Bill,
I would agree on the security issue before 1983, but since then the Embassies have become more and more like fortresses. There are ways for the Ambassador to protect his folks without completely closing and announcing that it was in response to an AQ threat. Enhancing the perception of their threat does not enhance our security.
Kind of like announcing that we will not send troops -- once the announcement is made it takes the option off the table just when we want AQ to be less sure about what we are doing, not more. And if the YM's request assistance, we are in a position of turning them down or going back on our word. Why put ourselves in that situation? It's unnecessary and does not advance our cause in any way. And as SteveO rightly points out, we have had troops there on training missions, so why say that we aren't sending troops when they are already there?
AQ has failed wherever it has tried to take over, now even YM is attacking them in a big way. So why do we act like we are the ones under siege?
Bookmarks