Paying lip service
President Obama says the United States has “strengthened security at our embassies.” Secretary of State John Kerry says nothing is more important to him than embassy security.
So it comes as no surprise, from those who know better, that a new report from the State Department's inspector general finds security inadequate at the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, in what remains one of the worst hellholes for a U.S. outpost.
“Physical security vulnerabilities at the mission facilities ... place employees at risk,” the report states.
So much for the lessons of Benghazi, Libya, where terrorists last September killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. According to the Washington Guardian, “superiors back home in Washington seem unaware of the threat level (in Beirut),” in what's described as an 18-acre “cramped, aged and difficult to maintain office.”
And never mind that the State Department has yet to declare the Beirut embassy “high risk,” according to Townhall.com, despite civil war in neighboring Syria and 325,000 Syrian refugees who have crowded into Lebanon.
In the middle of this chaos are 64 full-time embassy employees and 20 temporary-duty personnel, according to The Heritage Foundation.
Despite reports of new “quick-reaction” strike forces developed by the Marines and Army, the security situation at the Beirut embassy as documented is outrageous. And, post-Benghazi, it's inexcusable.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Saving RadioShack: Innovation vs. focus
- A chilly reception
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The medical device tax: An abject failure
- The Scottish vote: Defeat as victory
- The Tesla factory: Battery boondoggle
- The truth about the VA: Rank dereliction of duty