Defensive Carry banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Where were the Marine Embassy Guards??

11K views 82 replies 29 participants last post by  pgrass101 
#1 ·
First, I proclaim my ignorance up front. My barracks used to back up against the Marine barracks that trained the embassy guards. I thought all embassies had a trained corps of Marine Guards. I believe that the perimeter of embassies are guarded by the host country, but step inside the walls and it's Marines (as well as American land). Where were the Marines?

Second, it is my understanding (and I could be more than wrong) that the Ambassador has the last word on whether the Marines should fire or lay down their arms (remember Iran?). Could that have happened here?

Finally, I am beyond angry. We have the 9/11 anniversary. We have Libya that is anything but stable coming off a civil war. So we send our Ambassador and diplomats over there unprotected? Maybe I'm really missing something. Somebody was asleep at the switch and some heads need to roll. Sadly, it'll be some small change schmuck who will take the brunt of this. And, of course, now the the barn door is open, we are racing to send Marines to Libya. What in the world is happening with our intelligence and defense?
 
#3 ·
It's being reported that the ambassador and his two escorts were heading BACK to the embassy and were attacked and were not inside when attacked.
Ambassador Chris Stevens, 52, died as he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff as the building came under attack by a mob firing machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades. He was the first U.S. ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979
.

U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens killed in consulate attack in Libya
 
#4 ·
The protection of the "embassy" is the Marines tasking. The protection of the diplomats, I believe, is the tasking of the Diplomatic Security Service personnel. Seeing as we don't know yet exactly what happened and who was protecting whom, I feel it's a bit early to break out the slings and arrows of fault finding.

It would be interesting to see what happens if our gov't were to announce that it would not be responding to any assaults on the Libyan (or Iranian, etc.) consulates in D.C. next week. Would the walls be breached, or are we too civil? I think the latter.
 
#5 ·
Not trying to be politcal, I wonder if the fact that the President does not have time for his daily security briefings had an affect. He has not attended one in the last week and has only attended 43% over his entire term. Every 9/11 anniversary that I remember, we rasied security levels around embassies and other government targets. For some reason, this year it got dropped.
 
#10 ·
Let's keep the politics out or this puppy will be locked. I really want to get some knowledgeable perspective from some of our forum that have a better scope of just what our defensive (offensive?) policy is for our diplomats.
 
#6 ·
Not all diplomatic facilities have Marine Security Guard detachments. Only those that a) have the "need" and b) process and/or store classified information have MSG Dets. That said, a typical Det is 6 people, with only 1-3 "on duty" at any given time - even if there were a Det there, it wouldn't be enough to stop a mob of thousands. Additionally, the primary mission of the MSG Det is to protect the classified information stored/processed in diplomatic facilities. They do have responsibilities for the facilities and personnel, but those are secondary. The Det at any Embassy/Consulate falls under direct operational control of the Regional Security Officer (RSO), who is a Special Agent with the Diplomatic Security Service, and the decision of how and when to deploy the Marines, as well as the establishment of the ROE, is a DSS function (keeping in mind that the Ambassador DOES have final say over everything that happens within his country, but that the responsibility for all security operations is delegated to the RSO).

If there was an MSG Det there, they would likely have been posted behind the "hard line" doors trying to keep the bad guys from actually breaching the interior of the building. It would be nearly impossible to prevent a giant mob from storming the grounds and attacking with heavy MGs and RPGs. They are reporting now that two of the dead are "security officers" from the Consulate, so I am now just waiting to see how well I knew them...
 
  • Like
Reactions: aznav
#9 ·
Are you saying you want to infringe on the Libyans right to bear arms ?:wave: Some folks here think that we should be able to walk around with a nnuke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adrenaline
#8 ·
Well, Americans have been showing up at all sorts of demonstrations openly displaying "assault rifles" and such. The difference, aside from the RPGs, is the intent and the implementation.
 
#14 ·
Confirmed that there were no MSGs assigned to the Consulate in Benghazi.
 
