Years of warning about embassy security preceded Libya attack (FUBAR Alert)

The Washington Guardian ^ | 9/12/2012 | John Soloman

[GVnana]

State Department acknowledged as recently as February it lacked funding for some security improvements

The way U.S. embassies and consulates protect their staffs in volatile locations has raised several red flags in Congress, among watchdogs and even an outside commission in recent years.

The concerns came into sharp focus with the death in Libya of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, as well as an attack Tuesday on the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

While the State Department has responded to some of the criticisms leveled by congressional oversight bodies and its own internal watchdog, its Diplomatic Security (DS) office recently acknowledged it lacked the funding for some recommended improvements, such as security training, and was instead looking for workarounds.

“We cannot sufficiently meet the additional training recommendations outlined in the Secretary's QDDR (quadrennial review). Therefore, DS is aggressively pursuing on-line alternatives, e.g., distance learning of FACT lessons minus the hard skills (i.e., weapons familiarization and driver's training) to increase training capabilities,” the department candidly acknowledged in a February performance evaluation report.

->snip<-

One of the biggest concerns raised in recent years has been the quality and capabilities of private security contractors hired to protect embassy staffs.

The congressionally chartered Commission on Wartime Contracting issued a strong warning in 2009, saying the State Department’s reliance on lowest-priced contractors was jeopardizing security.

“Lowest-priced security not good enough for war-zone embassies,” the commission wrote in a stinging report that urged other factors such as capability be considered in awarding security contracts.

[GVnana]

American officials say that protecting the country's diplomats are among the highest priorities but for years the selection, use and monitoring of private contractors to provide security has been shown to have shortfalls.

And now Obama sends 50 Marines.

[USNBandit]

I don’t blame them for using a sub standard set of buildings in Benghazi, but State has security people besides Marines. I am highly suspicious that the initial report of 20 armed mean is true. I think the new Libyan government (and our own) is trying to play down what actually happened and how many “friendlies” were involved.

[Pollster1]

Obama spent the $800B Stimulus on nothing before admitting that, “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready”. It’s a shame he didn’t spend a tiny bit of that wasted money on security in places like this where we knew we needed better security.

[fella]

Bush’s fault.

[D-fendr]

it lacked funding for some security improvements

Perhaps they could use the billion dollars they're sending the Muslim Brotherhood for a start...

[Straight Vermonter]

I don’t think I have seen one news item critical of Hillary! on this issue. She’s the boss why is the press giving her a pass?

[Recon Dad]

50 Marines is a set up to diaster.

[LibLieSlayer]

Hey obama... you pos... you can eat wagu beef and scam BILLIONS for the left and for our enemies in the ME and you can't protect your employees??? **** you obama.

LLS