Assessing the Accuracy of ‘13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi’

Introduction

The film '13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi' is a dramatization based on the 2012 Benghazi attack that involved the United States consulate and the CIA annex. This article evaluates the accuracy of the film, addressing real events, characters and representation, political context, and the use of dramatic license.

Real Events

The film is based on real events that occurred on September 11, 2012, when militants attacked the U.S. consulate and a nearby CIA annex in Benghazi. The portrayal of the timeline and the chaos of the attack is largely based on the experiences of the security team that responded to the incident. However, critics argue that the film simplifies the complexities of the situation and the roles of various individuals and agencies involved.

Characters and Representation

The film focuses on the Private Security Contractors (PSCs) who defended the annex, portraying their bravery and the challenges they faced. Critics, however, point out that the film may not fully capture the complexity of the situation. Some real-life individuals involved in the events have expressed dissatisfaction with how certain aspects were depicted, particularly regarding the clarity of their actions and the film's overall message.

Political Context

The film has been criticized for its portrayal of the U.S. government's response and the political context surrounding the attack. Some reviewers feel that it leans towards a particular political narrative, emphasizing perceived failures of the Obama administration. This political bias has led to debates about the movie's intent and accuracy.

Dramatic License

Many dramatizations, including '13 Hours', take some creative liberties for the sake of storytelling. The film condenses timelines and combines or omits certain characters and events to enhance the narrative. Critics argue that this dramatization may not accurately represent the sequence of events or the motivations of the individuals involved.

Reactions from Participants

Some of the real-life individuals involved in the events have expressed dissatisfaction with how certain aspects were depicted. For instance, one key point of criticism is that the film suggests that the decision was to send the security team back to the diplomatic facility (DoS) which led to a counterproductive outcome. In reality, the Ambassador and IT staff were already dead before the security team left the Annex, and their actions were likely more heroic but possibly counterproductive.

Conclusion

While the film aims to provide a dramatic and engaging portrayal of the Benghazi attack, it does not entirely reflect the complexities and realities of the situation. John R. Bolton, the author of an article on the attack, argues that the movie misrepresents several key aspects, such as the primary responsibility for security, the course of events, and the motivations of the security team. Bolton contends that if the security team had not left the CIA Annex, the majority of the casualties during that 24-hour period would have been avoided.

However, it is important to recognize that the movie is a dramatization for entertainment and not a documentary. It offers a perspective on the events but not a one-to-one representation of reality. Critics and supporters alike should approach the film with an understanding of its dramatized nature and the context in which the real events unfolded.

Beyond the Film: Critical Perspectives

The article by John R. Bolton highlights several discrepancies and misrepresentations in the film, shedding light on the difficulties of accurately depicting complex political and security situations in a narrative form. This analysis is crucial for viewers to critically assess the portrayal of historical events in media.

Key Points of Inaccuracy

The film portrays the U.S. government's response as inadequate, particularly emphasizing the perceived failure of the Obama administration. The sequence of events and decisions made by the security team are not accurately represented, leading to false impressions about the motivations and outcomes of their actions. The political context is oversimplified, painting a biased view of the situation and its aftermath. Key aspects, such as the annex's security responsibility and the role of U.S. personnel, are misinterpreted, leading to a one-sided narrative.

Conclusion

While '13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi' aims to provide a compelling narrative of the 2012 Benghazi attack, its portrayal of the events, characters, and political context is not entirely accurate. Viewers should approach the film with a critical perspective, recognizing the dramatization for what it is and seeking a more balanced understanding of the events through additional sources.