« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Marines Told not to Carry Live Ammo at Cairo Embassy

The story of what’s been going on in Egypt and Libya just keeps getting worse. We already know that the embassy in Benghazi had no Marine guards at the time of the attack. With a hat tip to Mark Thompson at TIME, though, we now know that the Marines in Cairo were not allowed to carry live ammunition, per the orders of US Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson. He directs us to this Nightwatch blog post which reports:

She did not permit US Marine guards to carry live ammunition, according to USMC blogs. Thus she neutralized any US military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy.

In this respect, she did not defend US sovereign territory and betrayed her oath of office. She neutered the Marines posted to defend the embassy, trusting the Egyptians over the Marines.

How can this be allowed to happen? This is not just an outrage. It is a failure to live up to her oath of office to protect American interests, and lives  have been placed at risk because of this. Heads need to roll.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Viet71

    Ambassador Patterson should be fired.

    No government official should ever order troops to carry weapons without ammunition in an arena of conflict.

    The 1983 Beirut bombing of the Marine barracks was a lesson, as if one was needed.

  • http://www.jacksonjambalaya.com kingfish

    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.

  • bobmark

    No, she should be left there when we close (and booby trap) the embassy. I can see absolutely no point on maintaining a presence in so hostile a location. Any and all aid should stop immediately as well as putting Egypt on the U.S. travel ban list. Same goes for all of N.Africa. We were paying off Mubarak to keep the whackos in and around his county in check. Guess what, he’s gone, so why in the hell are we giving $ to the whackos?

  • irishgirl

    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.

  • irishgirl

    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.

  • irishgirl

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

  • irishgirl

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

  • fightnright

    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.

  • aeaeren

    The sad point is those Marines will die trying to protect this fool instead of steping out of the way. I pray NOTHING happens to any of them or you can be sure heads will roll and the Press will not be able to cover it up.

  • septembergurl

    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.

  • http://www.conservativefiction.com kywrite

    Obama doesn’t have to read The Prince. He already knows everything in it.

    Obama knows all things in all books. He is the Omniscience-in-Chief. He knows all the stuff in the books that haven’t been written yet too, and is working on knowing all the stuff in those books people swear they’ll get around to writing one day but never do. That halo around his head? It’s not an angelic glow, it’s the heat from his massive brain working.

  • chasreid

    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.

  • Mike Ferguson

    Well if she did give the order then she is a bone head, but since she was probably appointed by Obumbles that would fit.

  • Mike Ferguson

    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.

  • streiff

    what was the root cause of the car bomb attack on the USMC barracks in Beirut? The sentries were not allowed to have a magazine in the weapon.

    It is not uncommon for ambassadors to forbid guards to fire to defend life and property. Recall both the Iran and Pakistan embassy take overs in 1979. We did not fire a shot.

  • streiff

    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.

  • septembergurl

    Kowalski:

    Marines in full CYA mode(via their Congressional liaison):
    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.

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    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 . . .

  • streiff

    Recall, however, that the Beirut bombing was under Reagan. I don’t recall our people ever firing on a mob attacking an embassy and during the 1970s that was nearly a national pastime in some countries.

  • Mike Ferguson

    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.

  • Mike Ferguson

    I seem to remember one report that sad he had actually gone there to evacuate the consulate and was caught by the mob while there, but I still don’t understand why they wouldn’t take Marines. The truth is that we will probably never know the truth, especially not with this administration. I hope they have to good sense to fortify the Embassy in Tripoli before they start tearing that one down as well.

  • papasri

    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’.

  • streiff

    she’s still married to Bill Clinton, right? That should answer the “self respect” part of your question.

  • runner12

    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.

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    True. You’d think by now we’d have figured out that depending on a
    country made up of mental 3-year-olds to protect our diplomats is a bad
    idea, huh? I believe, with the utmost confidence, that our Marines do know how to put bullets in a gun.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

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

  • kelp

    1) My first point isn’t wrong — the post refers to it as an embassy which is false. That was my point. Regarding my justification for raising the point — that it is the reason there was no Marine presence — that is also not false. There is a Marine presence at the embassy in Tripoli. Whether or not there was a need for Marines at this consulate (before the attack) I am not in a position to say. Some consulates have Marines, some do not. I don’t argue that it was not a poor decision to not protect the consulate. I agree with you on that. I’m just saying that this is the reason given that there were no Marines. That is a fact — not all consulates are protected by Marines. All embassies are, as far as I know.

    2) I certainly agree with what you’re saying. I’m not trying to avoid it. I pointed it out because the original article linked in the post uses the phrase ‘sovereign territory’ which is not true.

    I feel you think I’m attacking the post, but I’m not. I just think there are substantive corrections that should be made. I agree with the opinion reflected in it.

  • americanexpat

    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.)

  • streiff

    you made your corrections in a very unhelpful manner that did, indeed, put you in the position of obviously trying to discredit a post based to semantics. Had I not been in a hurry at the time I would have banned you. Keep that in mind.

  • funwithknives

    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.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I also don’t believe for a minute that every statement from a US embassy mission under imminent attack especially one in the largest country in the Middle East was not vetted by someone in the White House. The embassy is part of the White House – I am shocked Mitt Romney had to point this out to the reporters. The issue is no one in the White House or the State Department in Washington or in Cairo Mission saw anything wrong with a statement described best by Charles Krauthammer as both “humiliating and ineffective” until Mitt Romney correctly criticized it. Heck, at this point Hiliary Clinton has quintupled down on it. A better statement would have been: “There are US Marine Corps snipers defending this mission. If a mob attacks it, they better bring some body bags. In addition, we will be calling in predator drone strikes once the first USMC fires a shot.” Kind of a modern day version of Napolean’s dispersing a mob with as he put it a “whiff of grapeshot”.

