JMS's Chronology of the Bengazi Raid and "cover-up"

[JMS]

Sometimes I wonder if you even read the links you post?

Sometimes I wonder the same about you...

The primary mission of the MSG is to provide security, particularly the protection of classified information and equipment vital to the national security of the United States at American diplomatic posts.
......
In addition, MSGs provide security for visiting American dignitaries and frequently assist the RSO in supervising host country and/or locally employed security forces which provide additional security for the exterior of embassies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_...sponsibilities

It seems that it isn't 1000MSG. Or over 200 embassies. And well we know that there is at LEAST one consulate that had zero

The Marine Security Guards number approximately 1000 Marines at 150 posts (also known as "detachments"), organized into nine regional MSG commands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_...sponsibilities

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is responsible for the protection of more than 285 U.S. diplomatic facilities worldwide. Additionally, Diplomatic Security ensures the safety of every U.S. embassy and consulate employee and their families, as well as national security information.
http://www.state.gov/m/ds/about/faq/index.htm#13

My source says 1000, your source says 1200; I'll give it to you because (1) it's really close enough for government work and (2) you're source is better. Point being that Marine details aren't assigned to every embassy or consulate, and their primary role isn't to stop people from coming over the wall. It's to protect classfied data and macines, like I said... Unless you think 1200/300 = 4 guys per diplomatic facility... roughly is a decent deterent. So roughly only half the embassies have MSG, they tend to be between 10-20 guys, and they guard the secrets primarily not the buildings or people..

.But it is quite a claim to say that the embassy in Kabul isn't all that. And post a picture from wikipedia. Without even having a clue as to the mission or size of the Marine detachment there. Or the RSO staff I would assume

Again marines are not the the primary security at our embasies. There primary role is to safeguard classified information and machines so the marine contingency at the Kabul embassy is irrelivent.
I think the size of the building or how many building in the case of Iraq is a good indication of how large it is... As for how secure it is, I was pretty much going on the fact that it was sucessfully attacked by terrorists last year, no embassy people were hurt, but people waiting in line were. I remember reading at the time we were upgrading the embassy and construction was to be complete 2014 I think

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 10:07 PM ----------

Why not a firebase?..

Because that defeats the purpos of a consulate.. because a firebase involves haveing kill zones around your base, and that's difficult to do in a city. Because no host country is likely to allow you to put a fire base inside one of hteir urban areas.. I know we would tend to frown Libyia putting a fire bas in down town NY or DC. Also. Because 50 calabre machine guns on the wall might send the wrong impression... ( although you're correct about Saudi).

.you yourself mention the Saudi's heavy weapons in position in a place MUCH more secure

Very good point and you are correct (good memory). The saudi military had a 50 cal machine gun in a truck outside the George Bush Embassy in the DQ of Riyadh when I was there...Course that was a Saudi soldier not a private guard, or an American as you are suggesting... and it was on the street in a truck outside the embassy... Although come to think of it we probable should add that embassy to the list of fortresses along with Iraq.

The 10 were not there,if they were it would certainly have been a different situation....fwiw they came through the gate,the razor wire on the walls cuts down the traffic there. We had two or three US security personnel available (that were not even prepared to defend) and some Libyans that were green and mostly unarmed 10 trained professionals extra certainly would have changed the equation

We don't know alot about the folks who left the annex and arribed at the consulate 25 minutes after the first shots were fired. We do know it included the two former navy seals who were CIA contractors, and 8-10 guys in total. And of coarse we know they were originally at the CIA annex a mile from the consulate when the first shots were fired. We also know they evacuated everybody from the consulat to the Annex. Not sure if the ambassidor and his aid were dead already or died after these guys arrived.

[twa]

We have Marine FAST teams which are specifically trained for embassy security,as well as Marine RTT squads...as well as many other options that can put a serious hurt on threats.

the host nation is of course the primary security provider(which was seriously lacking in Libya) and we also provide our own....the number of MSG's is not terribly important

the security there kinda is

[JMS]

We have Marine FAST teams which are specifically trained for embassy security,as well as Marine RTT squads...as well as many other options that can put a serious hurt on threats.

