Zuckoff Chronicles Benghazi Attack in 13 Hours

Mitchell Zuckoff was initially wary when he took on the assignment of writing a book that would be the first to offer, outside of closed-door Congressional hearings, a private security team’s minute-by-minute account of what really happened during the September 11, 2012, Islamic militant attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that killed US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Several books had already been written as postmortems on the much-disputed events of the attack. Mired in politics, the details of the attack have taken on a Rashomon quality and remain ripe for exploitation by those with axes to grind.

But the College of Communication journalism professor’s coauthors, the five surviving members of the Annex Security Team, former military contractors charged with guarding the nearby CIA base, quickly won his trust, respect, and friendship. And their previously unreported account of that chaotic night—titled 13 Hours (Hachette Book Group)—found its way to the front page of the New York Times in spite of a news embargo that ended on the book’s official publication date, today, September 9.

In the course of his research, Zuckoff met repeatedly with, and grew close to, the five security operators: Mark “Oz” Geist, Kris “Tanto” Paroto, John “Tig” Tiegen, and two who asked to be identified by pseudonyms and appear in the book as Jack Silva and Dave “D.B.” Benton. A sixth team member, Tyrone “Rone” Woods, died in the rescue. The five describe in the book how they ultimately entered the diplomatic compound against orders from their CIA commander, orders they believe lost valuable time that could have saved those under fire inside, says Zuckoff, the author of two previous best sellers based on real-life events, Frozen in Time and Lost in Shangri-La. Subtitled The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi, 13 Hours “is not about what officials in the United States government knew, said, or did after the attack, or about the ongoing controversy over talking points, electoral politics, and alleged conspiracies and cover-ups,” the authors write. “It is about what happened on the ground, in the streets, and on the rooftops of Benghazi…when lives were saved, lost, and forever changed.”

With open Congressional hearings on the Benghazi affair looming, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration’s handling of the affair under intense scrutiny, Zuckoff will be making the rounds of TV news shows in the coming weeks. The book’s revelations have already been the subject of a documentary that aired on Fox News last weekend.

BU Today spoke with Zuckoff about the challenges of writing a fresh account of a topic dominating the headlines, about why the Annex contractors were intent on making their story public, and why this book was an “as told to” project he could not refuse.

BU Today: How did this project come about?

Zuckoff: I got a call from my agent, Richard Abate, in New York, who asked me, “What do you think about Benghazi?” He’d become aware that the guys who had fought the battle were sticking together and talking about doing a book. I said I’d love to talk to them. They’d approached several writers, but we hit it off and I think they trusted me. I was very clear with them how I would do this and that it would not be something I’d get involved in unless we could tell the story truthfully; I wasn’t going to carry anyone’s water.

With at least four existing books about the Benghazi attacks, what were the challenges of covering such heavily trod-on territory?

Actually this wasn’t heavily trod-on territory. One of the first things I did was say, “We’re not going to go where everyone has gone. The politics in DC, who said what on the morning talk shows—that’s not our book.” What these guys had unique knowledge of was what happened in Benghazi on the ground and on the rooftops, and that had not been covered. They knew exactly what happened during these 13 hours.

Why did they take so long to come forward?

As CIA contractors, they had signed a nondisclosure agreement, and we had to deal with that. But they did tell their story during closed-door sessions in Congress. The House Intelligence Committee did a very good job keeping its testimony closed.

Did they have an ax to grind?

Their ax wasn’t that they had not gone public. They were really frustrated that so many lies were told. That’s been a real problem for them, not being able to run to the phone and say, “What you just reported was bull.” These are very mature, serious guys who were able to understand that they would have their say in this book and had to be patient.

Were you worried that after you signed on, you wouldn’t believe their story?

Yes. I can’t describe everything I did, but I needed reassurance from outside that these guys were who they said they were. We’d seen Dylan Davies, the security officer believed to have duped 60 Minutes. I wasn’t going to step into that honeypot. I took some reporter’s precautions. These were the guys that were actually there, and then I did a little bit of a gut check—when you meet with people you get a sense of, are they lying or embellishing? I interviewed them separately, and the differences between their accounts were all in normal tolerance levels.

Aside from news accounts, did you have access to any documentation—radio transcripts or video—from those 13 hours on the ground?

I didn’t have access to the videotapes taken from a drone that was overhead, but its feed was seen by members of Congress.

You were the blind guy with the elephant.

Exactly. Making sure I didn’t confuse the trunk for a snake. Going back over it so many times that it felt like I could close my eyes and walk from the CIA annex to the diplomatic compound. I was quadruple-checking everything.

