Libyan Consulate Attack - Anti-Gun State Department

[MikeSettles]

I am opening this thread, because I believe that ONE reason the jihadists were successful in Benghazi is because the State Department doesn't allow its personnel to be armed (except for a few dedicated security-types).
I suspect that the two "former Navy SEALS" killed with Amb. Stevens were his Personal Security Detail (PSD).

I worked with State Dept reps at Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan in 2008 and again in 2010-11. In '10, the State, USDA, USAID folks who worked with us down-range got weapon training but weren't issued firearms. Some of them, when we went out on missions, borrowed M9s or shotguns for personal protection - no problem.

In 2010, the culture had shifted so that a "diplomat" would be in hot water if he touched a weapon at all. One of our USAID reps (a former Army Captain), rode with an ODA convoy on a village-outreach mission in 2010. The convoy was ambushed, the gunner in his vehicle was wounded, and he had to take over the .50 BMG in the turret and thus helped repel the Taliban attackers. The Army wanted to give him a medal - USAID (an organ of the State Dept) wanted to fire him.

My point: I suspect that Amb. Stevens and all others present at the Benghazi Consulate (EXCEPT possibly the two SEALS) were unarmed and therefore more vulnerable - per State Dept policy. I would bet that Al Qaeda knew this.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, US policy is that government civilians and contractors be unarmed. In Iraq in 2009, speaking with some KBR truck drivers, I was told that they could be fired if they possessed so much as a sheath knife.

Some folks have suggested that I might go back to Afghanistan as a civilian contractor. I respond that I WILL NOT GO UNARMED!

Read More

 

[DMax]

I am opening this thread, because I believe that ONE reason the jihadists were successful in Benghazi is because the State Department doesn't allow its personnel to be armed (except for a few dedicated security-types).
I suspect that the two "former Navy SEALS" killed with Amb. Stevens were his Personal Security Detail (PSD).I worked with State Dept reps at Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan in 2008 and again in 2010-11. In '10, the State, USDA, USAID folks who worked with us down-range got weapon training but weren't issued firearms. Some of them, when we went out on missions, borrowed M9s or shotguns for personal protection - no problem.

In 2010, the culture had shifted so that a "diplomat" would be in hot water if he touched a weapon at all. One of our USAID reps (a former Army Captain), rode with an ODA convoy on a village-outreach mission in 2010. The convoy was ambushed, the gunner in his vehicle was wounded, and he had to take over the .50 BMG in the turret and thus helped repel the Taliban attackers. The Army wanted to give him a medal - USAID (an organ of the State Dept) wanted to fire him.

My point: I suspect that Amb. Stevens and all others present at the Benghazi Consulate (EXCEPT possibly the two SEALS) were unarmed and therefore more vulnerable - per State Dept policy. I would bet that Al Qaeda knew this.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, US policy is that government civilians and contractors be unarmed. In Iraq in 2009, speaking with some KBR truck drivers, I was told that they could be fired if they possessed so much as a sheath knife.

Some folks have suggested that I might go back to Afghanistan as a civilian contractor. I respond that I WILL NOT GO UNARMED!

FYI This clarifies a few things.
U.S. officials clarify administration description of two heroes in Libya attack | WashingtonGuardian

 

[MikeSettles]

FYI This clarifies a few things.
U.S. officials clarify administration description of two heroes in Libya attack | WashingtonGuardian

Yep: Just heard it on Fox. They were at the "Safe House" and were killed while moving to the sound of the guns.
Of course, if the Ambassador had been armed too . . . maybe there would be some dead bad guys.

The ONLY thing you take for granted in that part of the world is that there ARE people who want to kill you.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[dmancornell]

Sending U.S. diplomats into such a dangerous part of the world unarmed is stupid...

...but not quite as stupid as sending them there in the first place.

Also interestingly enough, we are supporting the group of people that killed Ambassador Stevens in Libya with arms and logistics in Syria.

Both have very strong ties with Al Qaeda, a group which current SOS Hillary Clinton publicly admits the US created and supplied with arms.

