Diplomatic security after terrorists kill US Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya

[Peter Dow]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Fuchs]

What? Like the "gross affront" of the US military bases in UK, Germany, (...

Actually, the embassy fortress in Berlin was an affront to the German people and got bad press for years.

It fell much short of a battalion battlegroup fort right next to our capital, it is an embassy of an ally and it was/is still quite an insult.


Btw, you seem to have lost all sense for the cost/benefit ratio. Three companies of guards for an embassy is insane.

Besides, laying AP and AT mines in a foreign country is insane as well, and will be outright illegal in all those countries which ratified the ban on AP mines.

[Peter Dow]

Actually, the embassy fortress in Berlin was an affront to the German people and got bad press for years.

It fell much short of a battalion battlegroup fort right next to our capital, it is an embassy of an ally and it was/is still quite an insult.

The US Embassy in Berlin looks impressive to me. I'd be very pleased if Scotland had an impressive US embassy building like that.

We've just got a wee US Consulate in Edinburgh.

Btw, you seem to have lost all sense for the cost/benefit ratio. Three companies of guards for an embassy is insane.

Well bear in mind the plan is easily adapted to station many allied countries' embassies in the one secure diplomatic base. That would enable the costs to be shared among many countries as well.

Three companies gives you enough guards to man the perimeter defences at 6 miles radius from the central base. If you use less guards then you need to space the pillboxes out too much or shrink the perimeter diameter which starts to bring enemy mortars into range of the central base from outside the barrier defences.

There are rational military reasons for using that many guards to defend against typical infantry-style attacks of the sort that we saw against the Benghazi consulate.

The thing which would be, so to speak, "insane" would be terrorists attacking and failing to make any impression on a secure embassy designed according to my plan. The martyrdom video of that failed attack is not one the terrorists would want to show on YouTube.

Besides, laying AP and AT mines in a foreign country is insane as well, and will be outright illegal in all those countries which ratified the ban on AP mines.

Land-mines are an efficient way to defend a perimeter. Granted there are huge problems with conventional mines left over from old wars but the way to go with land-mines is smart, self-deactivating or self-destructing mines which can be designed to be set to become inert and safe when the lease for the land on which the base was sited was up. Those are the land-mines that the US is using now.

U.S. Landmine Policy

On Friday, February 27, 2004, the new United States policy on landmines was announced. This policy is a significant departure from past approaches to landmines. It ensures protection for both military forces and civilians alike, and continues U.S. leadership in humanitarian mine action -- those activities that contribute most directly toward eliminating the landmine problem and mitigating its effects on landmine survivors. Under the new policy, the United States will:

• eliminate all persistent landmines from its arsenal;
  
• continue to develop non-persistent (self-destructing/self-deactivating) landmines that will not pose a humanitarian threat after use in battle;
  
• continue to research and develop enhancements to the current self-destructing/self-deactivating landmine technology in order to develop and preserve military capabilities that address the United States transformational goals;
  
• seek a worldwide ban on the sale or export of all persistent landmines;
  
• get rid of its non-detectable mines within one year;
  
• only employ persistent anti-vehicle mines outside of Korea between now and 2010, if needed, when authorized by the President;
  
• not use any persistent landmines -- neither anti-personnel nor anti-vehicle -- anywhere after 2010;
  
• begin the destruction within two years of those persistent landmines not needed for the protection of Korea;
  
• seek a 50 percent increase in the U.S. Department of State's portion of the U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action Program over Fiscal Year 2003 baseline levels to $70 million a year.

One thing which is, so to speak, "insane", with regard to land-mines is the reckless way NATO-ISAF forces are driving about on Afghanistan's roads not cleared of enemy mines or road-side bombs and getting our soldiers killed.

For a better way to secure supply routes in Afghanistan see my post "4. Secure supply routes for Afghanistan. Land routes." in my thread "How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)" in the "OEF - Afghanistan" forum of SWC forums.