I would have been proud to hear of such men and to know that they were my countrymen. I would have mourned their passing, but I would have understood and honored it. I’m greatly surprised that it didn’t go down that way. Now I know why.
Pentagon Lt. Col. Chris Hughes told the outlet: “The ambassador and RSO (Regional Security Officer) have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. No restrictions on weapons or weapons status have been imposed. This information comes from the Det Commander at AMEMB (American Embassy) Cairo.”
The statement came in response to reports that U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition.
Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition,” according to multiple reports on U.S. Marine Corps blogs spotted by Nightwatch. “She neutralized any U.S. military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy.”
Time magazine’s Battleland blog also reported Thursday that “senior U.S. officials late Wednesday declined to discuss in detail the security at either Cairo or Benghazi, so answers may be slow in coming.”
If true, the reports indicate that Patterson shirked her obligation to protect U.S. interests, Nightwatch states.
“She did not defend U.S. sovereign territory and betrayed her oath of office,” the report states. “She neutered the Marines posted to defend the embassy, trusting the Egyptians over the Marines.”
I believe our clueless politically correct nimrods did stop our boys from having the guns and ammo they needed to do their job. I believe it because it is exactly in their character to do such a thing.
There is a young man that grew up here who made a commitment to the Marines and who is now headed to a location in the middle east for embassy security duty. He’s a great young man. I have no doubt in his character. He’ll stand and fight when the time comes. He’ll do his duty. Will he have ammo for his riffle or will some PC hoplophobic women get him killed for nothing?
They were talking on the radio last night, saying there were no casualties on the other side. This doesn't sound likely if our side were armed.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that any Marine commander is going to send his troops out on a mission without the weapons/ammo to do their jobs, regardless of what any State Dept employee desires. It is literally inconceivable. And any commander who does/did so ought to brought before a court-martial, immediately.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, there seems to be some evidence that this did not actually happen. From the initial State Department briefing, some highlights:
By about 4:15, the attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded.
Sure sounds to me like the Marines shooting back....
The Regional Security Officer made it outside, and then he and other security personnel returned into the burning building in an attempt to rescue Chris and Sean
Running into a burning building to save people? Again, sounds like Marines....
At about 4:45 our time here in Washington, U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.
Tried to retake the main building but couldn't because of heavy fire....
At about 5:20, U.S. and Libyan security personnel made another attempt and at that time were able to regain the main building and they were able to secure it.
...but were successful on the second try. How were they able to retake control if they had no weapons to fight back against the heavy fire they were under each time?
Believe what you want, but it sure seems like anti-Obama propaganda to me.
I agree no commander would want his troops unarmed. However not having live ammo on the person, is not the same as not having an arms locker. It is possible that they had a fully stocked arms locker and were not allowed to carry live rounds with them.
ReplyDeleteI don't know but I suspect that any arms more effective than handguns or rifles are kept secure in the armory. If that armory was in the main building and they lost contol of the building early in the fight then state could claim that they had all the guns and ammo they needed even if they did not have possesion of them.
It is possible that both reports have an element of truth in them. The arms may have been on location but issuing the arms may have been restricted.
If the other reports of ourt people having 3 days advanced notice are true, the we have another problem. Why didn't we either a) enforce the location with enough men and arms to defend it properly or b) bug out and let them burn it to the ground? It seems like the decided to take a middle of the road approach and get some people out while leaving a handful behind.
Res: "If that armory was in the main building and they lost contol of the building early in the fight then state could claim that they had all the guns and ammo they needed even if they did not have possesion of them."
ReplyDeleteAccording to the timeline in the State Dept briefing, the compound came under attack at 4:00pm EDT. The main building didn't come under attack until 4:15pm. That's 15 minutes they would have had to access the armory and get heavier weaponry, more than enough time.
"It is possible that both reports have an element of truth in them. The arms may have been on location but issuing the arms may have been restricted."
