The Middle East and East Africa are in a state of crisis. To varying degrees, countries like Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Syria are embroiled in deadly power struggles, the accumulated effect of tensions built up over many decades. Islamism vs. secularism. Authoritarianism vs. democracy. Sunni vs. Shiite. Muslim vs. Christian. Israel vs. everyone. The fault lines of the region have fractured, resulting in the deaths and displacements of hundreds of thousands of people. Amidst all this turmoil, the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans lost their lives, has taken on an outsized significance. A recent New York Times piece by David D. Kirkpatrick entitled “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi,” investigating the events that transpired in Benghazi on the night of September 11th, 2012, has reignited the vigorous debate over just what happened and who, if anyone, is to blame. At the center of this debate is the question of whether a provocative videotape, “The Innocence of Muslims,” motivated a spontaneous attack or, as FOX News counters, it was a more coordinated effort spearheaded by terrorist organization Ansar al-Shariah in conjunction with Al-Qaeda.

Regardless, the GOP used the tragedy as a weapon against the Democrats when the 2012 presidential election was only two months away, specifically President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of State and the Democrats’ likely presidential nominee in 2016. The Democrats, meanwhile, sought to minimize the fallout of the security debacle on the party’s electoral prospects with an aggressive and, at times, questionable PR campaign. Republicans, fed up with being of being accused of foreign policy incompetence following the Bush Administration’s disastrous Middle East ventures, relish the opportunity to give Democrats a taste of their own medicine. Democrats are in disbelief that the party that let the Bush Administration off the hook has the nerve to question the Obama Administration’s basic competence over a comparatively minor incident.

But it is ideology, not politics, that defines the Benghazi controversy. Faced with a shocking and tragic assault on American interests abroad, the Left and the Right have sought to impose their own ideological narratives. The GOP tends to view foreign policy as a battle between Good and Evil. On one side stands America, a paragon of freedom, democracy and Western values. On the other stand the forces of tyranny, using terrorism and mass murder to advance nefarious ends. They consider Democrats too weak to defend U.S. security interests and Benghazi, they claim, validates their assumptions. Because all acts of aggression against the U.S. derive from a clearly defined enemy, they are quick to pin the blame on al Qaeda. The intelligence and leadership “failures” that led to the Benghazi attacks are a consequence of the Obama Administration’s unwillingness to anticipate obvious security threats. The eagerness of the State Department, specifically U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, to pin the blame for the attacks on an anti-Muslim video was crassly political and contrary to freedom of speech.

Liberals have a much different narrative. Wary of the imperialism and cultural insensitivity that they believe motivated unwarranted intervention in Vietnam, Iraq and many other places, they turn inward to make sense of the hostility so many countries harbor towards the U.S. and its allies. If the citizens of the states we’ve “invaded” attack us, it must be because we’ve done something to merit their aggression. We have a duty to respect other cultures and a failure to do so is both wrong and, in some cases, dangerous. The “spontaneous protests” in Egypt and Libya following the release of the video are a direct consequence of our insensitivity. This does not absolve the Benghazi attackers of blame, but it is a means to explain their reactions. An Islamist terrorist organization like al Qaeda does not account for the widespread anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, which stems from legitimate grievances on the part of Arab Muslims.

The reality is more complicated than either side is willing to admit. According to the aforementioned New York Times article, a small, semi-organized militia of radical Islamists led by Ahmed Abu Khatalla planned and executed the attack on the diplomatic post. However, they were soon joined by a mob of rioters, many of whom were motivated at least in part by the video. There is no significant evidence that the homegrown terrorists responsible for the attack were affiliated with al Qaeda. In fact, Khatalla’s militia was not even on the CIA’s list of potential threats. Many of the other militias were hostile to America. Some of them were grateful for U.S. assistance in removing Muammar Gaddafi from power and eager to reap the economic benefits of a business relationship. Yet, faced with firing on their countrymen to save Americans, potentially risking bloody reprisals, the sympathetic factions chose not to intervene.

The New York Times account is by no means definitive. But it is sufficient to conclude that narratives from the Left and the Right do not account for the complicated reality on the ground. Establishing a foothold in an unstable, lawless country is by nature a risky endeavor. Even the most extensive foresight and planning are not enough to guarantee the safety of the brave individuals putting themselves in harm’s way. Kilpatrick suggests that with better security and intelligence, the Americans who perished in Benghazi might still be alive today. Perhaps this is the case. Perhaps not. Either way, we must confront the unsettling reality that sometimes ideologies only take us further from a true understanding of complicated events.