#15 ·
Old rules and ideas do not apply anymore. Security has in many case been turned over to local hired guns. Fox guarding the chicken coup, So as not to offend anyone.
Has not worked out to well. Someone figured it would be a good idea to hire Muslims to guard Americans.
Did not work in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya ect..... but some still thinks it is a workable plan.
 
#16 ·
It is, by international treaty, the responsibility of the host country to protect all diplomatic facilities. In many countries, FOR many countries, this is the case, with only minimal internal security provided by the "home" country. For us, we generally have three "rings" of security at our diplomatic facilities. The outer most "ring" is provided by host country police/security forces. The "walls" of the facility are generally guarded by contract (or, in fewer cases, direct hired) guards that are paid for by the State Dept. They have primary responsibility for everything outside of the main chancery or embassy building. Inside the "main" building - at least in most cases - are the MSG detachments. All of these personnel are managed and overseen by the RSO, who has ultimate responsibility (under the Ambassador) for the security and safety of the personnel, facilities, and information at all embassies and consulates.

In places where there are specific dangers beyond the scope of the "normal" threats faced by diplomatic facilities/personnel, there are additional measures taken.

Having served at our Embassy in Kabul and in Baghdad (among others), I can definitively say that no...security has not been "turned over to local hired guns."
 
#21 ·
Very generally, the Embassy is the diplomatic mission that serves to represent one head of state directly to another. It also is used to denote the building(s) where this delegation works, but it is technically the people/diplomats themselves. An Embassy is headed by an ambassador.

A Consulate, headed by a Consul, is a representative/mission from one state IN another state, but that generally is concerned with assisting with the welfare of persons from the "sending" state.

There can be only one Embassy in any given foreign country, but there can be several Consulates. In practice, Consulates fall "under" Embassies, and carry out many of the same functions as far as diplomatic contact and representing US interests overseas.

And oldnfat - it is a commonly held misconception that Embassy/Consulate territory is "US soil," but it is not. It belongs, territorially, to the host country. By long standing convention, host countries consider diplomatic facilities inviolate, and cannot enter without permission of the "sending" country, thus making diplomatic missions similar to "US soil" in some respects - but that extraterritoriality does not truly exist.
 
#18 ·
Do you suppose that totally amateurish anti_Muslim movie is the beginning of a false flag operation, just a designed excuse to stir up trouble among the locals, and beyond?



Islam Movie-Maker 'Sam Bacile' May Not Exist - Consultant on anti-Muhammad movie thinks it's a pseudonym

The man who produced the anti-Islamic film—or trailer, at least—that set off the deadly violence in Libya and Egypt is identified as "Sam Bacile" in news accounts, but now it appears that no such person exists.
Muhammad-Film Consultant: 'Sam Bacile' Is Not Israeli, and Not a Real Name - Jeffrey Goldberg - The Atlantic

As part of my search for more information about Sam Bacile, the alleged producer of the now-infamous anti-Muhammad film trailer "The Innocence of Muslims," I just called a man named Steve Klein -- a self-described militant Christian activist in Riverside, California (whose actual business, he said, is in selling "hard-to-place home insurance"), who has been described in multiple media accounts as a consultant to the film.

Klein told me that Bacile, the producer of the film, is not Israeli, and most likely not Jewish, as has been reported, and that the name is, in fact, a pseudonym.
 
#65 ·
Do you suppose that totally amateurish anti_Muslim movie is the beginning of a false flag operation, just a designed excuse to stir up trouble among the locals, and beyond?
I don't recommend watching this. I did and I had to spend a few hours "cleaning up" my computer. It is not worth it.

If THIS is why the chaos around the world....it is a poor excuse. It is a bad movie, not because of the subject matter. If that were the reason, Christians would be going after "South Park" or "Family Guy". If that were a valid reason there should have been world wide massacres after "Boogie Nights".....now THAT is a bad movie.
 
