Who Provides Security For Diplomats

[SoSad]

Yeah, if you've been to any embassy, you see the locals patrolling outside and see our folks inside.

What about the CIF?

[soulflower]

The host country is responsible for the security of embassies and consulates, but that’s assuming that you are dealing with a civilized nation capable of fulfilling those responsibilities and deserving of embassies and consulates in the first place. In a country where nobody is literally “in charge”, the situation becomes very iffy at best.

Probably we should not have had an ambassador in Libya, considering the situation on the ground there was not sufficiently stable, despite the Obama administration and the MSM most insincere efforts to present the country as “normalized” and a triumph of the administration’s foreign policy. Is it amazing how the administration’s media lap doges couldn’t manage to fathom that the ambassador’s murder was the result of an organized terrorist plot, evidently perpetrated with some degree of cooperation by the local authorities (providing you can figure out exactly who these local authorities were at any given moment), but were Johnny-on-the-Spot at finding footage of “peaceful” Muslims protesting the assault just in time to back up the administration’s tall tale of it all being because of some obscure film footage that popped up on YouTube or whatever.

Why?

Maybe because it wouldn’t have looked good in an election year to hint that we may have unseated a manageable dictator and handed the country over to the Jihadi just so the administration’s Euro pals could continue to have cheap access to sweet Libyan crude. I suspect that’s why no direct attempt was made to rescue our ambassador – it would have looked bad to send in the Marines on the eve of an election to rescue our diplomats from what we were all told was a normalized country – and the subsequent cover up that now reeks to high heaven. That will also be the reason for the earlier removal of the internal security detail and the DOS's refusal to reinstate it in time to possibly prevent this tragedy.

Apparently, in the slipstream of hardball politics, Chicago-style, self-interest exceeds the value of human life.

Most of what you said is true but hindsight is always 20/20

[ms maggie]

Read the topic of the thread, okay? I don't have to agree with the OP, but can certainly put in my 2 cents worth whether you like it or not.

Keep the insults up, nice job.

Certainly you can put in your 2 cents. Just think it's helpful to understand posts in context. I was answering the question posed by the OP, something you would know if had actually read the thread instead of jumping at the chance to disagree.

[ms maggie]

What about the CIF?

The CIF is deployed as a SWAT operation. So what about them? Again, the original question is who provides security for diplomats. Certainly not the CIF!

[Seadog]

The CIF is deployed as a SWAT operation. So what about them? Again, the original question is who provides security for diplomats. Certainly not the CIF!

As mentioned several times in this thread, the US Marine Corp Security Group (MSG) guards the diplomats. There are others as well, but the embassies are guarded by the MSG.

One of the many jobs I did in the Navy was to guard stockpiles of high explosives and ammunition. The two marine sergeants who trained me for that job were from the MSG. Those guys were incredible!

Benghazi was an aberration in that it was really a CIA operation. Most of the 30-some people there were CIA and they provided their own security.

[Seadog]

Of course, a rule followed the Dems in their commenting on Bush re Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Such hypocrisy, such partisan brainwashing, it would be laughable if not so sad.

Bingo!

[Seadog]

T

...I suspect that’s why no direct attempt was made to rescue our ambassador – it would have looked bad to send in the Marines on the eve of an election to rescue our diplomats from what we were all told was a normalized country – and the subsequent cover up that now reeks to high heaven. ...

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.

[SoSad]

Certainly you can put in your 2 cents. Just think it's helpful to understand posts in context. I was answering the question posed by the OP, something you would know if had actually read the thread instead of jumping at the chance to disagree.

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

[Byng]

We've been over this subject on the Benghazi thread. The CIF were noticeably absent.

That is because the CIF were not needed in Benghazi!

[Byng]

The CIF is deployed as a SWAT operation. So what about them? Again, the original question is who provides security for diplomats. Certainly not the CIF!

Exactly!

[Byng]

[quote=Seadog;8198051]As mentioned several times in this thread, the US Marine Corp Security Group (MSG) guards the diplomats. There are others as well, but the embassies are guarded by the MSG.

One of the many jobs I did in the Navy was to guard stockpiles of high explosives and ammunition. The two marine sergeants who trained me for that job were from the MSG. Those guys were incredible!

[B]Benghazi was an aberration in that it was really a CIA operation. Most of the 30-some people there were CIA and they provided their own security.[/ quote]

Byngo!

[Wizard777]

Marine Corps Embassy Security Group

This is just one option for security. The other option is private security contractors. Also the cost of the Marine detail comes out of the State Departments Budget. Not the Pentagon's.

