Diplomatic security after terrorists kill US Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya

[Peter Dow]

Hmm...wonder about your embassy hypothesis...especially in a information based world where perception is often reality.

For the sake of argument let's presume you are correct and that the fortress embassy business model is the way to go.

Mmm.

You advocate to coordinate with the Chinese, Russian, Iranian, etc embassies in order to help set them up fortress embassies in our country as we work on setting up fortress embassies in their countries.

No, I don't advocate any such thing in our countries, nor any such thing in China or Russia.

As I explained in my original post, these fortress embassies bases are only intended for a short list of dangerous war-on-terror countries.

The US and allied western countries ought to

• Close all vulnerable diplomatic embassies and consulates in host countries with a war-on-terror connection, with an armed jihadi terrorist groups threat. So that would be not only Libya, but it could be a list of 10 or more dangerous countries, such as Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen - anywhere US embassies have come under fire from jihadi terrorists before.
  
• Establish new secure embassies and consulates within new or existing military bases where the dangerous host country agrees. If the host country does not agree then withdraw our ambassadors from the country altogether.

I never suggested that any country would need to or be allowed to set up a fortress embassy in our countries.

The reciprocal diplomatic arrangement to apply is the requirement for diplomatic security.

Fortress embassies bases are only required in those countries where there are armed terrorist groups at large.

We provide all diplomats security with no need nor justification for a fortress embassies base in our countries. We don't have home-grown terrorist groups in our countries at large in our cities trying to kill diplomats from other countries.

As for Iran, well that's a war-on-terror country if ever there was one. Yes Iran is a country where it would be appropriate to build a fortress embassies base for sure; that's if the US wants to restore diplomatic relations with Iran at all of course.

Fields of fire will need to be cleared and minefields emplaced within our country and theirs.

No, only theirs, and it's only a limited list of countries.

Helipads will need to be setup or clearance gained throughout our country and theirs so that diplomats can fly to and from events and meetings.

In theirs, not ours. Well you don't really need a brand new helipad everywhere to land a helicopter. Helicopters can land on any reasonably flat and big enough area of ground in the country-side or similar-sized surface in the urban environment.

Yes helipads are useful to guide the helicopter pilot to an exact spot; that's why they are handy to have on small tight landing spaces such as roof-top buildings or ships or oil-drilling platforms etc.

The job description of diplomat as someone who engages with civil society, in a diplomatic manner, to advocate and persuade through dialog will need to relooked. In summary your proposed business model will change the perception of diplomats as civilian members of civil society.

It would be longer to travel to meetings so diplomats would be more picky about the meetings they would travel to though travelling by helicopter it is still possible.

The much bigger difference having a remote fortress embassies base would make would be fewer numbers visiting the embassy to conduct routine business.

Visitors to the embassy unless they were VIPs who came by helicopter themselves would have a much longer, time-consuming and expensive road journey and so alternative methods of achieving routine embassy and consulate tasks such as issuing visas or whatever may be done more by internet, telephone, subcontracted services in the cities and so on.

There may be an enhanced emphasis on diplomatic media work, appearances on TV, especially if our reasonable demand for a fair hearing on all appropriate news and comment TV channels was being enforced by strong regulation of satellite TV broadcasting.

Other than that I don't see the role of diplomat changing all that much because of where he or she is based.

Let's review your model against the job description of Diplomat and the historical record of Diplomats who have served in wartime outside of fortress embassies:

Foreign Service Officer, http://careers.state.gov/officer



Who We Look For, http://careers.state.gov/officer/who-we-look-for



Foreign Service Officer Qualifications - 13 DIMENSIONS, http://careers.state.gov/uploads/1e/...dimensions.pdf



Benjamin Franklin, http://www.usdiplomacy.org/history/o...infranking.php

John Adams, http://www.usdiplomacy.org/history/o..._johnadams.php
_______________

My perception of your hypothetical fortress embassy business model is that we would be hunkered down in a fortress embassy with a greatly reduced ability to communicate

No actually, in combination with enhanced satellite TV appearances, the ability to communicate could be one thousand times better.

that we desire "promote peace, support prosperity, and protect American citizens while advancing the interests of the U.S. abroad." Can you quantify the impact to our nation's bottom line of your hypothetical business model vs that that of our current model, which is ~236 years old and, which supports our 14 trillion USD GDP economy?

Well a lot of the war-on-terror countries are massive drains on the US treasury taking billions of US tax-payer dollars in military and development aid. So stopping paying those would save money. If they all turned around and wanted a fortress embassy in the first year then that year would cost a lot but subsequent years would cost less than the $10 billion plus they take every year.

Some like Saudi Arabia buy weapons and other high value goods from the USA and from Europe. Perhaps if the US insisted on a fortress embassy base for Saudi Arabia or withdrew the ambassador then those business contracts might be at risk? Perhaps other less threatened countries would step in to try to sell their weapons to the Saudis instead?

My answer to the oil-rich Arab kingdoms and Iran who fund terrorism more than anyone in the world is regime-changing them to proper democracies so that we have no diplomatic security problems eventually, though regime-changing a country can be difficult, seizing their satellites and allowing democratic and republican opponents of the regimes to broadcast into those countries would help to inspire internal revolution which may not require our forces to invade to oust the old regimes.

In short, no I don't know the exact plus or minus to the USA's bottom line year by year but I do have a lot of confidence that the USA will do very well.