Tea Partiers harassed by IRS?

[derspiess]

That's all I need.  The story writes itself.

Lazy.

[Admiral Yi]

Yi - we've been through this before.  Britain withdrew staff beause of an attempt on its envoy. I.e. a specific attack not a "perceived threat."   And that was months before. 

"warnings were received"  Seriously?  Has there been some recent breakout of a virulent strain of vague use of the passive voice?
Name any overseas diplo posting in the ME or Africa where after the fact one could not claim at any time that "warnings were received"? 

And no I am not taking up the invitation to prove a negative.  I think the burden fairly rests with those who would make the extraordinary claim that ex ante the US should not have posted diplomats to a crucial, hydrocarbon-rich post-Arab Spring state like Libya, especially where the record reflects not a single op-ed, piece of testimony, or statement by anyone of any kind suggesting such a thing.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction between a specific attack and a perceived threat.  Presumably Britain pulled staff because they thought they were at risk.

My understanding, based on Before's little tiny table, is that the Libyans passed on a warning of a threat, and that al Qaeda in Somewhere had issued a statement about the desirability of attacking US personnel in Libya.

I agree that there are very few countries in the world where US diplomats recieve zero threats.  Maybe none.  But the number of counties in which (a) credible threats are made against US personnel, (b) the host country does not have the capability to protect US personnel against those threats, and (c) the US is not a military occupyer capable of providing large escorts for diplomats, is quite a bit smaller.

[CountDeMoney]

That's all I need.  The story writes itself.

Lazy.

I had cheeseburgers for dinner.  I feel bloated, in the way God would feel bloated if he ate like Ed.

[garbon]

Hillary for 2016
"What difference does it make"

What a great bumper sticker.

About as good as the one in the 90s that Hillary was the real president during Bill's terms.

[alfred russel]

Sheilbh, regardless of where personnel protection falls on the list of Marine priorities, if they are securing a facility the occupants are also being protected.

Anyway, putting high value targets in unstable countries with some virulent anti American/western attitudes is just going to get them killed if you don't have adequate security. I frankly don't see why having an ambassador is critical to CIA operations or why we should be so concerned with Libya at all.

[garbon]

Sheilbh, regardless of where personnel protection falls on the list of Marine priorities, if they are securing a facility the occupants are also being protected.

Anyway, putting high value targets in unstable countries with some virulent anti American/western attitudes is just going to get them killed if you don't have adequate security. I frankly don't see why having an ambassador is critical to CIA operations or why we should be so concerned with Libya at all.

Should we remove our ambassadors from Mali and South Sudan given their general state of disarray?

[The Minsky Moment]

Anyway, putting high value targets in unstable countries with some virulent anti American/western attitudes is just going to get them killed if you don't have adequate security. I frankly don't see why having an ambassador is critical to CIA operations or why we should be so concerned with Libya at all.

I'm trying to come up with the most polite way of saying that the US government doesn't make decisions about importance of diplomatic representation based on what you think.   

There is a POV that says we don't really need a State Departments or diplomats - my own view is that attitude is probably based on lack of understanding of all the functions that postings can fill.  But for the purposes of this little debate it doesn't matter.  As a nation we made the decision to have consular representation and facilities in all sorts of dangerous places, so the question is whether doing so in Libya with the resources allocated was, against that existing background and policy, a judgment call so poor as to rise to the level of negligence.

That case has not come close to being made, at least as I see it.  Yi is making another effort up above but it is just more of the same kind of garden variety on generalized warnings, threats and al_qaeda drum-beating that come into play in any "hot" ME or NAfrica posting. of which there are still quite a number.  Or even elsewhere.  So I cannot help but draw the conclusion that the folks making this argument, however well-intentioned, are exploiting 20/20 hindsight to engage in egregious Monday morning quarterbacking.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, regardless of where personnel protection falls on the list of Marine priorities, if they are securing a facility the occupants are also being protected.

Not necessarily.

For example the personnel may be dispersed over the facilities, the marines probably wouldn't have to try and collect them in one area. They also won't be trying to protect the entire post. In the event of a successful invasion their job would normally be to protect the central, most important building and within that a room were sensitive communications can be destroyed. In a place like Benghazi where two thirds of the staff were spies, chances are the most important building to protect would be the one the CIA were based in, not necessarily the one State Department employees were.

Anyway, putting high value targets in unstable countries with some virulent anti American/western attitudes is just going to get them killed if you don't have adequate security. I frankly don't see why having an ambassador is critical to CIA operations or why we should be so concerned with Libya at all.

Well some virulent anti-American groups. Personally I think that US interests in Libya and the Middle East outweigh the risk. Those risks are real but you're better with the CIA and State there, on the ground, than not.

