Who Provides Security For Diplomats

[SoSad]

The thing everyone is forgetting, or convienently choosing to forget is that the US played a large part in destabilizing the country through the air power that helped a band of rebels overthrow Ghaddafi. Those rebels were clearly not even capable of forming a legitimate government let alone supply security for embassies. The same could probably be true in Iraq, except that we had troops on the ground that could protect our interests. Our air power can certainly change the events of what might happen in countries such as Libya, but to expect what was left in charge to be able to assume the full functions of a government was unrealistic. That stops with the president because he was willing to commit to an air power only mission that helped overthrow the government but left incompetents in charge. At the very least without ground troops to protect our people, perhaps we should not have had any there until the government of Libya demonstrated they were capable of providing protection.

I agree. We could never have adequate protection in Libya as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan under our current circumstances.

For the State Department, the security situation in Libya came down in part to the question of whether it was a war zone or just another African outpost. Even though the country was still volatile after the bloody rebellion that ousted Moammar Khadafy, the State Department did not include Libya on its list of dangerous postings that are high priority for extra security resources.

I don't want to post the whole article, but another part states:

But given the Libyan edict banning the contractors, the Obama administration was eager to reduce the US footprint there. After initially soliciting bids from major security companies for work in Libya, State Department officials never followed through.

[ms maggie]

Oh I read it. I disagreed. Are you following along yet?

I am indeed. You disagreed with the question.

Bet that saves a lot of time. LOL.

[SoSad]

I am indeed. You disagreed with the question.

Bet that saves a lot of time. LOL.

I really hate to see you struggle like this, but I really can't offer much help to you beyond what I have already generously done of my own accord.

I first asked my own question. I then provided a link to the answer of the question. Obama is knee deep in this one. Sorry.

[Wizard777]

Hi Wiz.

I read somewhere that there was a question of why the security firm was a small company in England. Have you heard anything about that?

No, not yet. They current histrionics by the Republicans is begining to look like a stall tactic. It looks like it's geared towards preventing progress instead of producing it. I don't know if the Republicans have gone back to guarding Al Qaida's to preserve the very profitable threat they pose. Maybe one or more them own the company or a piece of it. Who knows?

One thing I'm certain of is this dog and pony show by the republicans is doing more to undermine public confidence in Congress than it is to establish public trust in their process.

[SoSad]

No, not yet. They current histrionics by the Republicans is begining to look like a stall tactic. It looks like it's geared towards preventing progress instead of producing it. I don't know if the Republicans have gone back to guarding Al Qaida's to preserve the very profitable threat they pose. Maybe one or more them own the company or a piece of it. Who knows?

One thing I'm certain of is this dog and pony show by the republicans is doing more to undermine public confidence in Congress than it is to establish public trust in their process.

I do agree that the way this is being handled by congress is not completely to my liking. I do want answers, as I feel the truth is due to us when all is said and done.

[Byng]

I do agree that the way this is being handled by congress is not completely to my liking. I do want answers, as I feel the truth is due to us when all is said and done.

If you really want the truth, not making stuff up and posting it as fact yourself, might be a good place to start!

[TheResearcher]

Not Hussein.

[Hexexis]

We all think that it is the CIA or something of that sort but according to Saxby(SP) from Ga it is the host country that supplies security. Now after further review I have found this. So what gives, do we not know who is responsible for the security of our people ? It seems even Senators and Congressmen don't know this answer.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/114169.pdf

The web site seems deliberately vague: there're two branches under Bureau; Diplomatic Security Service, Office of Forn. Missions. These are not simple "security" branches; they're law enforcement w/ arrest & subpeona powers. & BTW, every cabinet dept. has its own law enforcement branches, including DHHS & both DoEs.

[Joy in Mudville]

I’ve already stated that we were in the horn of Africa. The CIF’s job is to respond to terrorism which would in turn have possibly provided security to those in Benghazi. We will never know what could have been done.

The operative word here being 'possibly' which I would amend to 'not likely'. This straw you keep clutching is getting worn down.

The only way, and again this might be worth considering, that a CIF could have responded in time to save the Ambassador is if we went back to a cold war footing but instead of having bombers in the air at all times we would have rapid reaction forces in the air or on the planes on the runway at various locations at all times.

Of course, if we could have immediately deployed a CIF and if they could have gotten there in time there's still the strong possibility that we would find ourselves in a 'Black Hawk Down' situation. In other words, instead of losing a diplomat and some security personnel we could have lost several soldiers or pilots or found ourselves in a hostage situation.

[SoSad]

The operative word here being 'possibly' which I would amend to 'not likely'. This straw you keep clutching is getting worn down.

The only way, and again this might be worth considering, that a CIF could have responded in time to save the Ambassador is if we went back to a cold war footing but instead of having bombers in the air at all times we would have rapid reaction forces in the air or on the planes on the runway at various locations at all times.

Of course, if we could have immediately deployed a CIF and if they could have gotten there in time there's still the strong possibility that we would find ourselves in a 'Black Hawk Down' situation. In other words, instead of losing a diplomat and some security personnel we could have lost several soldiers or pilots or found ourselves in a hostage situation.

