Are we caving to AQ threats?

[Stan]

A quick read over at State's website among other things reveals...

... the Department's main goals: protecting the U.S. and Americans;

There's a big difference between "caving" and taking sensible precaution. And what exactly are we "caving" in to? Did AQAP demand that we shut our embassy temporarily for security reasons?

The idea that an embassy is anything resembling a security outpost is way off base. If they have credible information enough to get both mission chiefs to recommend/accept closing the missions, they made the right call.

Echoing Tequila and Tom - Although we don't have an Arab presence, I can't count how many times in the last 15 years the Embassy here closed their doors for no other reason than to reduce potential risk.

In a friendly country like Estonia, information funnels into the Country Team from law enforcement and the host government daily. The ultimate decision rests with the Embassy, but there have been instances where limited operations or temporary closure was recommended.

Closing or limiting the Embassy's operations simply reduces US and local employee exposure. Riots and social upheaval are no fun, and the walls and windows around the embassy are not some sort of force field

I suppose that what we are really talking about is where is that line drawn, and how are the decisions both arrived at and communicated.

I wished I had a better answer for you Marc. Fact is, even here in snowy paradise the communicated closure or limited operations is rather fuzzy and generates all kinds of rumor with the US expats and local population.

I'm certain Yemen will be handsomely rewarded under any number of programs such as counter terrorism, non-proliferation and security assistance.