Yes, an embassy, consulate, and mission are diplomatic facilities and are treated as US territory in terms of their status and how they are treated by the host government.
Are there not sensitive materials there? that is why then.marines are there.
The assignment of a MSG detachment is done on a case by case basis. If a mission lacks an MSG detachment, there are restrictions on the kinds of classified materials and communications equipment you can have there.
Of 220 different facilities, how many need military protection, that are in situations that require more protection? Ten percent?
If you mean external protection, i.e. perimeter security, very few, certainly less than 10%. Usually those are in a war zone like Afghanistan or Iraq. In Iraq today we have US contractors doing it. Remember Blackwater? Marines are there to protect classified equipment and materials. They buy time so we can destroy them if there is a threat that the facility might be overrun. Basically, we depend on the host government to protect our facilities. If they can't do it, then we shouldn't be there.
And with the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi,, not one professional SOD or State Department official could foresee what was going to happen?
No, there was plenty of warning and request for security from the RSO on the ground and the Ambassador. The biggest mistake was not closing those facilities down. The cables made it quite clear that the host government was unable to provide the needed security. If our presence in Benghazi was deemed so critical for our national interests, then we should have used US military forces to defend the perimeter of the Mission and the annex.
None of this should be a question after the 1979 Iranian hostage situation.
Don't get me started on that one. I was in our Embassy in Tehran when it was overrun the first time on February 14, 1979. I left on March 31, 1979. Many of us warned that there would be a second takeover of the Embassy. Once the decision was made to allow the Shah into the US, we should have closed our Embassy period.
The truth is, the reality is, that to cover up what was happening for why Stevens was even there. Is that our President and His entire Administration was willing to sacrifice the lives of ALL 37 Americans there that night in order to cover the arms running to Syria through Turkey.
Whatever the reason, the personnel should never have been kept there without adequate security. It was criminal and no one is being held accountable. The responsibility rests with the WH and State. I don't fault DOD that much. Obama should have ordered military personnel in there immediately even if they couldn't get there in time. They could have at least secured the facilities and provided the security to do a proper investigation.
I have questions as to who signed the security wavier to occupy the facility in Benghazi. By law, it had to be Hillary, U/S Kennedy, or A/S Boswell.
Also, the relief team from Tripoli was delayed at the airport in Benghazi for over four hours. The Libyan government wouldn't allow them entry. Where was Hillary in all of this?
I suspect that the decision as to whether to send the military to Benghazi or not was based on perceptions that it would hurt our bilateral relationship. And by law, the WH has to get approval from Congress for US forces to violate another country's airspace without its approval. IMO the decisions were being made on the basis of diplomatic concerns rather than coming to the aid of our people.
At a very minimum we could have had jet aircraft over Benghazi as long as it took to get our people out of there. They could have been there before the second attack. And there is absolutely no excuse for not securing our facilities after the attacks. They should have been there the same day.
kabar, spot on analysis, and thank you for your reply.
I remembered later that you one time said you were at the embassy in 1979 in Teheran, so you know about these things.
I am upset at what I have witnessed this morning. Hope you don’t think I was upset with you.