Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Stephens was doing his job as diplomat. His Libya interests for continuity in the Libyan nation involved a mission in Benghazi. Stephens was not ordered to go there. Stephens chose to go there, which he arranged for security for his travel and sty in Benghazi. While in Benghazi he looked for establishing contacts, trade, business, discussions with Benghazi community leaders. Since no formal government ruled in Benghazi, I believe Stephens did not correctly calculate the threat-level for this part of Libya. It has not been reported that Stephens had contingency planning arranged if things went wrong like it did. If proper planning was conducted, the Benghazi thing would not have happened. The truth of why Stephens was there may not have been disclosed, but as diplomacy is done, establish contacts, meet with local officials, and arrange for future trade and business relations. Benghazi was part of an overall plan for the continuity of the Libyan nation.
I totally agree on the subpar funding for Depart of State in developing diplomacy around the world. Funds for security is paramount for success in dangerous areas. Danger is no excuse for not going to a country, which diplomats will accept, but they anticipate have professional and highly skilled security forces protecting them. Apparently, Stephens did not have the appropriate security for the threat level they encountered. This is because a GOP-lead appropriations committee rejected needed funds for the Depart of State to conduct business around the world. That GOP-lead appropriations committee should be setting where Hillary sat and asked, "Why did you not give the needed funds for missions like Benghazi?". The Contract Officer for the Department of State would only select the lowest bidder for security, which is what Stephens received.