Yes we do, I'm not sure how close one of those teams were, or if those were the assets which Penneta and the Africon Comnander, and CJCS told to stand down.... I don't get that either... a team from sicilly and fort brag was in transit but arrived the next morning after everybody had already left. Was the team in sicily the MArine FAST team? Our former senator James Webb wrote a pretty good book featuring one of those teams. But I think we were talking about the MSG who are stationed at many of our embassies.

the host nation is of course the primary security provider(which was seriously lacking in Libya) and we also provide our own....the number of MSG's is not terribly important
the security there kinda is

Yes I agree..especailly when addressing 150 guys coming over the wall.

[twa]

JMS
They can be ,and are ,used as security ....not simply response teams
We have plenty of qualified personnel,including MSG's than are capable of providing security against 150 attackers IF used

[SkinsFTW]

5 security personnel is not near enough,and combined with the caliber of the Libyan security would be laughable if not so tragic

Hell, a US Navy ship has more than 5 armed personnel to defend it while in non threatening ports. If the same ship is in the Persian Gulf there are at least 10 with another 50 or so minimum on standby.

It's unbelievable that our embassies, especially in obvious places like Libya, are almost totally undefended. I'm sure this isn't an Obama thing though. It's likely always been this way and would fall on the Defense Department anyway. The president isn't supposed to be micro managing little details like this. It's actually not in the job description.

[twa]

Libya doesn't like armed Americans,perhaps the deaths will make them more palatable....or perhaps not

We can always just chalk it up to **** happens and decide on acceptable losses.

[JMS]

JMS
They can be ,and are ,used as security ....not simply response teams
We have plenty of qualified personnel,including MSG's than are capable of providing security against 150 attackers IF used

OK ok, I'm talking about MSG, and you keep bringing up FAST.and RTT and It's totally different conversation..

Put simple the Marine Security Guards (MSG) are not the guys who sit in the security booths or the guys who pat people down before entering the embassy grounds, or the guys who work the metal detectors, nor the guys checking the grounds. They have nothing to do with visitors to the embassies or security like that. The MSG are specially trained information security officers. They make sure data security rules are being followed. They are the guys who go threw your desk and make sure you don't have a sticky note posted to your computer with all your pass words on it. They are the ones who write you naste slips of paper which can cause your security clearance to be yanked for doing something stupid (pink slips). They check to make sure your thumb drives and CD's are properly labelled. They make sure the IA rules are followed. Why do they have Marines doing this job. Because state departement folks are kinda ivy league intellectual pukes who sometimes think the rules don't apply to them. So they have Marines inform them of the rules politely as only Marines can. Seriously that's their job.

Now the MSG are still marines so sure you could hand them a gun and tell them to defend the combound... But the MSG's I've meet might shoot some of the state department folk if given the chance....and of coarse physical security is not their purpose at the Embassy. And those aren't the same Marines that make up the Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) which the Pentagon just deployed to Libyia... The FAST team is made up of 50 guys but I don't think even they woiuld really secure a facility coming under sustained attack. Even the Fast teams are more about extraction. And it's totally different training than the MSG.

My understanding is FAST teams get deployed to where they are needed... Like they could be sent into Benghazi for instance to respond to an ongoing attack..

Recapture Tactics Team (RTT) (which you mentioned are another Marine security team) RTT are typically not deployed to a fight but permenently stationed on their post. They are not used as guards either. They are teh guys you call when the guards fail and you want your base back. They are entirely geared towards recapturing navy assets after a security breach has occured.. I don't know how big the teams are and I don't know if they would consider posting one of those at a consulate, but it seems unlikely due to the difference properties of guarding a navy base with large physical assets and materials and a consulate with people. .I do know it's not regularly done. I would also say that Navy bases tend to be much larger than consulates... so you could be talking about a significant force there maybe even larger even than FAST teams.

[twa]

I'm kinda familiar with the training and roles,and capabilities....not that it matters since none were there then anyway

somebody spank your hand?

[JMS]

Libya doesn't like armed Americans,perhaps the deaths will make them more palatable....or perhaps not
We can always just chalk it up to **** happens and decide on acceptable losses.

Yeab I think you are loosing sight of the whole diplomat thing...

