I would use blunter words to highlight the basic problem of diplomatic security. For example,
I might say "its desire to terrorise the U.S. Embassy".Originally Posted by Scott Stuart, Stratfor
In the war on terror we are dealing with states who do not wish our diplomats to be secure. They wish our diplomats and our people to be insecure so that they can terrorise or kill them for their political aims, such as to extort protection racket payments from us.
The author omits to mention that basic building security in U.S. Embassies is provided by U.S. Marine Security Guards.
While the author mentions that the U.S. State Department lacks enough Diplomatic Security Service special agents and doesn't have funds allocated to build a new secure embassy in Libya -Originally Posted by Wikipedia
- he fails to mention that in the real world the U.S. gives away billions in military aid. The top recipients in 2010 were -Originally Posted by Scott Stewart
The only reliable ally in that list is Israel. The other countries are not reliable allies. If you have to pay for loyalty, it's not true loyalty. It's a protection racket.Country_______$U.S. millions
Afghanistan ____6,800
Israel__________2,800
Egypt _________1,302
Iraq___________1,006
Pakistan_________914
So if the U.S. quits giving military aid to those unreliable regimes that would save around $10 billion dollars a year and that's plenty to construct and run new fortress embassies wherever a threat of terrorism arises.
By reallocating those funds, the U.S. could increase by multiple factors the size of the U.S. Marine Corps Embassy Security Group from its current tiny battalion size (800 people) to say division size (20,000) which it could use to defend newly built fortress U.S. Embassies where terrorism is a threat and where the war on terror is yet to be won.
My plan calls for a battalion size of guard force to defend a new U.S. and allies embassy base for Libya.
Nor does the author mention that in the real world the State Department oversees billions of dollars of U.S. tax-payer development aid to countries where embassies and diplomats are terrorised.
Only yesterday it was reported that the U.S. State Department is trying to pay another $450 million in aid to Egypt.Nation Billions of Dollars
Afghanistan 2.75
Pakistan___ 1.35
Haiti______ 0.70
Israel_____ 0.59
Kenya_____0.50
Sudan_____0.46
West Bank/Gaza0.38
Jordan_____0.36
Ethiopia____0.35
South Africa0.34
Georgia____0.33
Egypt _____0.32
Tanzania___0.31
Nigeria_____0.29
Uganda____0.26
Indonesia__0.26
Mozambique0.23
Liberia_____0.22
Colombia___0.22
Iraq_______0.22
So that is the generous American people that the world loves but isn't it a bit stupid to try to pay for the country's development while embassies and diplomats in that country are under threat? You can't help people if you get yourself killed, right?
Instead, spend the military aid for war-on-terror, terrorism-effected countries on building, maintaining and guarding very secure fortress embassies and leave those states and political parties which are misled by incompetent leaders to go bankrupt, financially and politically, which would require those countries to under-go some process of regime-change either internally or externally led.
The military aid should be enough if re-allocated to diplomatic security to build new fortress embassies and secure diplomats but if for some reason the President and the Congress allowed the Pentagon to dig its heels in and refuse to pay for diplomatic security then it's better to take some money from the development aid budget for the country with a terrorist problem to provide security for the diplomats and embassies based there.
Better to stop propping up weak governments and use very secure embassies as a place for robust diplomacy to tell local politicians to stop wrecking their own economies as they tend to do by foolishly suppressing and oppressing their most enterprising individuals, tell them to stand aside if they are not up to the job of leadership.
Well the construction of a fortress embassy base would need military engineers' boots on the ground accompanied with marines' boots as security for the engineers totalling more military boots and equipment on the ground than the battalion of embassy security guards needed after completion.
If and when there is a construction site then presumably the U.S. embassy can set up temporary facilities somewhere within the security cordon established there?
But long before a construction site is in being there is the preliminary approval of the concept of a fortress embassy base to be given by both the U.S. and Libyan authorities.
Then comes the search for a possible site and then surveying of possible sites to be done before selecting a candidate site then allocation of the land and final approval to build is given the go ahead.
So yes there is a lot of diplomacy needed even now but most of that diplomacy can be done over the internet and telephone, or in the USA or Europe, Libyans visiting us, until such time as they are ready to send the marines in I would have thought.
Bookmarks