Sudan Rejects U.S. Request To Send Marines To Guard Embassy
BY Herschel Smith
12 years, 3 months ago
Remember when you read this report that you’re not reading The Onion.
Sudan has rejected a U.S. request to send a platoon of Marines to bolster security at the U.S. embassy outside Khartoum, the state news agency SUNA said on Saturday.
On Friday, around 5,000 people protested against a film that insults the Prophet Mohammad, storming the German embassy before breaking into the U.S. mission.
They also attacked the British embassy. At least two people were killed in clashes with police, according to state media.
A U.S. official told Reuters on Friday that Washington would send Marines to Sudan to improve security at the embassy, which is located outside Khartoum for security reasons.
“Sudan is able to protect the diplomatic missions in Khartoum and the state is committed to protecting its guests in the diplomatic corps,” Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Ahmed Karti told SUNA.
The U.S. State Department declined to comment.
Sudan beefed up security at some missions on Saturday. A riot police truck was parked in front of the deserted German embassy, which protesters had set on fire on Friday. An Islamic flag raised by the crowd was still flying. Three officers manned the main gate.
More than 20 police officers were sitting in front of the U.S. embassy.
One commenter noted regarding the Marines guarding the Egyptian embassy not being allowed to have ammunition that “The USMC commander should have identified this order as unlawful and taken immediate action to have it superseded. In fact, he should have disobeyed the order. The Marine commander of the embassy detachment is as culpable for this outrage as the ambassador and Hillary Clinton.”
Which Marine commander should be held accountable is the question, but probably from the lowest level field grade officer (or NCO) in responsible charge of the mission up to the Marine Corps Commandant. They are all responsible.
Under-resourcing a mission is both immoral and despicable. It should be criminal, but apparently it is not. Either way, the first degree of culpability for such an outrage lies with the criminally belligerent State Department. The second degree of culpability lies with the Marine Corps for allowing themselves to be used as pawns in political gamesmanship rather than strike troops with an honorable and storied tradition.
Embassies are sovereign territory. For us to be requesting to defend our territory is another sad sign of the state of our nation. The administration has let our nation down yet again, but ultimately the people put this administration in charge. Look upon what we have wrought, and don’t turn your eyes away from it.
|
|
On September 16, 2012 at 11:34 pm, okiquit said:
Herschel you are getting farther and farther into tinfoil hat territory …
====================================================
From: Cross, Alex Maj OLA, LA-41B
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:55 PM
To: Cross, Alex Maj OLA, LA-41B
Subject: Marines in Libya and Egypt
Ladies and Gentlemen-
The following information is provided regarding Marine involvement in the recent actions in Egypt and Libya:
Egypt:
-The Ambassador did not impose restrictions on weapons or weapons status on the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group (MCESG) detachment. The MCESG Marines in Cairo were allowed to have live ammunition in their weapons. The Ambassador and Regional Security Officer have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. Reports of Marines not being able to have their weapons loaded per direction from the Ambassador are not accurate.
– The Marine Corps does not establish Rules of Engagement (ROE). Nonetheless, ROE is classified and release of that information would jeopardize the Marines and U.S. interests. Any further inquiry should be directed to the State Department, since Marine security guards report to the ambassador not to a military commander.
-As reported in open sources, approximately 2000 personnel were protesting outside the U.S. Embassy and six individuals entered Embassy grounds. The Marines quickly took control of these six individuals and subsequently turned them over to local security officials.
-There were no Marines injured in this, or other actions in Cairo.
-There are no Marine dependents in Cairo.
Libya:
-Contrary to open source reporting, there are no Marines currently stationed at the Embassy in Tripoli, or the Consulate in Benghazi.
-There were no Marines killed in the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi.
Yemen:
-The American Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen has a MCESG reinforced with a Marine security force. Due to operational security, we are not at liberty to provide additional details at this time.