You know when I was in saudi it was like the NRA's dream country. They had gun stores every whwere and you could buy anything. full automatic, whatever you wanted, military equipment, body armor whatever; there were no restrictiions.. Coarse foreign nationals couldn't own guns in Saudi, only Saudi's. Even US Air Marshals who flew international flights into country had to be met at the airport and surrender their weapons when they deplaned.

I was in Ryadh in 2003 when the Al Hamra was assulted. I was about a mile up the road in a compound called the Arizona. I had just been to the Al Hamra a few days earlier and was thinking about switching to that compound. After the Al Hamra attack, We had people sleeping with scuba spear guns vowing to take the first guy who came though the door... No westerners were allowed to carry real guns and everybody in our compound were either military or former military..

[Redskins Diehard]

Sometimes I wonder the same about you...

Wonder no more my man. One more sentence in your quote would have put "The secondary mission of Marine Security Guards is to provide protection for U.S. citizens and U.S. Government property located within designated U.S. Diplomatic and Consular premises during exigent circumstances, which require immediate aid or action." right there in argument that MSG aren't there to protect people. Seems that we reached the threshold of "exigent" in this scenario which means that NOT only would a detachment of Marine Security guards execute their secondary mission of providing protections for U.S. citizens but in fact could have pursued the threat off of the consulate grounds.

My source says 1000, your source says 1200; I'll give it to you because (1) it's really close enough for government work and (2) you're source is better. Point being that Marine details aren't assigned to every embassy or consulate, and their primary role isn't to stop people from coming over the wall. It's to protect classfied data and macines, like I said... Unless you think 1200/300 = 4 guys per diplomatic facility... roughly is a decent deterent. So roughly only half the embassies have MSG, they tend to be between 10-20 guys, and they guard the secrets primarily not the buildings or people..

No, I don't think 1200/300 = 4 people per facility. Not sure where you come up with the nugget that roughly half of the embassies have MSG...unless you use consulate and embassy interchangeably? Is that the case? And I would think...would HOPE...that resources are allocated based on threat. So no, not an even distribution across the world. But more likely increased resources where perhaps the Marines may have to perform both their primary and secondary duty.

Again marines are not the the primary security at our embasies. There primary role is to safeguard classified information and machines so the marine contingency at the Kabul embassy is irrelivent.
I think the size of the building or how many building in the case of Iraq is a good indication of how large it is... As for how secure it is, I was pretty much going on the fact that it was sucessfully attacked by terrorists last year, no embassy people were hurt, but people waiting in line were. I remember reading at the time we were upgrading the embassy and construction was to be complete 2014 I

You keep switching between Kabul and Baghdad. If there was an attack and no embassy personnel were hurt then I would say that the embassy security did it's job. And was able to withstand itself in the face of the attack. Once more in this point you disregard the fact that the United States Marine Corps considered the duty to protect U.S. Citizens important enough to include it as a secondary mission...in writing....as part of the mission statement. Maybe you think it isn't their job, but they do. And I think their opinion carry's a little more weight. Back to the "hope" side of things. I would think that in some security risk assessment when some decision maker somewhere would decide that those posts with the highest threat would also receive the resources.

Because that defeats the purpos of a consulate.. because a firebase involves haveing kill zones around your base, and that's difficult to do in a city. Because no host country is likely to allow you to put a fire base inside one of hteir urban areas.. I know we would tend to frown Libyia putting a fire bas in down town NY or DC. Also. Because 50 calabre machine guns on the wall might send the wrong impression... ( although you're correct about Saudi).

Most host countries also don't allow pickup trucks, or relief columns as you called them, to drive through their streets with armed people aboard. Libya is not most countries.

[twa]

Yeab I think you are loosing sight of the whole diplomat thing...
..

and I think they lost sight of the whole security thing

of course it wasn't they at the consulate....since THEY were WANTING more security
when you have someone at a US consulate openly wondering is tonight the night I die....we need to look at change

as far as Fast,RTT ect, ....providing security to a compound and eliminating threats from defensive positions is much easier than their other tasks(which is why it is usually left to others)

the real question is do you want security

[Thiebear]

Not that i'm shocked this conversation has devolved into this I'll leave it at this.