Any Security Force used is only responsible for guarding anything inside the wall. Anything outside the wall is the responsibility of the host country. If a security detail is attacked outside the walls they may defend.

[Byng]

This is just one option for security. The other option is private security contractors. Also the cost of the Marine detail comes out of the State Departments Budget. Not the Pentagon's.

Any Security Force used is only responsible for guarding anything inside the wall. Anything outside the wall is the responsibility of the host country. If a security detail is attacked outside the walls they may defend.

Or like in the case of Benghazi where the local militia that the Libyan Government subcontracted security to, just hitched up their skirts and run away. In fact I heard a pretty reliable report last week that they are still running! They must have reached the horn of Africa by now.

[cprenegade]

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

Did Republicans blame Reagan when 300 marines were killed by Hezbollah?

The CIA does not provide security, not part of their portfolio. The host country is responsible for security. Which is not to say there wasn't a major screw-up of some sort in Benghazi.

Unlike some, I don't pretend to know the root cause of this. Can't be good though, can it?

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.

[Joy in Mudville]

What about the CIF?

My god, are you Obsessive Compulsive or something? We all read the Times article. The CIF for Africa is in formation and currently undergoing training in the United States. It may very well be worth looking into why it taken several years to build and train this force.

But as any rational individual would be able to point out, even if it was fully operational it would not have been based in Libya but would have been based in Djibouti, several hundred miles away from Libya. When you consider that the ambassador was killed in the first attack which lasted less than 3 hours it is not at all clear that the CIF could have deployed in time to do anything.

[SoSad]

My god, are you Obsessive Compulsive or something?

A true sign of a strong debater.

We all read the Times article.

How nice of you to be the voice of everyone.

The CIF for Africa is in formation and currently undergoing training in the United States. It may very well be worth looking into why it taken several years to build and train this force.

Ya think?

But as any rational individual would be able to point out,

Says you; that holds a lot of weight...

even if it was fully operational it would not have been based in Libya but would have been based in Djibouti, several hundred miles away from Libya. When you consider that the ambassador was killed in the first attack which lasted less than 3 hours it is not at all clear that the CIF could have deployed in time to do anything.

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.

[Byng]

A true sign of a strong debater.




How nice of you to be the voice of everyone.




Ya think?



Says you; that holds a lot of weight...



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.

This was an attack on CIA Covert Agents who just happened to be using an American Consulate as a front. The CIA Team housed at the Annex, one mile away, previously Covert, broke cover, went to the defence of the Consulate and in consequence acted as the CIF team. Makes sense because they were located only a mile away from the attack. So there was no requirement to send in outside forces. And the CIA team successfully did the job at two locations, successfully evacuated everybody to the airport in Benghazi and a large number of Americans were airlifted safely out of Benghazi with the loss of only 4 lives.

So is your point that if another CIF team were needed (and they were not) we could not have got one there in time to help in this case? Because by using Benghazi as an example makes little sense, there are millions of locations in the world in known trouble spots or other-wise that we could not have got a CIF team to either. And once the Ambassador was dead we seldom if ever send a CIF team to help out the CIA because they are very capable of looking after themselves as they proved bravely and admirably in Benghazi!

[Wizard777]

Or like in the case of Benghazi where the local militia that the Libyan Government subcontracted security to, just hitched up their skirts and run away. In fact I heard a pretty reliable report last week that they are still running! They must have reached the horn of Africa by now.

In this case the Secirity contractors were from England. Libyan law requires them to partner with a Libyan firm to operate within the country. There were unarmed guards outside the embassy that were provided by the local malitia. Yes they did retreat. But they came back with a mob of locals. These were the people that found the Ambassador still alive and got him to the Hospital.

[SoSad]

In this case the Secirity contractors were from England. Libyan law requires them to partner with a Libyan firm to operate within the country. There were unarmed guards outside the embassy that were provided by the local malitia. Yes they did retreat. But they came back with a mob of locals. These were the people that found the Ambassador still alive and got him to the Hospital.

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?

[Byng]

In this case the Secirity contractors were from England. Libyan law requires them to partner with a Libyan firm to operate within the country. There were unarmed guards outside the embassy that were provided by the local malitia. Yes they did retreat. But they came back with a mob of locals. These were the people that found the Ambassador still alive and got him to the Hospital.

I was being flippant old friend, as you well know, but thanks for the dig at Blighty! At least the UK had the sense back in the Summer to pack up and leave Libya because of the rising tensions in Libya in general and Benghazi in particular.