More than half of U.S. diplomatic posts may not meet security rules
More than half the U.S. diplomatic posts overseas may not fully meet security standards, a senior U.S. official told a hearing on Thursday that follows an attack on the mission in Benghazi in which the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans died.
Pat Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management at the State Department, told a House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee that the United States had a diplomatic presence at 283 locations around the world.
He said 97 safe and secure facilities had been completed since the 1999 passage of a U.S. law authorizing additional funding for security upgrades, including 70 full replacements of embassies or consulates, as well as some building of Marine guard quarters and office annexes.
“There remain approximately 158 posts that have facilities that may not fully meet current security standards,” he said.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Pork-Chop on February 15, 2013 at 10:33 AM
So a few dozen of our embassies are under-protected and could get overrun, what does it matter?
Bishop on February 15, 2013 at 10:33 AM
So shut them down. Videoconferencing exists. If the President of Civilwaristan needs to chat face to face, I’m sure we could have a reasonably high ranking official sitting in his office in four hours.
LukeinNE on February 15, 2013 at 10:34 AM
Don’t worry: we will find a Mohammad-insulting video and potential Republican candidate to blame when the next Benghazi happens.
mwbri on February 15, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Some how the next attack will be Rand Paul’s and/or Marco Rubio’s fault.
mwbri on February 15, 2013 at 10:37 AM
Who’s fault is that? Oh yeah. Bush or something.
HotAirian on February 15, 2013 at 10:38 AM
If Rubio would spend less time reaching for water, then our embassies would be better protected.
mwbri on February 15, 2013 at 10:38 AM
There should be no federal minimum wage.
Nick_Angel on February 15, 2013 at 10:40 AM
Whoa. Wrong thread.
/leaves in shame.
Nick_Angel on February 15, 2013 at 10:41 AM
Gee, Democrats, maybe–just maybe–some of us have family serving at these posts. But please continue to delude yourselves that we care more about hanging Benghazi on Obama and Clinton than we care about our own blood.
You are shameless, venal, clueless losers who would rather protect some creeps’ political careers than protect American families.
Christien on February 15, 2013 at 11:06 AM
What difference does it make?
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 11:12 AM
I’m really grateful to our media for publicizing this information just in case the jihadis didn’t already know.
Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Tight security and quick response backup teams are not as important in Luxembourg and Bern as they are in Benghazi and Cairo.
farsighted on February 15, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Not if we’re relying on the Pentagon or State department to get them there. /snark
GWB on February 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM
Distraction.
NO US Embassy is 100% secure. Some should be hardened yes, but without intelligence (big and little ‘i’) and support from State, they’re sitting ducks for any well motivated force.
Benghazi didn’t go down because the structures weren’t hardened sufficiently and it was missing a couple of Marines. It went down, as has been widely chronicled, because of systemic failures.
CorporatePiggy on February 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM
Who cares – do they have enough Chevy Volts?
Ward Cleaver on February 15, 2013 at 11:53 AM