  • bcandybc

    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.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Where’s your source for this? Where did you get it?

  • justavgguy

    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.

  • streiff

    lucky for the Marines, they didn’t have you as a lawyer. I don’t know about “moral obligations” but under the UCMJ you have a legal obligation to obey lawful orders, and orders are uniformly lawful unless they violate the Law of Land Warfare.

    What you are advocating is having every member of the Armed Forces unilaterally act as their own commander. The technical term for what results is “anarchy.”

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    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.

  • justavgguy

    @streiff:disqus: Typically, I am in agreement with you, but this time I’m not so sure.
    You are probably right about the “moral obligation”. That was the term used by my Drill Sergeant when I went thru UCMJ training oh so many years ago. He may have added that emphasis; we were a lot closer to Viet Nam at the time.
    My thoughts on this”
    > Art. 89 concerns disrespect to a superior commissioned officer ( the “Ma’am! No, Ma’am!” comment) – Not applicable since the Ambassador is not a commisioned officer.
    > Art. 90 is willfully disobeying a commissioned officer – Not applicable again, the Ambassador is not a commissioned officer.
    > Art. 91 is insubordination/willfully disobeying a non-comm, warrant or petty officer – Not applicable, same reason.
    Since the Ambassador is not covered by any of those, that leaves Art.92 – failure to obey a general order or regulation.
    [Note that the following only concerns the officer in charge of the security detail, since those in his/her command would be covered under Art. 90.]
    It is interesting that Art. 92 covers both violation/failure to obey a general order and dereliction of duty. It would be unreasonable to suggest that a general order was given for the embassy security detail to not have live ammunition in their rifles while on duty. In fact, such a condition (no live ammo) could actually be charged under Art. 92 as dereliction of duty.
    So the officer in charge would be faced with *potential* charges of failure to obey the Ambassador if he/she refused to unload the rifles. On the other hand, if they actually did unload them, the officer could be charged with dereliction of duty (Art. 92), noncompliance with procedural rules (Art. 98), and/or misbehavior before the enemy (Art. 99).
    In all cases, it is the court martial, not the accused, that gets to determine wheather or not an order is “lawful”. So you are right in that point. Not an easy choice, but that is why they are officers.
    However, as I heard one Marine put it, “They have to be alive to press charges.”

  • streiff

    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.

  • Pingback: Colin Dearmore

  • Pingback: Dean Clara

  • Pingback: electronic cigarette

  • Pingback: Carter, Clinton, obama, Cogs In The Machine

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Auto Forum

  • Pingback: advice

  • Pingback: noclegi zakopane

  • Pingback: skype download

  • Pingback: Fischfutter

  • Pingback: Serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: spirits drink

  • Pingback: ropa para bebes yampi

  • Pingback: cv

  • Pingback: backyard ideas

  • Pingback: What is Venapro

  • Pingback: musica cristiana hermana reina

  • Pingback: Our website

  • Pingback: distill vodka

  • Pingback: Links Eintragen

  • Pingback: descargar musica gratis 50 cent

  • Pingback: check here

  • Pingback: ps3

  • Pingback: Koi

  • Pingback: kozmetika pre zeny

  • Pingback: distilled definition

  • Pingback: Fusevision.com.sg

  • Pingback: dieta da proteína

  • Pingback: Pool Shop

  • Pingback: Baby Shower Favor Ideas

  • Pingback: คอนโดเอแบคบางนา

  • Pingback: rerouted here

  • Pingback: Video on Demand

  • Pingback: central florida crown molding installation cost

  • Pingback: Wai Youngren

  • Pingback: aquarium filter

  • Pingback: buy white chocolate

  • Pingback: payment gateway fees

  • Pingback: SurveyPro satisfaction survey

  • Pingback: top 10 it companies in world

  • Pingback: day trading profit

  • Pingback: best whole body cleanse system

  • Pingback: scrapebox warrior forum pricing

  • Pingback: randki internetowe

  • Pingback: Brady Twyman

  • Pingback: Nick Carnes

  • Pingback: fix pc

  • Pingback: Arkadas Ara

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: kit xenon

  • Pingback: at this web site

  • Pingback: randki internetowe

  • Pingback: Investment Opportunities

  • Pingback: payday loans no faxing

  • Pingback: super randka

  • Pingback: Mining

  • Pingback: casino gaming

  • Pingback: wielu ludzi w jednym miejscu

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: his comment can be used now

  • Pingback: girls in white dresses

  • Pingback: doccia

  • Pingback: organizzazione matrimoni toscana

  • Pingback: relating to Yahoo

  • Pingback: Network

  • Pingback: Go To This Website

  • Pingback: Go To This Website

  • Pingback: advice

  • Pingback: consultant

  • Pingback: Case

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: Lamps for sale

  • Pingback: small investment opportunities

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Cory Doro

  • Pingback: Kirk Thakur

  • Pingback: alfileres de boda

  • Pingback: Store Fixture Installers

  • Pingback: Diseño web barato

  • Pingback: growing aloe vera

  • Pingback: Diamanta

  • Pingback: online dating

  • Pingback: madamelux

  • Pingback: Home Detox

  • Pingback: Sidney Chandsawangbh

  • Pingback: Janean Kristianson

  • Pingback: here

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: phone number to name

  • Pingback: honda 919 specs

  • Pingback: Automobile Forum

  • Pingback: uniform specialist

  • Pingback: texasdrivereducation

  • Pingback: Flannery

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: rewelacyjny portla randkowy