[Admiral Yi]

That case has not come close to being made, at least as I see it.  Yi is making another effort up above but it is just more of the same kind of garden variety on generalized warnings, threats and al_qaeda drum-beating that come into play in any "hot" ME or NAfrica posting. of which there are still quite a number.  Or even elsewhere.  So I cannot help but draw the conclusion that the folks making this argument, however well-intentioned, are exploiting 20/20 hindsight to engage in egregious Monday morning quarterbacking.

You conveniently ignored the issue of the capability and willingness of the Libyan security forces.

[alfred russel]

Sheilbh, regardless of where personnel protection falls on the list of Marine priorities, if they are securing a facility the occupants are also being protected.

Anyway, putting high value targets in unstable countries with some virulent anti American/western attitudes is just going to get them killed if you don't have adequate security. I frankly don't see why having an ambassador is critical to CIA operations or why we should be so concerned with Libya at all.

Should we remove our ambassadors from Mali and South Sudan given their general state of disarray?

A quick google indicates there is a marine presence at the embassy in Mali.

The embassy in Sudan was apparently evacuated by non emergency personnel when marines protection was denied.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-16/world/35494944_1_evacuation-order-consulate-attack-sudan

I don't know much about South Sudan (including if marines are there) to comment.

[The Minsky Moment]

You conveniently ignored the issue of the capability and willingness of the Libyan security forces.

You are mistaking oversight due to lack of relevance with oversight for the sake of convenience.   

[Admiral Yi]

You are mistaking oversight due to lack of relevance with oversight for the sake of convenience.   

You think the ability of the host country to provide security for diplomatic personnel is irrelevant?

[The Minsky Moment]

You think the ability of the host country to provide security for diplomatic personnel is irrelevant?

To the question of whether to have a post at all?  Not really.
There are plenty of places where local security either is poorly capable or not reliable.

Indeed, since the shortcomings of Libyan security were publically known at the time, had anyone really thought that such shortcomings could justify pulling all US presence out, surely someone somewhere would have said so?   Of course, that never happened.

[alfred russel]

Anyway, putting high value targets in unstable countries with some virulent anti American/western attitudes is just going to get them killed if you don't have adequate security. I frankly don't see why having an ambassador is critical to CIA operations or why we should be so concerned with Libya at all.

I'm trying to come up with the most polite way of saying that the US government doesn't make decisions about importance of diplomatic representation based on what you think.   

There is a POV that says we don't really need a State Departments or diplomats - my own view is that attitude is probably based on lack of understanding of all the functions that postings can fill.  But for the purposes of this little debate it doesn't matter.  As a nation we made the decision to have consular representation and facilities in all sorts of dangerous places, so the question is whether doing so in Libya with the resources allocated was, against that existing background and policy, a judgment call so poor as to rise to the level of negligence.

That case has not come close to being made, at least as I see it.  Yi is making another effort up above but it is just more of the same kind of garden variety on generalized warnings, threats and al_qaeda drum-beating that come into play in any "hot" ME or NAfrica posting. of which there are still quite a number.  Or even elsewhere.  So I cannot help but draw the conclusion that the folks making this argument, however well-intentioned, are exploiting 20/20 hindsight to engage in egregious Monday morning quarterbacking.

As I tried to convey by introducing the comment with "anyway", I was making an aside comment. And I wasn't making an aside comment on the value of diplomatic services in general, but that Libya is not a critical national interest concern and we should have had a hands off approach going back to win we started bombing them. Crap like this was a very foreseeable consequence of the hands on approach we took, and I posted quite a bit on it at the time--this is absolutely not monday morning quarterbacking from me.

I am not at all sure how a very small country (in terms of population) is going to provide a decent ROI from the expenditures of the recent past. I am also skeptical our engagement has made day to day life better in Libya. I think the world (and us) would be better off if we took a big step back from the foreign adventurism we seem to be addicted to.

[Admiral Yi]

To the question of whether to have a post at all?  Not really.
There are plenty of places where local security either is poorly capable or not reliable.

There are fewer places in which attacks have been launched against US diplomatic personnel and local security forces have all run away.

Indeed, since the shortcomings of Libyan security were publically known at the time, had anyone really thought that such shortcomings could justify pulling all US presence out, surely someone somewhere would have said so?   Of course, that never happened.

US embassy staffs are regularly pulled from countries because of perceived threat, yet never once have I read an op-ed, or heard a talking head on a cable network or Sunday morning show discussing the need to do so.  Nobody pretends to have the intelligence the executive branch does.  If Obama had run it up the flagpole, as is his wont, before sending the ambassador to Benghazi with two triggermen, you might have a good point.