This assumes that the supposed policy implemented by Patterson in the Cairo embassy was also implemented by Stevens in the Tripoli embassy (and by extension, to the Benghazi compound). There's no evidence of this at all, and the Pentagon spokesperson specifically refuted the Cairo accusation, anyway. You even quoted it.
Furthermore, the "sources" for this supposed policy are apparently some anonymous Marine blogs. No disrespect to you personally, but there's absolutely zero credibility to any blog that isn't identified and credentialed to speak on the matter. I trust your writings on firearms because I've met you in person and judged your character, not because I have actual evidence of your training and/or knowledge. That it is usually corroborated by others also generally presented as firearms experts lends even more credibility to you. However, the blogs mentioned as the sources for this information are neither identified nor vouched for by anyone. It could be some wannabe bigshot making up stories to feel important, for all we know.
"If the other reports of our people having 3 days advanced notice are true"
What reports are these? I have not yet read of any....
First off, I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that any Marine commander is going to send his troops out on a mission without the weapons/ammo to do their jobs,
ReplyDeleteAccording to wikipedia, on the Beirut barracks bombing: Sentries were ordered to keep their weapons at condition four (no magazine inserted and no rounds in the chamber). By the time the two sentries were able to engage, the truck was already inside the building's entry way, armed.
Not quite the same as "unarmed" as they said on the radio last night, but it had the same effect. So there is at least a precedent of this crap happening before.
I don't think "responded" necessarily means "shot back". Even if it does, this is up to 15 minutes after the attack began. One assumes they would have had the time to find some ammo and load their weapons. Critical time would have been lost, however.
The real question is, did the ATF give the bad guys their guns?
Giraffe: "Sentries were ordered to keep their weapons at condition four (no magazine inserted and no rounds in the chamber)."
ReplyDeleteI could see this for guards inside the main building at Benghazi, too, actually...as long as they were still allowed to carry loaded magazines on their person. It's but a matter of seconds to insert a mag and chamber a round...not enough time for the outer sentries in Beirut, but plenty of time for an inside guard in Benghazi, given the 15 minutes they reportedly had.
And the Libyan guards on the outside perimeter would still have been able to go Condition 3 or 2...I can't imagine the American Ambassador would have had control over Libyan forces to that extent.
"I don't think "responded" necessarily means "shot back"."
That's true, and was pure assumption on my part. Still, it's hard to imagine their response to an armed attack on the building they were in after the assailants broke through to the compound interior would have been anything else...I suppose they could have thrown flowers at the attackers, or something. ;)
I'm at work tonight so responding may be slow.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to the cnn story on the 3 day warning. I first saw it on drudge but that story seems to be off the sight right now.
From the CNN story above:
ReplyDelete"According to one of the Libyan security guards who was stationed at one of the gates armed with only a radio, the assault began simultaneously from three directions."
You've made a couple of good counter points about Egypt and policy. It's true that nobody on active duty has put their name on those blogs. Any officer who did so would end his career. Any enlisted man who did would find himself out of the corps dishornably discharged. Even in the Marines anything less than a full bird might have some trouble finding a pair in his pants when it comes to bucking the gang in DC. I can't blame them for that. So not putting their name on it might not be unreasonable. That said your point is taken.
Now for a counter point:
You were a NCO. Was the scuttle butt ever true?
Well, it's not even that the supposed Marines wouldn't put their own names to these claims...since the articles involved never even linked to them. It's that the article you linked, which cited a different article on another website, which vaguely mentioned these amorphous "Marine blogs" without even identifying them. It's like the friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend type of hearsay; how reliable can it be? I remain skeptical as to even the mere existence of the original sources.
ReplyDeleteAs for hearing scuttlebutt as an NCO -- I didn't. At least, not about important matters like these. But I wouldn't put it past certain people to make up stories about their previous assignments to inflate their own sense of importance -- and I did see that happen.
U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition.
