big GOP masturbatory thread over Hillary's testimony today

[derspiess]

How do we even know that John Stevens was right about security?  He was an ambassador, not a security chief.  For all we know, he was wrong in his assessment and just got lucky with events.

It's like life insurance. The companies know the odds as to how long you will live overall, but in each individual case they could easily be wrong. The fact that the life insurance company sold a 30 year old guy in good health (but with premonition of death based on dreams) life insurance on a tuesday, and he was hit on the head with an anvil accidentally dropped out of an apartment building  on friday, doesn't mean that the insurance company's predictions based on actuarial tables are full of shit and they were negligent to rely on them rather than on dreams and premonitions. Right?

I'm not saying that the ambassador's position was like a guy basing his chances of death on dreams - merely pointing out an example of how the professionals could easily be "wrong" in an individual case, without being "wrong" in their methods.

Most of my puzzlement was at his use of the word "lucky".  Anyway we're not talking life insurance here-- we're talking about a failure by the DoS to properly assess risk.  I know we have the advantage of hindsight here, but taking that away we're still looking at three factors that I would think would raise some red flags:  Volatile area with known anti-American terrorist groups, Anniversary of 9/11, and requests from the Ambassador himself for more security.  I know you & DG discount Stevens's own concerns for some reason, but I would think it would have to merit *some* consideration by DoS.

[The Minsky Moment]

Are you seriously implying that the only reason we couldn't provide more security for the ambassador and consulate was congressional funding?  That the DoS had absolutely no options to beef up security?

I'm seriously implying that that we have 294 very serious embassies and consulates around the world, all of which are potential targets on a 9/11 anniversary, and many of which are located in serious locations like Afghanistan (2), Iraq (4), Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan (4), Saudi Arabia (3), Syria, Yemen, Mail, Indonesia (3), Egypt (2), Algeria.  I am seriously implying that it would not be practical to significantly increase security at all these locations without seriously increasing the resources for State Dept security.  Also, since there were an estimated 120-150 attackers at Benghazi, even doubling or tripling the security detail would not have made a difference; the security detail - regardless of its level of seriousness -- would still have had to retreat into the building and the ambassador still would have suffered the smoke inhalation that killed him.

I am also seriously suggesting that anyone who claims that from the propositions:
1.  Person A requested additional security
2.  Additional security was not provided
3.  Person A was killed in a subsequent attacl

logically implies negligence, either doesn't know what negligence means, or is joking.  I.e. not serious.

[derspiess]

So it's not all just the funding, then?

[Malthus]

How do we even know that John Stevens was right about security?  He was an ambassador, not a security chief.  For all we know, he was wrong in his assessment and just got lucky with events.

It's like life insurance. The companies know the odds as to how long you will live overall, but in each individual case they could easily be wrong. The fact that the life insurance company sold a 30 year old guy in good health (but with premonition of death based on dreams) life insurance on a tuesday, and he was hit on the head with an anvil accidentally dropped out of an apartment building  on friday, doesn't mean that the insurance company's predictions based on actuarial tables are full of shit and they were negligent to rely on them rather than on dreams and premonitions. Right?

I'm not saying that the ambassador's position was like a guy basing his chances of death on dreams - merely pointing out an example of how the professionals could easily be "wrong" in an individual case, without being "wrong" in their methods.

Most of my puzzlement was at his use of the word "lucky".  Anyway we're not talking life insurance here-- we're talking about a failure by the DoS to properly assess risk.  I know we have the advantage of hindsight here, but taking that away we're still looking at three factors that I would think would raise some red flags:  Volatile area with known anti-American terrorist groups, Anniversary of 9/11, and requests from the Ambassador himself for more security.  I know you & DG discount Stevens's own concerns for some reason, but I would think it would have to merit *some* consideration by DoS.

For "lucky" read "unlucky".

That's the problem with hindsight, though. In hindsight, it is easy to say which factors were significant, and which were not.

Take anniversary of 9/11. If that's a red flag, why would it be one specifically to that particular embassy? Why not to US overseas operations generally? Yet the maxim applies: "he who defends everything defends nothing". 

The "life insurance" example was intended to point out how experts in attempting to cover contingencies generally may be wrong in an individual case without thereby being negligent. They can get "unlucky". 

