Diplomatic security after terrorists kill US Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya

[Fuchs]

Such a base for diplomats would not be 'low profile', but a gross affront to local people and challenges the very need for diplomats to be in country. US diplomats in risky places already are known to have minimal interaction outside embassies - this would end it.

Oh yes, who provides the guard force (battalion equivalent), the host nation or the foreign nations?

I second that.

U.S. embassies re already rather unpopular because of their often outrageous security demand affecting local traffic and their fortress-like appearance.


I suggest to

(1) Stick with the existing, already quite fortified embassies and consulates in calm countries.

(2) Have embassies in troublesome countries only in places very close to police stations, army bases or buildings that can be expected to be well-secured (such as ruling party's headquarter, presidential palace etc); piggyback on existing security arrangements in order to boost the own security.

(3) Build consulates in troublesome countries only high in high-rise buildings (8+ floors). This does largely neutralise car bombs and makes it rather easy to stop even an armed mob (assuming elevators can be stopped). Preferably have a roof that's suitable for an evacuation by helicopter. Use a separated and CCTV-secured part of the garage.

(4) Demand public safety guarantees from host governments, local police chiefs/governors whenever the risk of riots or assaults is high.

(5) Live with the fact that there is no 100% security anywhere or for anyone.

[Peter Dow]

I second that.

U.S. embassies re already rather unpopular because of their often outrageous security demand affecting local traffic and their fortress-like appearance.

You are describing embassies in capital cities. That's not what I am proposing. There's no traffic in the middle of the Libyan desert. Appearance doesn't matter when no-one is there to see it.

I suggest to

(1) Stick with the existing, already quite fortified embassies and consulates in calm countries.

Agreed. My proposal is only for countries with a history of jihadi terrorist attacks against embassies and diplomats. So that might be only something like 10 countries.

(2) Have embassies in troublesome countries only in places very close to police stations, army bases or buildings that can be expected to be well-secured (such as ruling party's headquarter, presidential palace etc); piggyback on existing security arrangements in order to boost the own security.

Next to a military base etc would be no safer from a suicide bomber driving a truck bomb. Only placing an embassy within a military base, taking advantage of the perimeter defences of the military base would be much safer.

(3) Build consulates in troublesome countries only high in high-rise buildings (8+ floors). This does largely neutralise car bombs and makes it rather easy to stop even an armed mob (assuming elevators can be stopped). Preferably have a roof that's suitable for an evacuation by helicopter. Use a separated and CCTV-secured part of the garage.

No it doesn't.

Wikipedia: 1983 United States embassy bombing

The 1983 U.S. embassy bombing was a suicide bombing against the United States embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, on April 18, 1983, that killed 63 people, mostly embassy and CIA staff members, several soldiers and one Marine. 17 of the dead were Americans.

The car bomb was detonated by a suicide bomber driving a delivery van packed with about 2,000 pounds (910 kg) of explosives

Wikipedia: Oklahoma City bombing

The Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. It would remain the most destructive act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11, 2001 attacks. The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6[1] and injured more than 680 people.

(4) Demand public safety guarantees from host governments, local police chiefs/governors whenever the risk of riots or assaults is high.

Such safety guarantees are easier given than delivered. What if the embassy gets bombed despite the guarantees? No doubt such safety guarantees have been sought and given in every case where an embassy has been bombed.

(5) Live with the fact that there is no 100% security anywhere or for anyone.

Live with the fact that during a war on terror, diplomats do require competent military defences for embassies and consulates. Don't live with incompetent diplomatic security measures. Let's put 100% effort into making our diplomats as secure as they can be. We can only do our best but we should do at least that.

[KenWats]

Peter,

I'm sure your arrangement would be very secure, you put a lot of thought into it from a security perspective. However, if you move the embassy out into the middle of the desert (or other unpopulated area, away from the seat of host nation government), you limit his engagement with the foreign government. Also, your military attaches and regular diplomatic dealings will either necessitate A) a lot of traffic into your secure area, if we make the host nation folks come to us (perfect for pre-operational surveillance for a local terror cell, or even an infiltration route) or B) a lot of convoys of diplomats driving around (ready target for an ambush?).

Seems to me that the mission of the embassy is not to be impregnable. The mission of the embassy is to allow face to face interaction with the host government (among other things). Everything else (to include security) should support that. Not to say that stupid things weren't done in Libya or elsewhere and that we shouldn't try to correct said stupidity. Hard to have face to face interaction if your embassy is a smoking hole in the ground, but you can't have it very effectively if you have a 10 mile security perimeter out in the middle of nowhere with AT mines, blast walls, and a battalion sized security element.

Just my two cents.

The Other KenW

[Peter Dow]

Peter,

I'm sure your arrangement would be very secure, you put a lot of thought into it from a security perspective.

Thanks Ken. My plan is a good starting point for sure.

However, if you move the embassy out into the middle of the desert (or other unpopulated area, away from the seat of host nation government), you limit his engagement with the foreign government.

The base could provide an office and quarters for a representative of the host government - if the base was in Libya, that would be a representative of the Libyan government, a diplomat from the Libyan foreign ministry could be stationed alongside the embassies sited there. So there could be face to face contacts at any time.

Add to that telephone, internet and video conferencing and instant engagement could be easily sufficient.

Also, your military attaches and regular diplomatic dealings will either necessitate A) a lot of traffic into your secure area, if we make the host nation folks come to us (perfect for pre-operational surveillance for a local terror cell, or even an infiltration route) or B) a lot of convoys of diplomats driving around (ready target for an ambush?).

Helicopters Ken. All diplomats and VIP visitors can arrive and leave by helicopter completely unobserved from 10 miles away which is as close as spies would be allowed to get. Therefore compared to a capital city embassy my plan is superior if not perfect for avoiding surveillance and ambushes.

Seems to me that the mission of the embassy is not to be impregnable. The mission of the embassy is to allow face to face interaction with the host government (among other things). Everything else (to include security) should support that.

Well how does the country retreat of the US President - Camp David - seem to you? Camp David too is a small military base officially called "Naval Support Facility Thurmont" which is staffed by the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marines. Did you know that?

When one thinks of Camp David, one never thinks of the security there - one just thinks of Camp David as a place in the country for the President to have face to face meetings at. It will be something similar with the embassies base I propose in my plan.

Not to say that stupid things weren't done in Libya or elsewhere and that we shouldn't try to correct said stupidity. Hard to have face to face interaction if your embassy is a smoking hole in the ground, but you can't have it very effectively if you have a 10 mile security perimeter out in the middle of nowhere with AT mines, blast walls, and a battalion sized security element.

It's not hard. It'll work as conveniently for the diplomats and visitors as a Libyan version of Camp David.

Visitors arriving by helicopter will be 6 miles away from Anti Tank mines when they land and there could be an area in the central base as large as Camp David (0.5 km2) with no base guards in that small camp within the central base.

All the base security details described here can be ignored and be forgotten by diplomats. Those details matter only for those who must design, build, staff and run the base. The diplomats will be too busy thinking about diplomacy to think about the security infrastructure of the base. Sure they will see the layout of the base as they come in to land and take off but then never give it a second thought.

Just my two cents.

The Other KenW

Thanks Ken!