A question: is the US Consulate in Libya in a separate building or compound that can be defended, or is it in an office building with other tenants? There are a number of consulates in Seattle, but they are all in office towers.
Because as I read the story about Libya, I was wondering where were the Marines? Are Marines only stationed in an embassy, as opposed to a consulate, or was the Libyan consulate not amenable to being defended? I know that some posters here have strong feelings on ROE of the Marines, but I have to think that if a mob with machine guns and RPGs is opening fire on American personnel, the Marines can fire back.
While an embassy is considered sovereign territory of its county (not the host country) a consulate (while in many cases, housed in the same building) is simply where consular officers operate (which may include -the- ambassador for that host country) and may or may not be considered sovereign territory. In the case of Libya, the embassy is in tripoli, and this was a consulate. In either case, Libya was a signatory of the various treaties (IIRC) defining the protections of diplomatic officers, and thus these actions shoud be considered really serious. In general, an attack on diplomatic officers, their missions, consulates, and even more significantly, an embassy, is considered an act of aggression against that county. We have responded with military force in the past (cruise missile strikes after the embassy bombings, severe sanctions and eventual failed response followed by very clear military threats after the embassy in Tehran was captured, etc) by both highly liberal (carter), moderately liberal (Clinton) and conservative (Reagan's clear statements as president elect to Iran) presidents.
This is clearly an attack on US interests, citizens, and what should be considered "untouchable" diplomatic personnel and facilities. We should respond with AT LEAST political and economic sanctions, determine who is responsible, and preferably, a proportional military response. At the least, libyian diplomats shoud be expelled or declared persona non grata until those responsible are punished, and reparations must be paid by the host country. I guarantee other countries would expect nothing less than reparative actions if militants here attacked their ambassador to the US.
Anything other than this, INCLUDING our administrations current "stern talking too" is insufficient and creates an international environment that is very dangerous--host countries knew in the past that they bore the burden of protecting diplomats in their countries, as to do otherwise puts their own people at risk AMD limits the ability of countries to interact diplomatically, and showing weakness in this case merely puts our personnel in further danger.
Sure, the administration has ordered more security for our personnel...but under what ROE? Say the new ambassador (or subsidary diplomatic credential carrying personnel who may not be protected as well as e ambassador him/herself) comes under attack and the security fights back and kills civilians...what then? I bet this administration would pay some reparations then to the host county.
Attacks on diplomats are worse than attacks in random individuals, as it is an attack on the basic institution of civilized international diplomacy.
We should respond SEVERELY. Hell, even Clinton had the gonads to tomahawk the crap out of those responsible for the embassy bombings.
Worse still, aren't these the same folks our administration "supported" by "leading from behind"?
