Diplomatic security after terrorists kill US Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya

[Peter Dow]

SratFor comments on the subject:

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/diplo...608fcc7da4867d


Obviously not the last word on the subject (nothing ever is), but a real-world look at the situation and potentially some fodder for discussion.

I would use blunter words to highlight the basic problem of diplomatic security. For example,

tensions with the Sandinista government in Nicaragua and its desire to keep the U.S. Embassy insecure.)

I might say "its desire to terrorise the U.S. Embassy".

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.

A Marine Security Guard or Marine Embassy Guard is a member of the the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group,[3] (formerly Marine Security Guard Battalion), a battalion-sized organization of U.S. Marines whose detachments provide security at American Embassies, American Consulates and other official United States Government offices such as the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, Cuba, or the United States Mission to NATO in Brussels, Belgium.

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 -

the 100 new special agents the Diplomatic Security Service is slated to hire this year will not be enough to replace those leaving the service.
..
the construction of a new office building is nonetheless an expensive undertaking and something that the department cannot do under its current operating budget without the U.S. Congress allocating funds to pay for the construction project.

- he fails to mention that in the real world the U.S. gives away billions in military aid. The top recipients in 2010 were -

Country_______$U.S. millions
Afghanistan ____6,800
Israel__________2,800
Egypt _________1,302
Iraq___________1,006
Pakistan_________914

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.

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.

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

Only yesterday it was reported that the U.S. State Department is trying to pay another $450 million in aid to Egypt.

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.

It's worth noting that even if the decision had been made to construct a fortress in the desert it would still be under construction, and there would still be a need to have diplomatic boots (well, ok, diplomatic Gucci shoes) on the ground...

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.

[Wyatt]

if the US wanted to do this, which it doesn't, what does the us do when libya says "no" to the plan?

[Peter Dow]

if the US wanted to do this, which it doesn't, what does the us do when libya says "no" to the plan?

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 say "yes" to the fortress embassies base plan.

Meanwhile the US should halt all military aid to Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq etc. and save some of that billions of dollars a year which the US could spend on reconstruction projects back home.

While our forces remain in Afghanistan some of the $6.8 billion per year military aid to Karzai should instead be spent on NATO setting up an NATO-Afghan auxiliary force, to help to defend NATO-ISAF supply lines. Karzai's army should get nothing.

While "no" to the plan is the prevailing answer, we should not be terrorised into giving war-on-terror countries any military aid whatsoever or disproportionate development aid in response to acts of terrorism.

The US has been bled white by vampire state-sponsors of terrorism for years and giving US blood and treasure so freely simply encourages those countries to think that they need terrorists as proxies to squeeze more cash and influence out of Washington.

It is time to stop paying for this protection racket. It is time to stop exposing diplomats to such risks. Bring them home.

If and when one war-on-terror country says "yes" to the plan and then that country would be the only one to benefit from an intensive and rewarding engagement with the West. In time the rest would follow not wishing to miss out and be left behind.

[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.