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!