[The Minsky Moment]

So it's not all just the funding, then?

If your claim is that every time an ambassador requests additional security it is negligence not to provide it, then yes the problem is lack of sufficient funding.

[Admiral Yi]

Some similarities between this discussion and the one over Hurricane Katrina. 

[derspiess]

For "lucky" read "unlucky".

I thought it was tasteless.  But yeah I know it's Languish.

That's the problem with hindsight, though. In hindsight, it is easy to say which factors were significant, and which were not.

Take anniversary of 9/11. If that's a red flag, why would it be one specifically to that particular embassy? Why not to US overseas operations generally? Yet the maxim applies: "he who defends everything defends nothing". 

I'm sure lots of things can seem marginal when viewed in a vacuum.  But there were multiple factors that should have been taken into account.

[derspiess]

So it's not all just the funding, then?

If your claim is that every time an ambassador requests additional security it is negligence not to provide it, then yes the problem is lack of sufficient funding.

Is that my claim?  Be fair.  I'm saying that an ambassador in a volatile country such as Libya (particularly when his duties require him to spend time in a city such as Benghazi where Libyan gov't. control was breaking down at the time), requesting additional security merits some serious consideration. 

[Sheilbh]

Okay, then what was the point?

Paul said he'd have removed her from her post, which was nice.  And McCain just flat out ripped her.  And she got in a little tirade of her own.  It was all great political theater, which is what these things usually are.

I agree. It's worth holding hearings in this sort of thing and I think it is worth investigating. But as you say these sort of things tend to generate more heat than light. Not that I can think of a better system (no doubt we'd have a judge-led public inquiry by now ) and I like seeing legislatures holding executives accountable.

As an aside I think there's some confusion about the role of embassy security which isn't about the staff. I remember it was mentioned in Guests of the Ayatollah, and looked it up, apparently it's still roughly the same. The first job is to keep the premises safe, if that's not possible then to hold secure areas of the building where confidential and sensitive documents can be destroyed. A distant third is to protect the personnel and that's even more distant if they're off the premises (in Tehran it didn't even cross any of the security personnel's minds to try and protect staff in the city). So it wouldn't require just more security but possibly different security priorities to protect Ambassadors and staff.

[The Minsky Moment]

Is that my claim?  Be fair.  I'm saying that an ambassador in a volatile country such as Libya (particularly when his duties require him to spend time in a city such as Benghazi where Libyan gov't. control was breaking down at the time), requesting additional security merits some serious consideration.

That's not what you said.  I didn't see anything about "consideration"

But OK, I'll accept the amendation.  Since you have already concluded there is fire here - my challenge to you is as follows: identify the particular request or requests from the ambassador that you think merited serious consideration, and explain your basis for concluding that the request was not considered seriously.

[Admiral Yi]

If one takes the position that people were not negligent, that raises the ticklish issue of the four State Department staffers who fell on their swords for no reason whatsoever.

[The Minsky Moment]

If one takes the position that people were not negligent, that raises the ticklish issue of the four State Department staffers who fell on their swords for no reason whatsoever.

Pretty massive unstated assumption there.

[derspiess]

Is that my claim?  Be fair.  I'm saying that an ambassador in a volatile country such as Libya (particularly when his duties require him to spend time in a city such as Benghazi where Libyan gov't. control was breaking down at the time), requesting additional security merits some serious consideration.

That's not what you said.  I didn't see anything about "consideration"

  You're splitting hairs.  But if it makes you happy, strike "consideration" and go with whatever I said before.

But OK, I'll accept the amendation.  Since you have already concluded there is fire here - my challenge to you is as follows: identify the particular request or requests from the ambassador that you think merited serious consideration, and explain your basis for concluding that the request was not considered seriously.

No, thanks.  I'm hitting the limits of my attention span on this and you're always able to out-debate me anyway. 

[Sheilbh]

If one takes the position that people were not negligent, that raises the ticklish issue of the four State Department staffers who fell on their swords for no reason whatsoever.

I think you need some evidence of negligence to assume that people were negligent, don't you?

[Admiral Yi]

Pretty massive unstated assumption there.

I don't follow.