As Americans mourn the loss of our ambassador in Libya and three of his colleagues, the circumstances of their demise remain murky. Some accounts suggest there was a spontaneous demonstration at the Benghazi consulate followed by a well-executed ambush against consulate personnel while they were being evacuated; other accounts suggest that the initial assault was not the result of demonstrations but planned by a jihadist group in advance. Whatever the case, the situation raises an obvious question: Why didn’t the consulate have better protection, especially given the presence there of Ambassador Chris Stevens? Was there an intelligence failure, a failure of security, or simply a “perfect storm” that could not have reasonably been anticipated? These are all questions that both the State Department and Congress need to probe, and urgently, because of the continuing threat against American outposts in the Middle East.
In general, the State Department has done an excellent job of protecting its ambassadors and other diplomatic personnel–not a single senior diplomat has been killed so far in either Iraq or Afghanistan, notwithstanding numerous plots aimed at doing just that. Partly this is a matter of serendipity, but it’s also a tribute to the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the private security contractors it has hired, including the now-notorious Blackwater. In my experience traveling around the Middle East, Regional Security Officers–the officials responsible for security in each embassy–tend to err on the side of caution, so much so that their desire to protect their charges often makes it hard to conduct the outreach with the local community needed for successful diplomatic initiatives. That makes it all the more surprising that Ambassador Stevens did not have more protection.
The decision to deploy some extra Marines to Yemen and Libya, among other places, is a good one but that’s only a temporary fix since, contrary to myth, Marines are seldom the main security force at a diplomatic installation and they seldom if ever provide personal security to the “principals,” such as Ambassadors. The Marine presence is important but in most cases symbolic since the bulk of exterior security is normally provided by local contractors and local security forces and personal security details for the ambassador and other senior figures are provided by diplomatic security agents and foreign contractors. Those are the areas that need examination, including examining the possibility that Libyan jihadists may have infiltrated either the consulate’s guard force or the local security establishment. Washington needs to figure out why the Benghazi security setup was so flawed and fix the shortcomings ASAP
The amazing Barry Rubin writes at PJMEDIA: n n"But my goodness, how horrifyingly revealing is this quote: n n“They got the wrong guy,” said a friend of the slain Ambassador Christopher Stevens at the [notoriously anti-Israel, BR] U.S. consulate in Jerusalem. “If there was someone who cared about the Arab and Muslim world, it was Chris,” who had previously served there as chief of the political section. “He spoke Arabic, he was dedicated to the cause of the Arabs.” n nPerhaps this diplomat should give al-Qaeda a list of approved Americans they should be assassinating. In other words, what? It would have been better to have killed a foreign service officer more friendly to Israel? To have murdered some Republicans or Jews? I’m afraid that this is very frankly how these people think. And what is “the cause of the Arabs”? Which Arabs? To wipe Israel off the map? To have radical nationalist dictatorships? To have Sharia states? At least define your “Arabs” as the genuine moderates, genuine democrats, genuine liberals, or even — since there aren’t so many of those people — those who feel their self-interests basically coincide with those of the United States." n n nAmazing. I wonder what Stevens was thinking about the 'Arab Cause' he supported as his life drained away. n nReally, what is 'The Arab Cause'?
Do we need a posting to tell Washington, or anyone for that matter, that the security policy and implementation at our embassies needs a serious and quick review? Every time there's an incident, whether serious or less so, there's a review. A plane crashes, the military has a review. A missile fails to fire, there's a review to learn why. n nWashington is full of boards, blue ribbon commissions, panels, committees, subcommittees, the list goes on ad nauseam, of highly trained and nationally recognized men and women who review the facts, look at the policies, explore the circumstances, write a report, and then have some press conference or meeting to present their findings. I'll bet Max has even participated in some of these reviews. n nMaybe what we really need is some guts. n nMaybe what we need are well-armed Marines and contractors at our embassies with rules of engagement that allow them to preemptively defend American lives and assets. Maybe it's time that America tells our hosts that we will do whatever we need to do to ensure that our people have the defense we deem necessary. And maybe we need to see that our hosts are actually capable of controlling their citizens so that mobs do not come within striking distance of our sovereign spaces. n nSo let's do the reviews, let's look at our policies. But let's also remember that America needs to protect Americans.
I think you find that the core reason is that Obama and Hillary simply couldn't be bothered with any distraction from getting him re elected. Clearly the foreign service is on notice that they are on their own.
Join the Obama foreign service. See exotic lands. Get killed by people.
“The day I’m inaugurated Muslim hostility will ease." – Barack Obama during a radio address on November 21, 2007 nH/t Aaron Noah Horvitz n