#20 ·
Hard to believe there was no intel warning them of what was brewing. The report I heard via radio said the guards outside the wall did nothing to stop the attackers. It is my understanding that the land inside the walls is sovereign US territory. It should be staffed and armed to defend itself from any anticipated attack. If they need to kill off a few hundred attackers then so be it. Just hope someone has the cajones to prevent this from happening again anywhere. May be time to gas up the B 52s.
 
#26 ·
There are almost always "warnings" of some sort or another. It was not unknown to the State Department, or DSS, that this was a dangerous place. Without going into too much detail, additional personnel, equipment, and measures were being employed in Lybia, and specifically in Benghazi.

As a side note, from what I have been able to gather from news reports and talking to people who are in positions to know, the local security forces did, in fact, fight back. US security personnel (though not MSGs, since there was no Detachment there) also fought back - two were killed and two were wounded in a prolonged gunfight.

I'm sure more will come out as the survivors are debriefed...
 
#27 ·
What irks me is this "word" from the WH that they know, from "intelligence," that a particular group was behind this attack. Gee, where was this intel last week when stronger preventative actions could have been taken?
 
  • Like
Reactions: aznav
#28 ·
Well, generally speaking, crimes can only be "solved," and the perpetrators "known," after the crime has been committed. As I've said, Benghazi and its personnel were protected at a higher level than most diplomatic facilities/personnel. No one has infinite resources. State was doing the best it could under the constraints that limit all of us - time, money, personnel. It's easy to say in hindsight that we should have known that a stupid youtube film would incite a mob that the real BGs would use as cover to launch a coordinated attack using RPGs, IEDs, and automatic weapons which would then set the building on fire - all while the Ambassador was in town for a quick visit - and to have posted a battalion of Marines around the perimeter that night. Of course, making that prediction is MUCH more difficult before the event takes place...
 
#32 ·
Just learned the identity of one of the other KIAs. All I can say is Rest in Peace, brother...
 
#33 ·
We received warnings of possible attacks or protests before this September 11. I can't be specific (security reasons), but if the DoD received the warnings from the State Department, then I think thier embassies would have as well. Probably either underfunded and/or using third party nationals for security...
 
#34 ·
The using of third party nationals has already been addressed. Outer perimeter security was host nation, both Libyan security forces and guards in the employ of the State Dept. From what I have been able to determine, they fought back, but were overwhelmed. Interior security was all US, and was more than would typically be at such a small facility. There were some very well trained and experienced people inside that consulate, and they apparently put up a good fight. As news gets released, you will see some of the folks who were in there, and you will know that they didn't just roll over...

And yes, everything is "underfunded," if you're the one receiving the funds. The mission to Lybia was getting a significant amount of money compared to other facilities of the same size, and had significantly "higher" security protocols in place. The simple fact is that you just can't stop/prevent everything. Sometimes you do your very best, and you just get outgunned. It sucks, but it happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mano3 and aznav
#35 ·
  • Like
Reactions: Spirit51
#37 ·
It is POSSIBLE that the Ambassador didn't permit the Marines to have access to live ammunition, but I find it unlikely. In every Embassy I have ever been to - and that's a fair number - there is at least one Marine (assuming there is an MSG Detachment there at all) who is armed and has live ammunition available at all times. All the MSGs have "react gear" and their own supply of ammunition available to them. It is SOP in the case of an emergency like this one for the Marines to all be called to duty, and to have their "react gear," weapons, and ammunition issued out. Again, it is POSSIBLE that the Amb squashed this, but it is still unlikely, and there would have been one MSG (at least) already armed. Of course, one person with a sidearm isn't going to do much against a mob of thousands, and we must remember that there were no deaths/injuries in Cairo...
 
#40 ·
Rumor has it that the Marines were all given a bag of rocks to throw in case of trouble rather than ammunition.... :rofl::rofl:
 
#41 ·
I was pretty good with rocks when I was a kid. Killed a few wabbits with rocks. Never underestimate an adversary that stands his ground.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top