Diplomatic security after terrorists kill US Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya

[Dayuhan]

Couldn't you accomplish the same goal with a lot less hassle and expense by parking a suitably sized naval vessel offshore and designating it an "embassy"? Of course that would be completely inconsistent with the purpose and function of an embassy, but so would a fortress in the desert.

One of the great advantages of proposing things that you know will never be tried is that you will never be proven wrong, and can carry on for all time claiming that your way would have been better. This is not an uncommon device on these forums, though this is perhaps an unusually extravagant example. Those who would prefer to consider the real world would be well advised to follow Jon's excellent example and become elsewhere, which I think I will do.

[Peter Dow]

Couldn't you accomplish the same goal with a lot less hassle and expense by parking a suitably sized naval vessel offshore and designating it an "embassy"?

Yes in the case of countries like Libya with a nearby coast line it could be a good solution which could be up and running very quickly.

For Libya it would be possible to have two ships - a larger "embassy ship" anchoring 12 plus miles offshore off of Tripoli and a second smaller "consulate ship" anchored 12 miles plus offshore off of Benghazi.

So a fuller range of options if the Libyans say "no" to a land-based fortress embassy would be -

Diplomacy can be done over the internet and telephone, at sea in anchored ships acting as floating embassies / consulates, in a neighbouring country, or in the USA or Europe, Libyans visiting us, until such time as they are ready to say "yes" to the fortress embassies base plan.

For Libya, I had in mind using an anchored ship off the coast as a staging point for supplies to be offloaded from other ships then loaded onto helicopters for onward transport to the fortress embassies base.

I think for Libya the ship embassies solution is a good idea to try out and get some experience of how practical and useful operating a remote embassy would be. This experience could be invaluable to inform the design requirements of a remote fortress embassies base on land.

Ship embassies are also an option for Egypt and Pakistan though not for Afghanistan being landlocked. (The alternatives for Egypt and Pakistan of using a remote embassy based in Israel and India respectively could be considered - although friendly countries Israel and India are not without their own security problems.)

The large U.S. Embassy in Baghdad having invested so much in to enhance security is probably worth keeping for now.

Of course that would be completely inconsistent with the purpose and function of an embassy, but so would a fortress in the desert.

Well I can think of 4 Americans who'd be better off alive and well today in a ship embassy anchored off Benghazi or Tripoli.

So long as the ship embassy wasn't anchored too close to land within missile, mortar or artillery range of the shore I would think it would be fairly safe. I assume it would be a US Navy ship with guns, missiles and marines of course.

Better still is over the horizon 12 miles plus offshore so that helicopters flying from ship to shore can initially fly parallel to the shore but unseen from the shore for an unpredictable distance before turning and heading inland.

If as I have read there are indeed a large number of ground to air missiles in the hands of terrorists then we need to bear in mind that travelling by helicopter can be vulnerable to those missiles or even machine gun fire so it is best security procedure to do things like change the route so that terrorists never know where to lie in wait, have an attack helicopter escort, equip the helicopters used with anti-missile devices etc.

Also even if a diplomat achieves surprise by arriving unexpectedly at a public event in Tripoli or Benghazi, remember that very quickly the word will get out and terrorists with ground-to-air missiles will be on their way to follow the diplomat leaving and to try to shoot down the helicopter when it departs. So don't wait around visiting for too long and lose the advantage of surprise. A quick landing, speech, wave, photo for the cameras, drive away, take off, back to ship - all before the terrorists know anything is happening.

But yes the more I think about it, the ship embassy concept looks good to go!

One of the great advantages of proposing things that you know will never be tried is that you will never be proven wrong, and can carry on for all time claiming that your way would have been better. This is not an uncommon device on these forums, though this is perhaps an unusually extravagant example.

Well as far as the ship embassy concept is concerned, I wouldn't be so sure that it won't be tried.

I believe that a couple of US ships are indeed off shore Libya somewhere but that is maybe more to do with hunting down the terrorists who killed Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues.

So if there are two US ships off Libya now then there might be more one day soon and one ship with the new ambassador to Libya aboard maybe.

Those who would prefer to consider the real world would be well advised to follow Jon's excellent example and become elsewhere, which I think I will do.

Well remember that in real world the US government paying state-sponsors of terrorism billions of dollars in military aid, which is more money than their corrupt leaders have ever seen in their lives before is exactly the incentive to make sure they keep the terrorist fires burning.

If before 9/11 someone had told the Afghan and Pashtun elite that they'd have their hands on $6 or $7 billion per year in military aid to spend if only they'd provide a base to train up some jihadi terrorists to attack America I suspect that they would have readily agreed to do their best to bring it on.