You need to read up on the 16 member special forces STS team.
You need to read up on the 6 member elite team.

Then see if you think they could from a home location be 'slightly' better than 150 "JMS's" attacking them.
Hell, I spent 11yrs in the Army and i'm 100% positive they could snipe 100 of me without breaking a sweat and I have far better training than people on the film shown us.

And its not hypothetical because they were stationed there up to 30days before the attack with the multiple requests not to "take them away" right before 9/11. with multiple requests before that.
And a request the day of the attack.

[twa]

interesting
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2BBbS3ks7

[Redskins Diehard]

interesting
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2BBbS3ks7

I don't like the idea of classified cables being released so freely. Or maybe these were some of the ones that were recovered laying around the consulate? Seems that it may have been a decent idea to send someone there who's primary mission was to secure classified information and who's secondary mission would have been to protect US citizens and property.

So the throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks folks at Fox are walking in on what I believe to be the questions that need to be asked and answered. Not whether or not someone watching a Predator feed gave an order to stand down or not. And not whether or not there was inconsistency in describing it as a protest or terrorism. But were security concerns communicated. What was done to address those concerns. Were there conops in place to address the increasing likelihood of something like the attack happening.

In my cynical mind the only way this stuff is addressed in the long term is if President Obama wins on Tuesday. If he loses Fox won't care anymore because they accomplished their goal. If he wins then they will continue to dig and sling and dig and sling. And maybe will find something out in the process.

[JMS]

NOT only would a detachment of Marine Security guards execute their secondary mission of providing protections for U.S. citizens but in fact could have pursued the threat off of the consulate grounds.

The yellow highlighted statement is just fantasy. So you have infromation security monitors, who's secondary job is defend the embassy from hundreds of armed terrosits coming over the wall? That's what you are suggesting? I know what you are thinking... Marines, Guadal Canal, Iwo Jima, Leyte Gulf... The problem is on one hand you are talking about divisions of guys equiped for battle, on the other hand you are talking about a hand full of guys who are not. And to suggest you could "turn loose" your detachement of marines on a host countries city as they take the fight to the terrorists, is about as preposterous a scenario as I've heard.. Like the Marines could, would, or even should take the initiative when outnumbered 20-1 in Benghezi. I mean WTF?

No, I don't think 1200/300 = 4 people per facility. Not sure where you come up with the nugget that roughly half of the embassies have MSG...unless you use consulate and embassy interchangeably? Is that the case? And I would think...would HOPE...that resources are allocated based on threat. So no, not an even distribution across the world. But more likely increased resources where perhaps the Marines may have to perform both their primary and secondary duty.

Yes it's your total # of MSG / Total number of foreign service offices which we protect.

Sure you can hand a MSG detachment riffles and they are Marines.. sure.

My point is MSG are not the way we secure our embassies, and consulates. It's not just because their aren't enough ( i.e. 4 MSG per diplomatic facility we need to protect roughly)... It's because that's not their job. Places which need more security don't get more MSG. Places which have large IT staffs like embassies and consulates in Europe have the most Marine detachements. 36 MSG detatchemnts operate in Europe for example or about 30% of all our MSG detachements. Why? Because a lot of our allies in Europe engage in IT survalence and espionage for economic reasons.. AND THAT'S WHAT THE MSG ARE THERE TO HELP STOP. not people coming over the gate, certainly not 150 guys coming over the gate although that support was not immediate..

MSG Region ------------------------------------# of MSG detatchments per Region

• Eastern Europe and Eurasia --------------20
• Western Europe and Scandinavia ------16
• India and the Middle East -----------------18
• East Asia and Pacific -----------------------18
• North America and the Caribbean ------14
• South America ---------------------------------13
• North Africa and West Africa -------------12
• East Africa --------------------------------------11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_...sponsibilities

You keep switching between Kabul and Baghdad. If there was an attack and no embassy personnel were hurt then I would say that the embassy security did it's job.

I'm trying to put your critism into a historical perspective which is a good way to look at these types of events to my mind. I apologize if it's confusing.

