Letter: Continued foreign policy ineptitude
We should not have a diplomatic presence at any overseas location where mission security cannot be guaranteed by a combination of our own security detail and host government protection … period!
For 10 years, I worked with the U.S. government inter-agency inspection teams charged with visiting overseas diplomatic missions to evaluate security, including the terrorist threat. Almost never did the State Department heed our recommendations for increased security at particular posts. Among the reasons given for inaction were lack of funding and personnel resources and, yes, political considerations at the highest levels. Sound familiar?
I once asked CIA Director Admiral Stansfield Turner why we needed to maintain a large American presence at our Teheran embassy, exposing them to physical danger, given the Iranian government’s intransigence and the fact that an armed group had occupied the embassy for a short period earlier. Turner’s short, terse response was "political reasons." Two weeks after our conversation, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an arm of the host government, invaded the embassy, where they held 50 Americans captive for 444 days.
In other instances, such as at our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, ignorance of security concerns resulted in terrorist attacks and considerable loss of life.
The beat goes on. Benghazi burned and Obama fiddled on The View and at other self-aggrandizing venues while the First Chair remained empty. A month after Benghazi, we still don’t have the ugly answers, and probably won’t before Nov. 6 if the White House can delay enlightenment. America cannot sustain another four years of such ineptitude on a wide range of issues.
Port Haywood, Va