Sometimes the real world needs improving upon and that's the case in the war on terror.

[Dayuhan]

But yes the more I think about it, the ship embassy concept looks good to go!

It was actually meant to be a facetious proposal.

Don't you think a ship, or a desert fortress, would be a wee bit awkward for visa applicants, or for Americans who need a notary stamp or a passport renewal? Are they meant to swim out to the ship, or hire their own helicopters?

What I think you overlook here is that most of what an embassy does involves routine pedestrian functions that require an accessible public interface.

What you suggest would make sense if the primary function of diplomatic service was to assure the safety of diplomats. As with the military, force protection is important, but taking it to a point that compromises the mission is hardly rational.

[Peter Dow]

It was actually meant to be a facetious proposal.

Well I am serious about advancing the ship embassy proposal but if you don't wish to get the credit for your idea, I won't name you as the author of the proposal.

One joke I did think of would be to call the ship embassy idea "Gunboat Diplomacy".

Don't you think a ship, or a desert fortress, would be a wee bit awkward for visa applicants, or for Americans who need a notary stamp or a passport renewal?

Yes but not as awkward as you imagine.

Are they meant to swim out to the ship, or hire their own helicopters?

Now I know you are being facetious.

What I think you overlook here is that most of what an embassy does involves routine pedestrian functions that require an accessible public interface.

What you suggest would make sense if the primary function of diplomatic service was to assure the safety of diplomats. As with the military, force protection is important, but taking it to a point that compromises the mission is hardly rational.

There are a number of alternative methods of doing business these days which don't involve customer and business ever being in the same building or location. Information can be exchanged by telephone or by internet allowing the embassy officials on ship to provide some services as a mail order company would.

In the case of valuable original customer documents, such as passports, which embassy officials required to have hands-on access to, embassy customers or their couriers could drop those off somewhere secure, at the site of the former embassy perhaps, which could then be sent by secure courier to the embassy ship or fortress, by armoured truck, boat or helicopter, in a diplomatic bag.

Documents could be returned from the embassy ship to the customer by similar methods.

[AdamG]

They described the second facility as a significant and largely secret complex, housing diplomatic and intelligence personnel. Among their assignments was a high-priority inter-agency program to locate shoulder-fired missiles and other weapons loosed by Libya's 2011 revolution. That program is coordinated by the State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...pe=marketsNews

[ganulv]

The amazing story of what happened in Libya | theAtlantic.com

“There are real and important diplomatic-security strategy questions to answer going forward (such as why there’s been no mention so far of emergency filter or other masks in the consulate’s safe haven of the sort homeland-security officials once recommended for all Americans at home). But that doesn’t negate that what Secretary Clinton said is right: the ambassador and the others on the ground in Benghazi signed up for a dangerous job, and we should all be so lucky as to have the courage they showed on September 11 and 12.”

[Stan]

The amazing story of what happened in Libya | theAtlantic.com

“There are real and important diplomatic-security strategy questions to answer going forward (such as why there’s been no mention so far of emergency filter or other masks in the consulate’s safe haven of the sort homeland-security officials once recommended for all Americans at home). But that doesn’t negate that what Secretary Clinton said is right: the ambassador and the others on the ground in Benghazi signed up for a dangerous job, and we should all be so lucky as to have the courage they showed on September 11 and 12.”

Hi Matt !
There are gas masks everywhere and there are many that wouldn’t give you (the instructor) the time of day to even pay attention while teaching them how to employ the mask. Some have bad hair days and others simply will not comply. The locations of the masks, much like the fire extinguishers, are made known to the intended users. As to Secretary Clinton’s statement, I have to agree. Libya has no garden spots left (other than hiding out in the logistics buildings ), and most of those fine (first time) diplomats get to serve in a Sierra hole before they get Paris.

Been out for a long while and will be leaving again shortly. Keep all the others in check and be a PITA (it worked for me for a short while !)

[Stan]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...pe=marketsNews

Hmmm, what to say here without putting my butt into the frying pan

Just about every embassy in Africa and in Europe has several of these so-called top secret locations. Actually, they are little more than logistics and admin areas separated from the main building for several obvious reasons. This does not mean to say the security in any of the buildings is intentionally better than the others, and, I suspect, the attackers would never have gone for the admin buildings as they probably had no idea where and what those buildings were. No profile, minions and local staff working there, etc.

On to the SAMs. It was nearly 6 years ago we were offered a cool million for a SAM. Sadly, we don’t have any. Let’s not take this out of context; it’s not cash, it is assistance money and you don’t get to choose what and where. Anyone with 5 minutes on his hands and Google can go to the State dot Gov site and figure out what all that Sierra means (or doesn't).

Be careful who you go to bed with tonite