Little-Acorn
08-05-2013, 04:27 PM
This weekend we heard there were some credible threats against one or more of our embassies in various middle East countries. So, we closed a bunch of them, saying we'd reopen them later when the heat died down. Then we announced that some of them would remain closed longer, but they, too, would reopen sometime.
But, isn't that a pretty strange thing to do? Threat or no threats?
An embassy isn't just another corner store. Sure you can close one, just like you can close the corner store - turn out the lights, send the personnel home, lock the doors, and hang a sign on the front saying "Back on Monday at 8:00 AM".
But why would you?
OK, there were threats against them. But there have been threats against our embassies and other diplomatic facilities for decades. Do we close them and run away every time?
An embassy is a facility in a foreign country, of course. But that embassy is a piece of Sovereign U.S. Territory. It is just as much a physical piece of the United States of America, as New York City is, as California is, as your house is.
The Pearl Harbor naval base was a piece of sovereign U.S. territory in 1941. And there were threats against it, too at the time, and against all other U.S. installations all around the Pacific. Did we just close it and slink away, hoping the Japanese would start being nice to us so we could re-open it soon? (We got caught with our pants down, but that's a different story)
You don't just close a naval base because someone is angry at you. And you don't close an embassy either. Every embassy has a wall around it... and more importantly, they also have guards. And not just any guards: They are manned by U.S. Marines. Guys not known for closing up shop and slinking away in fear. In times of "peace", each embassy might have just a few. But we haven't been at "peace" with the folks where we've just close embassies, for a long time. We have had every reason to bulk up the number and training of military guards at these embassies, for years now. And to strengthen the walls, and upgrade the equipment.
Embassies are for friendly relations with the host country and its people. And no matter how many guards etc. the embassies have, friendly relations cand and do continue, all the host country wants. But those guards, walls, equipment are there for one purpose: So that if anyone in the host country decides they want to be UNfriendly, we can go right on being friendly... because we can handle the other kind of relations, no problem, and don't see a reason to change our "normal" behavior because of them.
So why are we now cancelling the friendly parts, by closing the embassies? Merely because we are getting "threats"?
These embassies have always been under "threats". That's no reason to close up shop. It's merely a reason to have bulked up our armed presence there... while all the while conducting nice, open, friendly relations. We've had years to do that... all the years these "threats" have been coming in. And now that the threats are getting REALLY high, as the State Dept. seems to be saying... OK. Bring in a hundred extra Marines for each, with their equipment, commanders, fuel, food, and ammo for a month or two, and let them pitch tents in the compound and hot-bunk.
This isn't rocket science. Nor are these ideas new. We've had embassies in foreign countries, since 1776. We know how to build them, how to provide for the possiblity of threats, and all the rest. All the things I've described here, are possible and can be done.
So why aren't we?
Could it be that we are still trying to pretend, to someone, that Al Qaeda isn't really there? That there aren't really any threats we need to "bulk up" against?
Who on Earth would believe that now? Umm, didn't we just announce we had to close embassies because of extra-high threats?
Remember that, for months before the big attacks against our consulate in Benghazi in Sept. 2012, there had been little attacks against it. Shots fired, convoys ambushed, and in June 2012 somebody blew a hole in the wall big enough to drive a truck or three through.
Did we "bulk up", build a stronger wall, put in more Marines?
No.
In fact, we REDUCED the number of American guards. We made no attempt to findout who blew the hole in the wall. We took away the very Americans who guarded the main gate, and replace them with Libyan guards. Libyan guards who were nowhere to be found when the attacks of Sept. 2012 came... making the attack a complete pushover for the invaders.
Have we been doing that to the other thirty-odd embassies we have now closed because of "threats"? Have we also removed more and more American guards over the last year or two? Taken out the Marines for month after month?
Are we closing those embassies, however temporarily, because we have left ourselves with no other choice than to run away???
Instead of acting like a sovereign country who will not tolerate our sovereignity being messed with?
But, isn't that a pretty strange thing to do? Threat or no threats?
An embassy isn't just another corner store. Sure you can close one, just like you can close the corner store - turn out the lights, send the personnel home, lock the doors, and hang a sign on the front saying "Back on Monday at 8:00 AM".
But why would you?
OK, there were threats against them. But there have been threats against our embassies and other diplomatic facilities for decades. Do we close them and run away every time?
An embassy is a facility in a foreign country, of course. But that embassy is a piece of Sovereign U.S. Territory. It is just as much a physical piece of the United States of America, as New York City is, as California is, as your house is.
The Pearl Harbor naval base was a piece of sovereign U.S. territory in 1941. And there were threats against it, too at the time, and against all other U.S. installations all around the Pacific. Did we just close it and slink away, hoping the Japanese would start being nice to us so we could re-open it soon? (We got caught with our pants down, but that's a different story)
You don't just close a naval base because someone is angry at you. And you don't close an embassy either. Every embassy has a wall around it... and more importantly, they also have guards. And not just any guards: They are manned by U.S. Marines. Guys not known for closing up shop and slinking away in fear. In times of "peace", each embassy might have just a few. But we haven't been at "peace" with the folks where we've just close embassies, for a long time. We have had every reason to bulk up the number and training of military guards at these embassies, for years now. And to strengthen the walls, and upgrade the equipment.
Embassies are for friendly relations with the host country and its people. And no matter how many guards etc. the embassies have, friendly relations cand and do continue, all the host country wants. But those guards, walls, equipment are there for one purpose: So that if anyone in the host country decides they want to be UNfriendly, we can go right on being friendly... because we can handle the other kind of relations, no problem, and don't see a reason to change our "normal" behavior because of them.
So why are we now cancelling the friendly parts, by closing the embassies? Merely because we are getting "threats"?
These embassies have always been under "threats". That's no reason to close up shop. It's merely a reason to have bulked up our armed presence there... while all the while conducting nice, open, friendly relations. We've had years to do that... all the years these "threats" have been coming in. And now that the threats are getting REALLY high, as the State Dept. seems to be saying... OK. Bring in a hundred extra Marines for each, with their equipment, commanders, fuel, food, and ammo for a month or two, and let them pitch tents in the compound and hot-bunk.
This isn't rocket science. Nor are these ideas new. We've had embassies in foreign countries, since 1776. We know how to build them, how to provide for the possiblity of threats, and all the rest. All the things I've described here, are possible and can be done.
So why aren't we?
Could it be that we are still trying to pretend, to someone, that Al Qaeda isn't really there? That there aren't really any threats we need to "bulk up" against?
Who on Earth would believe that now? Umm, didn't we just announce we had to close embassies because of extra-high threats?
Remember that, for months before the big attacks against our consulate in Benghazi in Sept. 2012, there had been little attacks against it. Shots fired, convoys ambushed, and in June 2012 somebody blew a hole in the wall big enough to drive a truck or three through.
Did we "bulk up", build a stronger wall, put in more Marines?
No.
In fact, we REDUCED the number of American guards. We made no attempt to findout who blew the hole in the wall. We took away the very Americans who guarded the main gate, and replace them with Libyan guards. Libyan guards who were nowhere to be found when the attacks of Sept. 2012 came... making the attack a complete pushover for the invaders.
Have we been doing that to the other thirty-odd embassies we have now closed because of "threats"? Have we also removed more and more American guards over the last year or two? Taken out the Marines for month after month?
Are we closing those embassies, however temporarily, because we have left ourselves with no other choice than to run away???
Instead of acting like a sovereign country who will not tolerate our sovereignity being messed with?