Security in Libya was complex and ever-changing in the run-up to a deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, a US panel has heard.
A former US Army officer, Lt Col Andrew Wood, told the hearing that security “remained a struggle” and was weak until he left Libya in August.
Debate centred on whether the state department’s security chief sought more security staff to protect US diplomats.
Republicans have criticised the Obama administration over the incident.
On Tuesday, the state department said it had no “actionable intelligence” on the 11 September attack that killed the US ambassador and three others.
Meanwhile, the White House’s top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan has met Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf and others in Tripoli to discuss how Libya can help the US track down those responsible for the assault.
Debate over requests
In his testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Lt Col Wood said the security situation deteriorated as Libya’s situation remained uncertain. He was in charge of a security support team at the US embassy in Tripoli.
“Diplomatic security remained weak. In April there was only one US diplomatic security agent stationed there,” he said. “The RSO [regional security officer] struggled to obtain additional personnel there but was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with.”
A state department security chief, Eric Nordstrom, is also appearing before the House of Representatives committee, after reports emerged that he alleged that Washington-based official Charlene Lamb had wanted to keep the security presence in Benghazi “artificially low”.
Ms Lamb also appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday, and faced questions about her role in the process of deciding the security level in Benghazi.
The hearing is part of an investigation into the security situation in Benghazi leading up to the attack.
It is the first public inquiry on Capitol Hill into what went wrong.
The BBC’s Mark Mardell says that this is a highly political hearing, with the election just a month away and Republican candidate Mitt Romney making the attack a centrepiece of the case against the president’s foreign policy.
Not ‘spontaneous’
On Tuesday, anonymous state department officials told reporters that the US government had never concluded the sacking of the Benghazi mission was motivated by a US-made video ridiculing Muslims.
They said it was instead a co-ordinated assault involving several groups of men armed with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades over an expanse of more than a mile.
The 11 September Benghazi assault, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others died, was unprecedented in recent diplomatic history, officials added.
However, in the days after the attack Mr Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, initially described it as a “spontaneous” one that arose out of a protest against the film.
The administration says it provided its best intelligence on the attack, and amended that explanation as further information emerged.
The state department has launched its own internal review of events.
‘Deadly’ decisions
A leading Republican on the oversight committee, Representative Jason Chaffetz, told Reuters that he thought the security decisions US officials made for the Benghazi mission had turned out to be “deadly” ones.
Mr Chaffetz said he suspected money and security contractors devoted to Iraq and Afghanistan had drained resources away from US diplomacy security in other parts of the world.
Democrats counter that Republicans are the ones that pushed for cuts in the security that they now deem insufficient.
A memo prepared by the committee’s Democratic staff noted that House Republicans voted to reduce funding for embassy security package that was $459m (£286m) less than what the Obama administration requested.
Democratic staff allege that committee chair Darrell Issa and his staff have failed to consult them, refused to make witness available and withheld documents.
(BBC News)