"could have" is not how the CIF operates. I will concede the point that a "Blackhawk Down" situation could have occured, but we'll never know.

I don't believe that the many warnings of growing tensions in the area prior to 9/11/12 should have been dismissed if in fact they were. I just strongly question what was done if anything.

[Byng]

"could have" is not how the CIF operates. I will concede the point that a "Blackhawk Down" situation could have occured, but we'll never know.

I don't believe that the many warnings of growing tensions in the area prior to 9/11/12 should have been dismissed if in fact they were. I just strongly question what was done if anything.

If you actually knew how a CIF force operates SoSad you would understand that they rarely, if ever go in to rescue Covert CIA Agents that are operating covertly in a country in the first place.

If you are speaking of getting a CIF force to the Consulate in a timely manner, this was done by utilizing previously covert CIA agents to break cover and go to the defense/rescue of our Ambassador, which they did successfully. What other force are you suggesting was needed? Once the Ambassador had died of smoke inhalation, which no outside force could have got there in time to stop anyway, it was the CIA's job to look after themselves, which they do very successfully, 365 days per year 24/7 and did so on this occasion. From the standpoint of a CIF force Benghasi was a complete success, not the failure that you are trying to make it out to be.

[Terry K]

No, not yet. They current histrionics by the Republicans is begining to look like a stall tactic. It looks like it's geared towards preventing progress instead of producing it. I don't know if the Republicans have gone back to guarding Al Qaida's to preserve the very profitable threat they pose. Maybe one or more them own the company or a piece of it. Who knows?

One thing I'm certain of is this dog and pony show by the republicans is doing more to undermine public confidence in Congress than it is to establish public trust in their process.

Please try and keep up with ongoing developments in the Benghazi debacle and stop focusing on alleged histrionics by the Republicans. The Republicans were not responsible for awarding the contract for Security to an inexperienced Carmarthen
firm.

Tthe British firm Blue Mountain was the prime contractor for the U.S. Benghazi compound security contract, hiring some members of the "February 17 Martyrs Brigade" to provide compound security.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...xperience.html

[bullmikey]

It's a matter of response time. The closest assets were in Italy. It takes a while to get a response together, as you should well know.
It's not like a security alert on a Navy ship where the security team can be armed and in position within minutes.

A special forces team was stood up, but the attack was over before they could get off the ground.

A US security force from another town arrived the next morning, but by then it was too late.

I heard there was a military base within an hour's flight time; I don't know if that's ture or not. I'd have to check a map.

It doesn't always have to be special forces. Some show of force, even a fly over, might have helped.

But all that aside, if everything was on the up and up, why all this trouble to spin the truth into a fabric of lies and half-truths? Why not just out with it? My nose tells me something stinks. That's all.

[Byng]

I heard there was a military base within an hour's flight time; I don't know if that's ture or not. I'd have to check a map.

It doesn't always have to be special forces. Some show of force, even a fly over, might have helped.

But all that aside, if everything was on the up and up, why all this trouble to spin the truth into a fabric of lies and half-truths? Why not just out with it? My nose tells me something stinks. That's all.

Is anything ever "on the up and up" where the CIA is involved? The fact that all involved, including possibly our Ambassador were involved in covert CIA operations, there is no way what was going on in Benghazi could have been on the "up and up".

[Wizard777]

Please try and keep up with ongoing developments in the Benghazi debacle and stop focusing on alleged histrionics by the Republicans. The Republicans were not responsible for awarding the contract for Security to an inexperienced Carmarthen
firm.

Tthe British firm Blue Mountain was the prime contractor for the U.S. Benghazi compound security contract, hiring some members of the "February 17 Martyrs Brigade" to provide compound security.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...xperience.html

ROTFLMAO! Keep up? Unlike Congress I'm ahead of the curve. Yes the GOP is in a full blown hissy. Why O' why did Ambassodor Rice say it was a protest when the intelligence she was given said it was a protest. Seriously?

If they are going to do investigations on that then they should also do an investigation on the House cutting the Embassy Security Budget. I'm talking about sitting down and actually doing the math. I don't care what Hillary said. For all anyone knows that could be the next talking point that was wrong.

Now they're trying to say that Obama removed mentions of Al Qaida so the attack didn't conflict with his election message that Al Qaida's abilities have been greatly reduced when they haven't. They are saying this despite Patreaus testifying that he removed that to protect intelligence sources. But lets look at the GOP's claim that Al Qaida's abilities have not been greatly reduced.

9/11/01 - 4,363 dead in NY, DC and Pa.
9/11/12 - 4 dead in Libya.

Reduction in dead Americans from Al Qaida attacks - 4,359

I would have to say that Al Qaida's ability to kill American has been greatly reduced and their ability to kill Americans in America has been eliminated.

So it seems the biggest problem thus far is a bunch of hysterical morons trying to cope with their exposure to "Intelligence." Apparently they're allergic to any kind of intelligence.