If you feel the Kabul securty team did their job, then what is all the fuss about, If seven people dead and 19 wounded to your mind is the Embassy security doing it's job against 9 terrorists then 2 people dead at the consulate facing 150 insurgents must be an example of even better performance!..

And was able to withstand itself in the face of the attack.

Yes it was, thanks to a crack embassy security team in Kabul, and more than 100,000 American troops on the ground in country, and probable half as many NATO and allied troops, and of coarse a multi billion dollar sustained US budget for building the security forces of Aghanistan over the last 10 years, I'll leave it up to you which was the most helpful. Now remember the fire fight took around 19 hours to finally be complete. So basically full support from the host government including air and ground forces.

I would think that in some security risk assessment when some decision maker somewhere would decide that those posts with the highest threat would also receive the resources.

And that is exactly my point... What diffeentiates an Embassy attack which is sucessfully defended and one in which the embassy is over run?

• U.S. Embassy and NATO headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan, Sept. 13, 2011Seven people were killed and 19 wounded after Taliban insurgents with suicide vests and rocket-propelled grenades launched a co-ordinated attack on both the U.S. Embassy and the NATO headquarters in the Afghan capital. The ensuing firefight with NATO and Afghan troops lasted for 19 hours and resulted in the death of nine Taliban members.
  
• U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen, Sept. 17, 2008Nineteen people died and 16 were injured after a group of militants, dressed as police officers and armed with rocket-propelled grenades, rifles and car bombs, stormed the U.S. Embassy in the Yemeni capital. Islamic Jihad of Yemen, an affiliate of al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility.
  
• U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, Feb. 21, 2008Several hundred demonstrators attacked the U.S. Embassy compound in the Serbian capital of Belgrade. Hours later, a charred body was found inside a torched office at the embassy.
  The swarm of rioters had broken away from a massive rally held earlier in the day to protest against Washington's recognition of Kosovo's declaration of independence.
  Crowds of masked young men broke into the compound and used metal bars to smash into the first floor of the building. A few demonstrators climbed the building and set the U.S. flag on fire as others used a door to ram the metal-barred windows.
  
• U.S. Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Dec. 6, 2004Five consular employees were killed and four other local staff members were injured after militants stormed the U.S. consulate. Saudi police killed four of the assailants, who were members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). In an internet post claiming responsibility for the attack, AQAP wrote, “this operation comes as part of several operations that are organized and planned by al-Qaeda as part of the battle against the crusaders and the Jews, as well as part of the plan to force the unbelievers to leave the Arabian Peninsula.”
  
• U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Aug. 7, 1998In a co-ordinated operation, car bombs exploded outside the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on Aug. 7, 1998. The attacks killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. About 5,000 were injured. Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa, had a $5 million US bounty on his head for allegedly planning the attacks. In June 2011, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly confirmed his death in Somalia.
  
• U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, Apr. 18, 1983A Hezbollah suicide bomber drove a van up to the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people, including at least 17 Americans. The act also destroyed the Middle East bureau of the CIA.
  That same year, an attack on the Beirut headquarters of American and French forces killed 298 people. The United States withdrew all diplomats from Beirut in September 1989 and did not reopen its embassy until 1991
  
• U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, Nov. 4, 1979Islamic students and other militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking hostages and launching a diplomatic crisis. They were demanding extradition of the Shah of Iran from the United States, where he had gone to seek medical treatment. Fifty-two hostages were held for 444 days. A failed rescue attempt resulted in the deaths of eight U.S. soldiers. Thirteen hostages were released about two weeks after the crisis began, and another was freed months later. After the signing of the Algiers Accord on Jan. 21, 1981, the day of Ronald Reagan's inauguration as U.S. president, the remaining hostages were released.

Hint, the size of the US Security detail was irrelevent. The difference maker was whether the host country assisted in protecting the consulate in a timely fashion.. Embassies are entirely dependent upon host country support when they come under serious attack. No embassy could long sustain itself without assistance from the host country when faced even with a relatively small group of insurgents, much less 150 coming over the wall..

Most host countries also don't allow pickup trucks, or relief columns as you called them, to drive through their streets with armed people aboard. Libya is not most countries.

See the above list... alot of them do, and we have embassies and consulates in most countries; even the ones where folks ride in pickup trucks while armed.