Did you go to Benghazi?

I considered it, but the security situation had deteriorated to the point where the jeopardy didn’t balance the effort. I go everywhere—I think nothing of living for a month on a glacier in Greenland—but in a weird way, not going there forced me to do more in-depth interviewing and more work with the guys, and it turned out to be a benefit. I needed them to be my eyes and ears.

How long were you given to write the book?

It was due about a year from the signing, and that was too short, but the publisher wanted it out for the second anniversary of the attacks.

At what point did you show your draft to your coauthors?

When I completed the first draft, we got together in Washington for three days. Four of the five coauthors were there and one was on the phone. It was great. I really like these guys. I really enjoy their company. At times it took on a locker room atmosphere, but it was exciting. Once it was on the page, they could all feed into it. They said stuff to each other like, “Wait didn’t you, at that moment, fire the grenade?”

What mistakes were made in the response to the attacks?

On the American side, there was bad judgment. The worst of it started earlier. Among the major mistakes was the lax security at the compound. This was a soft target, and the guys knew it. They’d been talking about it. In the book I describe how days before the attacks, they went to the compound and said to the Americans, “If you get attacked by a large element you’ll die.” It was a tragic mistake, a tragic error in judgment, having an ambassador in that environment on 9/11 in a place where there’s no functioning government and anti-American militias in the next compound.

The New York Times article says the book’s big revelation was that the security contractors at the CIA annex were told to stand down.

Yes, the delay at the annex was a terrible, terrible mistake. They were soldiers and they’d experienced command decisions that they’d disagreed with before. It was only at the end that they decided to disobey those orders. They felt that they could’ve saved those people.

Was interviewing the team to piece together a detailed, engaging narrative like pulling teeth, or were they articulate in describing what it was like?

With Tanto, I have 600 pages of typed transcript. With D.B., every word was teeth pulling. He’s a great guy, but he was very taciturn. Thank goodness he was with Tanto every minute that night. I had to train them to understand that I needed the full sensory experience—what it tasted like, what it smelled like, a fully burned villa with drapes that have been doused in diesel fuel—and they described the smell in their chest. Once they started getting that—they’re very bright guys—they’d unexpectedly offer me something that was like, wow. There’s this moment where Jack looks down from this rooftop to this tree where he knows there’s this praying mantis and in the middle of the firefight he thinks about how the praying mantis feels.

With so many colliding accounts, why should readers believe yours?

This story has been so politicized and so twisted for various purposes that I spent a lot of time while writing it worried that it would also be manipulated or become part of that. I’m actually at ease now. I know that the book I wrote doesn’t engage in that. And if people choose to twist it out of shape, I can’t stop them. In any fair reading, it will be evident it’s a serious, credible account. That’s why I’m really excited that both the New York Times and Fox News have chosen to see its value without sensationalizing it. How often do those two organizations see it same way?

Did Fox pay you?

No, Fox didn’t pay.

Did you read the previous books about the attack? How much did you rely on press reports?

I did read Fred Burton’s Under Fire, and I looked at Davies’ book Embassy House, which was withdrawn by Simon & Schuster. I needed to know what they had written, but I did that at the very beginning and then I just put them away. News accounts were hugely helpful. David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times wrote an amazing story from the perspective of the attackers. Our book has a 30-page bibliography. I couldn’t have done it without all the good news coverage.

Do you think your book is likely to influence the coming hearings on the Benghazi attack?

I think it will. It feels a little strange. I haven’t focused on it a lot, but to me there were so many things in the book that are just as important and tend to focus on the human aspect, things that might never be discussed in the hearings, such as the heroism of these men. There’s a moment in the book where Tyrone, Tig, and Jack are outside the front gate, and they know that inside are buildings on fire and men running around with assault rifles. And Woods pops up from behind this barrier and runs in the front gate. He died in the mortar attack.

Do you have a first reader on your books who helps guide you?

My wife, Suzanne Kreiter, a photojournalist, is always my first reader. She is fantastic at telling me when I’m there and when I’m not. My second reader is my father, who is a retired history teacher. He’s a close reader, from grammar to logic.

Would you take on a project like this again?

I wouldn’t go looking for this kind of arrangement. If the right story came up, maybe. I don’t have a lot of interest in sitting down with a powerful CEO and doing an as-told-to book. But this was such a rare opportunity to work with the actual participants. That’s a gift.

Would you feel safe going anywhere with these men?

Oh yeah. It’s so great going into a bar with these guys. We were at a Denver hotel bar—Tig, Tanto, Oz, and I—and I felt there was nothing we couldn’t handle. I’d walk into a biker bar with these guys.