Indeed, does the regime even understand the concept of blowback? I see the fatal conceit applies to foreign policy as well as economics.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[Mohawk13]

Hey Mike...Tiger 13...Hows it hanging. Good to see You are back stateside. Been fighting the urge to head back to OPs Myself....Great Post...Clinton and her cronies have no idea how these Diplomats put themselves in the Cross hairs Everyday. I Think they all need a piece and some CQB training. Seems to be needed if they don't want the body count to be higher. Gonna get worse before it gets better...13 Out..

 

[Bacchus]

The other issue here is Barry refused to admit that this was an Al Qaeda attack, and a successful one at that, against American interests.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

'scuse me with a quick question but you guys seem knowledgable. When did the U.S.Marines cease securing embassy's? Why? Thanks!

 

[Riot]

Ran into some UN types in Afghanistan in late 2005 with the same SOP. They were issued two MP5s and nothing else for the six of them traveling in marked UN vehicles. The MP5s were just for the drivers of the vehicles and the others basically had to purchase their own AK-47s for their own protection. I'm sure they would probably get into hot water for the use of non-NATO approved weapons and callibers, but I guess it comes down to the old "rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" mentality.

Getting home at the end of it is way more important than being in compliance with any peice of paperwork. Hopefully those guys made it out alright...I could never travel Afghanistan with a blarring blue "UN" tag on a jeep over there. Not unless I wanted to get shot at...

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[MikeSettles]

In Libya, the consulate at Benghazi and a nearby safe house. (Apparently known to the bad guys.)
In Egypt, the embassy at Cairo.
The Ambassador controls what the Marines do - probably to told them not to resist, just like in Teheran in '79.
Note that there also exists a State Dept. security detachment - Secret Service types (though they are not of the "Secret Service"). The Marines provide a uniformed presence and are mainly responsible for the embassy itself. I don't know how many, but probably ain't enough of 'em at any given embassy.

 

[8ball]

Re Egypt (not Libya)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/cairo.asp

However, a 13 September 2012 memorandum from Major Alex Cross, Deputy Director of the Marine Liaison Office to the U.S. House of Representatives, stated that Marines at the American embassy in Cairo had been authorized to carry live ammunition:
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.

 

[MikeSettles]

Re Egypt (not Libya)

snopes.com: Cairo Embassy

However, a 13 September 2012 memorandum from Major Alex Cross, Deputy Director of the Marine Liaison Office to the U.S. House of Representatives, stated that Marines at the American embassy in Cairo had been authorized to carry live ammunition:
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.

Having weapons on Red status; and being allowed to pull the trigger: Two entirely different things. I didn't say they "couldn't have loaded weapons". I said that MAYBE they had been told not to resist.

MAYBE the ambassador/security manager looked out at the crowd and decided not to shoot first.

MAYBE Custer would have lived longer if he hadn't shot first when he saw "all them Indians!"

Maybe.

I'm all conjecture with this one: Fun, ain't it?

 

[8ball]

I didn't say they "couldn't have loaded weapons". I said that MAYBE they had been told not to resist.

Actually, you said multiple times in the OP that you thought they were "unarmed", and you were wrong.

 

[MikeSettles]

Actually, you said multiple times in the OP that you thought they were "unarmed", and you were wrong.

Actually, I said that the Ambassador and the other diplomats were unarmed: I worked with those folks in Afghanistan, and they weren't allowed to touch a weapon.

 

[Riot]

Actually, I said that the Ambassador and the other diplomats were unarmed:

Um...no you didn't...

My point: I suspect that Amb. Stevens and all others present at the Benghazi Consulate (EXCEPT possibly the two SEALS) were unarmed and therefore more vulnerable - per State Dept policy. I would bet that Al Qaeda knew this.

You implied that the only people armed were the bodyguards...to the Ambassador.

 

[MikeSettles]

"...jihadists were successful in Benghazi is because the State Department doesn't allow its personnel to be armed (except for a few dedicated security-types)." and "I suspect that Amb. Stevens and all others present at the Benghazi Consulate (EXCEPT possibly the two SEALS) were unarmed and therefore more vulnerable - per State Dept policy."

I said that the State Dept doesn't allow anyone to be armed except designated security personnel, thus making them all more vulnerable. Also, when I started this thread we didn't yet know that the SEALs were NOT of Steven's PSD. Later we find that they heard the gunfire and came running to help. But we also haven't heard anything about the Ambassador's security detail: What happened to them?

Have you worked with DoS down-range? I have.

Ball's in your court.