Everyone hold on a second. I’ve tried to run this down and so far its one website, Nightwatch, citing “marine corps blogs”. No links, no screenshots, no nothing. Maybe its true, maybe its not but right now, we have no evidence or actual reporting. Something the Time reporter is thinking as well. I need something more before I buy this one.

Well if it is true, someone needs to be held accountable and this entire situation exposed. Gee, if only we had a national media that would do it’s job (not the job of climbing all over Romney’s supposed gaffe) and give it to us straight what is happening.

it appears someone different sent out the statement from what I’ve read

555′s for that. I long to turn off my radio, but I listen in a kind of hypnotic fascination as I’m further informed that more stimulus has been approved and in my hometown of NYC, the health department has okayed the ban on sales of soft drinks larger than 16 ounces.

Ladies and gentlemen, the leftists hasten on the march.

Well. The responsibility for the security of the embassy lies with the host nation. This is according to the Vienna Convention which is the basis of diplomatic reciprocity, extraterritoriality, etc. It has been in effect since 1815 and is usually observed, even by nations at war with each other.

It’s obviously not adequate for the current reality, which is that we are dealing with sovereign nations (Egypt and Libya) which lack some of the attributes of sovereignty. As is true in much of this part of the world the national government is sort of a fiction. it does not control the borders, cedes authority to various warlords and militias and does not control its population. Nor do these post colonial governments necessarily see these European agreements as binding on them.

Yet, we pretend that these governments can (or will) defend our diplomatic missions. In the case of Egypt we are dealing with a government that is hostile to our interests and a population that is increasingly radical. In Libya we are in a post civil war context where the national government exerts imperfect control over various armed factions.

The question then is, how do we defend our embassies and personnel in countries where we don’t have a military presence, either through military occupation (eg Iraq, Afghanistan) or through treaties (Germany, Japan NATO countries etc). This is a huge problem, and a relatively recent one for us. Neither Egypt nor Libya is going to allow a military presence big enough to protect our Embassies on their soil for very long. (The fifty Marines now in Libya are based in Spain. )

The Marines (about 1000) who are assigned to 150 embassies, consulates and interest sections around the world are too few in number to be effective (even when they have bullets in their weapons). Pursuant to a 1946 agreement, the Secretary of the Navy seconds a certain number of Marines to serve in Embassies. The Marines are under the supervision of the senior diplomat of the mission (that would be the Ambassador) but practically they are supervised by the RSO (Regional Security Officer) of the Embassy, a law enforcement official of the DSS. The RSO gives the assignments, assesses security situation and so forth. I’d like to know who the RSO in Cairo is.

The situation in Benghazi is bizarre. Normally a consulate is a low profile facility. Often it’s just a room or a suite in an office building, with one or two officials. The main work there is processing visa applications, handling various trade and commercial issues, visiting Americans in hospitals, jails, etc, doing reporting on the political, economic developments of the region or city.

Why do we have a consulate in Benghazi, one of the most dangerous parts of Libya? Does any other country have a consulate there? I’d like to know. There is a consular office in the Embassy in Tripoli, which is there presumably because it is secure. Why did the Ambassador go to Benghazi? Btw, the identity of the third KIA in Benghazi is now known, he was an ex-Navy Seal, Glen Doherty, who was the Ambassador’s bodyguard.

The consulate is called a “transitional facility” which means what? Apparently there were a larger number of staff there, (around 40) than was expected, who were eventually rescued by the Libyans. Very weird.

What we have here is just appalling dereliction of duty by SOS Clinton and Asst Secretary for NE Affairs Feltman, who should both be fired immediately. Of course ultimate blame rests with the President, whose feckless and irresponsible failures in leadership have brought us to this situation.

Will the 50 Marines dispatched by President Obama be allowed to carry live ammunition and allowed to defend themselves. Maybe that is a question that the Washington press core should be asking President Obama instead of the dumb questions the clown reporters asked Romney.

