Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Diplomatic security after terrorists kill US Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Posts
    53

    Default Low profile, welcome, interacting, our troops

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    Such a base for diplomats would not be 'low profile',
    Sure it would be. The Libyan desert has a very low population density. This would not be like the Green Zone in Baghdad situated in the middle of the capital city but rather out in the middle of nowhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    but a gross affront to local people
    What? Like the "gross affront" of the US military bases in UK, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria, Turkey, Greenland, Kosovo, Israel, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Qatar, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Guam, Brazil and Cuba?

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    and challenges the very need for diplomats to be in country.
    No it doesn't. It is needed to challenge the anti-American terrorists who want to challenge our diplomats' welcome in the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    US diplomats in risky places already are known to have minimal interaction outside embassies - this would end it.
    Actually it would provide more possibilities for interaction because the diplomats would be able to leave the secluded embassy by helicopter at times unknown to the terrorists. Thus diplomats could arrive at events anywhere in country for surprise visits leaving the terrorists flat-footed.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    Oh yes, who provides the guard force (battalion equivalent), the host nation or the foreign nations?
    The foreign nations.

    Most of the battalion equivalent would comprise of 3 companies operating in 3 shifts.

    I would suggest -

    • If it was a US-only embassy military base, all 3 companies would be American.
    • If it was a diplomatic base for the US embassy and embassies of only a few close allies of the US, such as the UK, Canada, perhaps one or two others, 2 companies would be American, the other would be from one of the other countries and would rotate deployments.
    • If many or all of the US's NATO allies were joining in to locate their embassies there then 1 company would always be American, the 2 others would rotate around the NATO countries.
    Last edited by Peter Dow; 09-24-2012 at 06:21 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. UK National Security Strategy
    By Red Rat in forum Europe
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-18-2010, 09:47 PM
  2. Toward Sustainable Security in Iraq and the Endgame
    By Rob Thornton in forum US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-30-2008, 12:24 PM
  3. Coupla Questions From a Newbie
    By kwillcox in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-09-2007, 07:32 AM
  4. Developing Iraq’s Security Sector: The CPA’s Experience
    By Jedburgh in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-05-2006, 05:03 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •