Marines Exit Yemen Forced to Surrender Dignity, Weapons

[Glocktogo]

Meh. Spiking the guns and moving out in an orderly withdrawal of the embassy is nothing I'll get worked up about. Handguns and rifles are expendable. They were not retreating nor surrendering.

The MSG force is not a combatant unit. The guys doing the real work in country are still around, and still have their boomsticks.

I completely disagree with your assessment. This was a purely political decision that was completely unnecessary. It sends the worst message that could be sent to our enemies. They already know that we will lay down and give up our embassies and facilities if it comes to a firefight. Benghazi proved it and this is more of the same Quisling politics.

This may be SOP for today, but it wasn't when we had real men leading this country. Now we have complete ineptitude on an epic scale. People like Obama, Susan Rice and Jen Psaki are wholly unqualified to be making these decisions. I'm ashamed for those Marines and all that have come before them (including me).

P.S., MSG units in hostile territory are absolutely combat units. This isn't the Army we're talking about here.

 

[druryj]

In the early 80's, I was the Asst. Director for MSG School and headed up the MSG Recruitment and Selection team. I was subsequently a Company Commander for MSG Battalion. In the course of my duties, I visited many U.S. Embassies, Consulates around the world. The MSG Primary Mission is: "The 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". Note that the mission is one of internal security. The protection and security of the space outside the facility is the responsibility of the host government. MSG Marines are authorized the use of deadly force inside the compound and the buildings that comprise it themselves; that doesn't apply at the host governments' airport. The whole idea of US Marines guarding foreign missions is one of as much tradition as anything else. These Marines picked for MSG duty go through one hell of a rigorous selection, screening and training process. You don't just put any old PFC Joe Schmoe fresh-off-the farm on duty in a sensitive, potentially volatile location and tell him to ensure the security of highly classified materials and perform "other duties" as directed. They have access to damn near everything inside; these Marines are very, very well trained. Having said that, the key here may very well be that part about "other duties" as directed. The Ambassador is the direct representative of the POTUS in a foreign nation. His or her word is the law. Once they step outside that compound, the Marines generally do not have the authority to use their weapons. (Remember, there's a lot of diplomatic missions around the world and what is okay here may not be okay there...different host countries have different agreements with the U.S. pertaining to the MSG Detachment). Example; in one visit I made to a nasty little country in Central America called El Salvador in the early 80's, the Marines met me at the airport fully armed and supported by host nation security forces as well. Obviously, they were granted the authority to carry and if necessary, employ their weapons outside the compound by the host government. In the course of my visit, this is one of the things I reviewed to make sure we kept out of trouble. (It was crazy there then; the buildings at the U.S. Compound were draped in chain link fencing so as to make the rocket propelled grenades explode prior to hitting the building). It's much like later, when I was the CO of the Marine Barracks in Rota, Spain. Part of our responsibility there was the protection of classified materials and certain facilities inside and on U.S. Naval facilities onboard a Spanish Naval Base. Granted, the people of Spain are a tad more amenable to Americans than some other countries, but we still had to abide by our Memorandum of Understanding between the host nation and the U.S. We had the authority to use deadly force in the performance of our duties, but could not carry our weapons off the base unless we were on a training mission and provided notification to the Spanish Authorities that we were going to do so, and honestly, it was never a problem. We just gave the appropriate folks the notice that we were going to be conducting training at so-and-so location and went about our business. On base, it was a different story, just try to get to one of our designated facilities with ill-intent in mind and my little Marine Security Force Company was gonna be on you like ugly on a damn ape real damn quick and the use of deadly force would be applicable. However, here is a huge difference in the level of security provided and the use of Marines abroad in securing a highly classified weapons system that is very securely stored and say, a bunker that contains small arms ammo that some poor old Spanish rabbit hunter is maybe poking around in. Shooting an intruder trying to breach a highly classified weapon/system of enormous and significant power in a foreign country is one thing, shooting them for trying to steal a box of small arms ammo out of a pad-locked ammo storage cabinet is something else. What I'm saying is that there must be certain rules in place for the security of U.S. personnel and materials at installations abroad or else the situation would perhaps deteriorate into utter chaos. The MSG presence and mission at U.S Diplomatic facilities is one set in stone by formal agreements between the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Marine Corps. Complicate that by whatever diplomatic agreements must be or are in place with the host nation and there you have it. Bottom line: IF the sequence of events is as reported and as we have read, and if the destruction of classified materials and the safety of U.S. personnel was ensured, then it sounds like the plan as described by SMS in post#10 pretty much worked.

But, as an old Marine Infantry officer, I still don't have to like everything I've read about it so far.

 

[druryj]

I completely disagree with your assessment. This was a purely political decision that was completely unnecessary. It sends the worst message that could be sent to our enemies. They already know that we will lay down and give up our embassies and facilities if it comes to a firefight. Benghazi proved it and this is more of the same Quisling politics.

This may be SOP for today, but it wasn't when we had real men leading this country. Now we have complete ineptitude on an epic scale. People like Obama, Susan Rice and Jen Psaki are wholly unqualified to be making these decisions. I'm ashamed for those Marines and all that have come before them (including me).

P.S., MSG units in hostile territory are absolutely combat units. This isn't the Army we're talking about here.

In general, only inside the compound or facilities that comprise the U.S. Diplomatic Mission (Embassy or Consulate). External security is the responsibility of the Host Country, like it or not. Think of it like "Castle Doctrine" if you will, but in a foreign country.

 

[Lurker66]

I completely disagree with your assessment. This was a purely political decision that was completely unnecessary. It sends the worst message that could be sent to our enemies. They already know that we will lay down and give up our embassies and facilities if it comes to a firefight. Benghazi proved it and this is more of the same Quisling politics.

This may be SOP for today, but it wasn't when we had real men leading this country. Now we have complete ineptitude on an epic scale. People like Obama, Susan Rice and Jen Psaki are wholly unqualified to be making these decisions. I'm ashamed for those Marines and all that have come before them (including me).

P.S., MSG units in hostile territory are absolutely combat units. This isn't the Army we're talking about here.

When a country asks you to leave, you leave. Yemen doesn't want us there. The whole argument about embassies is flawed. Embassies are there for diplomatic purposes and as a base for intelligence gathering.

If a country doesn't want a US embassy, they have every right to close it down and force the occupants to leave.

Same rule applies here in the US. If we close Saudi Arabia embassy do you think we would allow their soldiers to travel to the airport and board a plane with loaded, functional weapons?

 

[KOPBET]

If we need weapons at an embassy or diplomatic outpost then WTF are we there?

 

[druryj]

If we need weapons at an embassy or diplomatic outpost then WTF are we there?

Read my post above please; it's all about security INSIDE the U.S. Compound. WE are responsible for internal security. (Hell, we need weapons for the same purpose here).

 

[Hobbes]

http://fortressamerica.gawker.com/fox-news-floats-bs-story-about-fleeing-marines-giving-r-1685424565

 

[indi]

Sad thing is when they get home our government is gonna try to take their dignity and weapons. (Delete if this doesn't belong here)

 

[druryj]

Sad thing is when they get home our government is gonna try to take their dignity and weapons. (Delete if this doesn't belong here)

How so? I'm not tracking with you on this...

 

[Gatorshark]

Once the order is given to abandon/evacuate the embassy, the mission becomes "Destroy classified/sensitive material and get everyone out in one piece".

Getting into a gunfight with local authorities over replaceable trucks and guns is stupid. Sounds like the Marines executed pre-planned destruction and evacuation plans very well and accomplished the mission.

Voice of reason?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk