planes.  Two planes were flown into the World Trade Center buildings in New York, one crashed into the Pentagon, and one crashed in Pennsylvania.  Over 3,000 people were killed.  Many believe that Al Qaeda has again attached America.  Not on its own soil, as in 2001, but in Benghazi, Libya.  On September 11, 2012 the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked.  History has repeated itself.

The attack occurred when heavily armed Islamic militants entered the consulate compound and fired upon and set fire to the consulate.  The attack resulted in the death of four American citizens.  While this number is significantly lower than the number that died in 2001, they died, it was an attack, and it is now being considered an act of terrorism.

In defense of history not repeating itself, the U.S. government initially implied the attack was a grassroots riot response to the American made anti-Muslim video.  Later the State Department indicated it was conducted by a militia associated with Al Qaeda’s branch in North Africa.  This was supported by Libya’s president Mohamed Magariaf.  He was of strong belief the attack was carried out by an Al Qaeda group hiding in Libya.  He supported this belief based on the sophistication of the attack and the alignment with the date of the original attack.  Based on recent media reports and comments out of the State Department, the Al Qaeda terrorist attack, not a grassroots riot, is the supported conclusion.

This raises the question; what was, or maybe the better question is what was not, learned from the first attack?  It has been well documented that there were warning signs ahead of both of these attacks.  At issue is whether or not those warning were credible.  We know that the Libyan Ambassador had been requesting additional security.  Some of those requests were met, but others were not.  Certainly, history leads to a path of landing with too much security.  So, why weren’t all the security requests met?  Has time alone caused a loosening of security?  Were the warning not considered credible?   Have we learned from history on American soil, but not on our overseas embassy locations?

Since September 11, 2001, it is a new world.  The history of this day cannot be forgotten.  The relaxing of what we learned from this day will cause history to repeat itself again.  When it comes to terrorism, let’s remember the words of George Santayana, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”