Column: Beefing up U.S. embassy security necessary action

The question to be asked about the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi is simple: Have the lessons learned three decades ago about who and what are needed to physically protect American interests overseas been forgotten?

The lapses during the Carter administration — which resulted in both the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 and Moscow bugging of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in the early ’80s led ultimately to security reforms within the State Department.

But the attack in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans — a disaster that apparently had been in the making for some time — appears to have come about in a policy shift that downgraded protections for American embassies and personnel throughout the Middle East.

Stevens may or may not have been in Benghazi for a covert nighttime meeting that he thought was safe with minimal personal security. Certainly, the consulate itself was not well enough protected.

The minimalist approach to security advocated by the “black dragons” — career foreign service officers who have risen to the upper echelons of the State Department — that stimulated a major overhaul during the Reagan White House following a study by Adm. Bobby Inman appeared to be creeping back into vogue under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. There have been some $300 million cuts in the department’s security budget despite the obvious continuing threat to U.S personnel and interests in the world’s biggest tinderbox.

This story appears in the print edition of Daily Journal. Subscribers can read the entire story online by signing in here or in our e-Edition by clicking here.

All content copyright ©2015 Daily Journal, a division of Home News Enterprises unless otherwise noted.
All rights reserved. Click here to read our privacy policy.