ReplyDeleteAmbassador to Egypt Anne Patterson “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition"
Note the difference. The idiots at Foggy Bottom are saying that the State Department did not restrict the Marines from carrying ammo. But it's also reported that the Ambassador did. Let's not conflate the two.
As a side note, this is just more proof that women should never be trusted with authority.
Master Doh-San: "Let's not conflate the two."
ReplyDeleteAccording to the source, in all matters concerning the embassy, the Ambassador IS the State Dept:
“In the end, the ambassador of any country has the final call on what to do in a country,” the source said. “The buck stops with you. You make every decision.”
And on a semantical note, an order from an Ambassador is still coming from the State Dept in the same way that a legal order by a military commander has full backing all the way up to the CinC.
OK, it turns out that my assumption of the "security personnel" in Benghazi being Marines was incorrect. According to this report, quoting Maj Alex Cross, there were no Marines in Benghazi:
ReplyDelete"-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."
However, it also repudiates the report of the Marines at the embassy in Cairo not being allowed to carry live ammunition:
"The MCESG Marines in Cairo were allowed to have live ammunition in their weapons."
So there's your answer, Res -- the Marines didn't go down fighting in Benghazi because they weren't there. Maybe this will put the matter to rest, but probably not.
The story makes more sense now. I'm glad that we didn't lose any more guys than we did. I doubt that we'll ever know what the situation was in Egypt with the ammo. Its a good guess that they are carrying live rounds today.
ReplyDeleteHey, here's something else you can look into, if you're interested: Was Jesus Married?
ReplyDelete@WaterBoy: Let's not get semantical, though. The local Ambassador represents the SD, but she is not the actual SD. It's entirely possible that the SD said one thing and she said another. That gives the SD "plausible deniability".
ReplyDeleteI found this in my in box this morning:
ReplyDeleteI Stood My Post
Sgt. Grit,
I went through the Embassy Guard School at Henderson Hall in 1963 after a tour in the grunts, and I am concerned watching our embassy's across the Middle East go up in flames.
When I stood post at my embassy we had six rounds of .38 caliber and orders to lock the main door if the embassy was attacked. We had anti-American demonstrations, that being the popular thing to do in those days, but a heavy local riot police presence kept things peaceful. The local government was not overly pro-American, but did not stand for lawlessness in their streets.
It's been over forty years since I thought about holding an embassy in the face of screaming mob... we had our standing orders in those days, but our situation was highly different than what the troops on post in the Middle East have to endure... without jeopardizing anyone's safety I am wondering how much has changed over the years since I last stood post back in 1966.
I enjoy reading the troops' articles,
Sgt. Don Merkle
USMC 61-66
________________________________________
THe point he makes about only having 6 rounds for his 38 interests me. Since his service was back in the 60's it may be long standing tradition that the "gaurding" part of the post is more for show than for defense and incidents like Beriut are the exception and not the norm.
Res: "Since his service was back in the 60's it may be long standing tradition that the "gaurding" part of the post is more for show than for defense"
ReplyDeleteIn a strictly technical sense, it was/is. The primary duty of the Embassy Guard is not for the protection of the people or property (though that is how it often goes down); it is for the protection of the classified information on hand. That is why the Beirut embassy started burning classified papers this week. By reducing the amount of classified information that has to be taken with them in case of evacuation, it allows the Marines to evacuate along side them instead of becoming sitting ducks guarding a bunch of papers.
Master Doh-San: "It's entirely possible that the SD said one thing and she said another."
ReplyDeleteThat would be true, if the quoted paragraph actually originated from the State Dept. But it didn't; it was a phrase employed by the person writing the article, Adam Kredo. When he wrote State Department, he very well could have been referring to the Ambassador; the following paragraph would seem to support this contention, as both paragraphs appear to reference the same reports.
Until we are actually provided those original blog reports, however, we will simply never know.
Res, here is the Mission Statement of the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group:
ReplyDeleteThe primary mission of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) is to 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.
Guarding people/property is secondary to that.