The wrong way
As my appearance on Up with Chris Hayes yesterday has generated some nasty comments, I thought I might review the most neuralgic point: the function of Marine security guards at U.S. embassies and consulates. Here is the Marine Embassy Security Group’s own statement of its mission:
The primary mission of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) is to provide internal security at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States.
Yes, in a crisis the Marine guards will act to protect a U.S. diplomatic facility from attack. But they are not equipped, trained or staffed to respond to an assault of the type that apparently occurred on September 11 in Benghazi. That’s why the Embassy was asking for more specialized teams (for Tripoli, not Benghazi).
The primary responsibility for protection of diplomatic facilities lies with the “host” government, in this case Libya. That’s the problem: the new Libyan regime is still lacks the means.
We’ll have to wait for the Accountability Review Board Tom Pickering is chairing to know where responsibility for the incident lies. That’s why I was careful on TV and peacefare not to imply that the murder of our personnel was due to this, that or the other failure. It is simply too early to make that judgment. I have, however, cited ample reason for the U.S. government to know that there was a serious threat in Benghazi, so those who accuse me of letting the Obama administration off the hook should understand that their vituperation and scatological suggestions are not just unwelcome, but reciprocated.
The notion that the only way to respond to a serious threat in Benghazi was deployment of Marines is simply wrong. It doesn’t matter at all that the Embassy in Paris, where the threats are different, has Marine guards. Here are the obstacles to using Marines in Benghazi:
- You need the permission of the host government, which is unlikely to have been forthcoming (they’ve been resisting even private contractors).
- The number of Marines trained for diplomatic security is limited, so sending them to Benghazi requires that you judge the threat there to be greater than the threat in Kabul, Baghdad, Cairo and a few dozen other places.
- You have to believe they are the best force to meet the threat, which given their mission statement (and associated preparation for it) is ridiculous.
Anonymity and unpredictability are the best defenses for most of our diplomats. An ambassador has difficulty achieving either. Libyan guards properly trained and equipped are a far better option for close personal protection and external defense of a diplomatic compound, because Americans have a hard time “reading” the street and understanding what is going on there. But Libyan guards of that type did not yet exist in Tripoli and Benghazi. It is ironic, and sad, that Ambassador Stevens apparently died in a building that was considered a safe haven. That should cast serious doubt on the all too heavy reliance on fortresses to protect our diplomats.
But given the reaction in Congress and the CYA approach of most bureaucracies, I’d be willing to bet that this incident leads us to further harden our fortresses, reduce our movements and eliminate anonymity by requiring even lower-ranking diplomats to use personal security details. That is the wrong way to go.
For those who wish me ill because I say these things: I have lived and worked as a U.S. official both with and without extensive personal protection (Italian in my case, as I spent about eight months in Rome as Charge’ d’affaires ad interim after the election of Bill Clinton) and Embassy Marine guards. I have also traveled and worked in conflict zones like Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, both with and without personal protection details. Each to his own, but I personally prefer the low-profile, unpredictable movements, anonymous approach to security, when it is possible. Those who tweeted that they wish me in Benghazi without personal protection and U.S. embassy guards are calling for throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch: that’s exactly how I’ve enjoyed Benghazi on two visits since the revolution and would gladly go back any day, so long as I thought I could maintain a low profile, anonymous approach to my own security.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
One thought on “The wrong way”
Comments are closed.
RSS - Posts
Daniel,
Joan said you were brilliant on Chris Hayes. I am sure she is correct. What you wrote is brilliantly on target. Your words are not only on target, but remarkably honest.
Congratulations,
Douglas