Marine Corps Embassy Security Guards (MCESG):
Embassy security in Tripoli and the consulate in Benghazi fall under the Regional Security Officer with the State Department. The U.S. maintains over 285 diplomatic facilities worldwide. MCESG provides 152 security detachments provide internal security at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States. Perimeter security is the responsibility of the host nation police/security forces. AMEMB Tripoli does not have a MCESG detachment. Typically, when a new embassy is established, it takes time to grow a new MCESG detachment. In coordination with the State Department, there was discussion about establishing a detachment in Tripoli sometime in the next five years. Overall, the plan is to grow the number of MCESG detachments worldwide to 173. The size of a MCESG detachment depends on the size of the Embassy and the security situation on the ground. They normally range anywhere from 5-20+ Marines in size. MCESG can, and have, provided security at Consulates as well as Embassies. For example, Marines guard the US Consulate in Hong Kong and, in the past, have guarded the US Consulate in addition to the Embassy in Haiti. The decision as to which consulates receive this augmented security lies with the State Department. State identifies its requirements and DOD/Marines work to provide it. A U.S. Ambassador serving in an unstable region can/will normally have a security detail provided by the State Departments Diplomatic Security Corps. State has agents specially trained to provide personal security details (similar to the Secret Service). Stephanie Hoostal at the State Liaison Office (B-330) can be reached at 6-4542 if you have questions specific to the State Dept.
Fleet Anti-Terrorism Support Team (FAST):
A FAST platoon deployed to Libya yesterday (12 Sep 12) to provide security for the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. Established in 1987, FAST platoons provide a limited-duration, expeditionary security force to protect vital naval and national assets. FAST companies maintain forward-deployed platoons at various naval commands around the globe and possess U.S.-based alert forces capable of rapidly responding to unforeseen contingencies worldwide. FAST is not designed to provide a permanent security force for installations. FAST platoons are primarily designed to conduct defensive combat operations, military security operations, and rear area security operations in response to approved requests in support of geographic combatant and fleet commanders. When deployed to reinforce embassies with existing MCESG detachments, FAST platoons will customarily provide an outer cordon of security inside the embassy compound, while MCESG Marines maintain security of the chancery proper, and host nation police/security forces provide an outer cordon of security beyond embassy grounds.
NOTE: Although a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) has traditionally been forward deployed to the Mediterranean (2.5 MEU forward deployment-1 x east coast MEU to the Med, 1 x west coast MEU to the Pacific, and the 31st MEU forward based out of Okinawa, Japan), there is currently no MEU presence in the Mediterranean. The Marine Corps currently maintains a 1.5 MEU presence forward deployed. We currently have the 24th MEU from the east coast deployed to the Persian Gulf, a west coast MEU is conducting work-ups for deployment, and the 31st MEU is operating from Okinawa.
Please see the attachments for more information on FAST or MCESG. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact your Marine Corps Liaison Office in RHOB-B324.
Respectfully,
Alex Cross, Maj USMC
Deputy Director, Marine Liaison Office
U.S. House of Representatives
B-324 Rayburn
On September 17, 2012 at 10:29 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Great form on the name thing. In the future, use your real name or get booted from the site.
As for your post, I guess that covers it. Or maybe not. You see, I didn’t fall off the turnip truck from the mountains yesterday. I’ve been in the big city for a while now. I know this game.
As for PAOs, when my son was in the Corps, I have seen them write and issue mistakes, write things pertaining to certain grunt level goings-on without ever talking to anyone under their own rank (even if field grade or staff level officer), write things that were incomplete, and yes, even write and say things that were flat-out lies … bold face lies to my face. Things I knew to be flat out lies, and they knew that I knew to be flat out lies, were communicated to me with the utmost gravity and seriousness without so much as batting an eyelid.
When the PAOs get involved, the spin machine takes over, and you’re likely never to know the complete truth. One of the best and most comprehensive tactics is to tell half truths, so that no one can charge them with conveying falsehood. I do know one or two good ones, but I won’t mention them by name.
So the report stands as it is. I apologize for nothing, because all I did was cite a report. If it is incorrect, I’m happy because I don’t want the Marines used as political fodder.
But is the report wrong? I don’t know, and neither do you. I cited a report, you trotted out a PAO press release. You can reflexively believe the press release if you want. It won’t hurt my feelings at all, any more than it does that you believe that I’m in “tinfoil hat territory.”
On September 18, 2012 at 8:51 am, TS Alfabet said:
So the Sudan won’t allow us to station Marines to protect our own embassy? Screw ’em then. We withdraw the ambassador and cut off all aid. Sudan is no friend of the U.S. Newly independent South Sudan, however, would be only too glad to benefit from close U.S. relations and would surely have no objection to Marines in the country (especially in light of continuing attacks by Islamists from Sudan against South Sudan christians).