Sorry my question wasn’t very clear. It should say, why was he still there? The problems had started the day before, as evidenced by one of the guys killed telling his EVE online guild that he hoped he didn’t die that night. Why wasn’t he evacuated back to Tripoli? Should have been more clear.

the question is why anyone was still there. I have to give the guy an A for effort if and F for judgment because he didn’t evacuate the consulate and chose to share the danger with his people.

One of many facts that I remember about the Iran hostage crisis was that the Marine guards who protected the embassy were also not allowed to load their weapons–this under the former peacenik administration . . .

Very good points that I have been reading about as I came back to the post, another good point is that in 1979 and today the President is an incompetent Democrat. Now if we can only do to this one what we were able to do to the one in 1979.

If Hillary Clinton had any self respect , she would resign. We all know that Bill and hillary are ‘shameless’. They would do any favors to O’s ‘posterior’ so as not to jeopardize their ’2016 Dream’.

Ah, the CYOA plan is in full swing as you noted. Someone should tell Ms. Ambassador that it is too late, the sheer notion that she was even considering having them unarmed speaks volumes about her inability to do her job. She should do us all a favor and resign.

I do wonder though if someone in the military told her to kick rocks when she suggested they not have live ammunition. It may explain the reversal here.

Security is the one thing – you never outsource. NEVER…

As a diplomat’s wife, I was surprised to be told during my security in-briefing at my current post that the Marines’ primary mission isn’t to protect us, the diplomats and families. Their primary mission in an embassy/consulate is to protect classified information. Secondary mission is to protect us, the personnel. Tertiary is to protect the facilities. If a consulate has classified information, chances are, there will be Marines there to guard it. If there’s no classified information there, it’s much less likely that there will be Marines. This information made sense of some other information I’d been given during our previous post–Cairo, where we were when the revolution started: the defense plan for the embassy involved giving up some embassy real estate in order to concentrate the defense around the areas with classified information. Makes perfect sense from a national security perspective, although I admit to being a bit disheartened to learn that our lives aren’t the number one priority. (I do believe that once the classified information has been destroyed, if it comes to that, we move into primary position.)

She IS The Ambassador, and runs the operation. It is ‘on her’ and no one else.
Like the ‘vendor excuse’ used for The Soviet Navy Pictures at the DNC convention , this is just a dodge.
A very thin,asinine, slimy little dodge.

Are you going to issue a correction?

From: Cross, Alex Maj OLA, LA-41B
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:55 PM
To: Cross, Alex Maj OLA, LA-41B
Subject: Marines in Libya and Egypt

Egypt:
-The Ambassador did not impose restrictions on weapons or weapons status on the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group (MCESG) detachment. The MCESG Marines in Cairo were allowed to have live ammunition in their weapons. The Ambassador and Regional Security Officer have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. Reports of Marines not being able to have their weapons loaded per direction from the Ambassador are not accurate.

Wow! Septembergurl, thanks for the great details. One thing I don’t see mentioned by you (or anyone else) is the point that any Marine (from grunt to General) has a legal and moral obligation to disregard any order that is illegally given or that places himself/herself, his/her comrades, the unit, or the country in jeopardy. And they are safe from discipline when doing so. This SOP has been in place since the end of the Viet Nam war. I am confident that any Marine in that embasssy that received such an order under these circumstances, would have replied, “Ma’am! No, Ma’am!” and loaded his rifle.

The legal term for what you advise is “court martial” and the end result is “Leavenworth”. The fact that an order is idiotic is not an excuse for disobeying it. It is a pretty good reason to replace those in charge after the fact which we as the people of the United States can do on November 6th.

the ambassador exercises command via the USMC detachment commander. That commander the ambassador can relieve for insubordination. The ambassador calls the shot in country. Not some numbnuts private who has decided he wants to do it his way.

If the ambassador orders no ammo, the detachment commander, or the company commander in Germany will issue the appropriate order. And they wouldn’t court martial someone for it. They’d pull their security clearance and process them for administrative discharge.