Daily Times

My name and writing made it to a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page months ago. I merely noted the digital footprint. My name has also popped up on a major jihad portal in the past. Duly noted. But as ‘Citizen Q journalist’ I cannot request a security detail. Frankly, what I engage is merely freedom of expression. It is done responsibly and with the sincere hope that vibrant cross-pollination of ideas will make the world a better place for our generations. Life is good!

But what should transpire when a United States ambassador has surveillance of his morning activities linked to a pro-Gaddafi Facebook site? What are the considerations when the ambassador in question just happens to work in Libya? Which State Department actions must be considered when digital intelligence streaming notes an increase in terror chatter regarding Libya? What must be the plan of action when the US is in the crosshairs with a direct threat made by al Qaeda against our diplomatic corps abroad?

Lt Colonel Andy Wood believed that Ambassador Christopher Stevens needed a more robust security complement. Instead, more than 30 security members were relieved of the mission in Libya in the last six months. What should have been the response of the Commander-in-Chief? When reviewing daily intelligence reports and noting an increase in ThreatCon in Libya, he still allowed his Secretary of State and her chain of command to approve a force reduction. Why were repeated requests for increased security assets by Ambassador Christopher Stevens denied? And why did the State Department try to pass off what was an organised terror attack against the staff at the Benghazi consulate as a mere anti-west provocation by ‘the village people’? Very early on, the images posted on a jihad portal showed scenes that denoted an exceptional use of firepower as opposed to protesters with mere matches and gasoline at their disposal. Who was asleep at the switch? And which analysts did not connect the dots that there was a trigger-pulling event slated for Benghazi? Time for critical analysis of the security of the Benghazi consulate or time for latte? Make mine a double shot, please. And lots of whip. Slurp.

Blood on their hands. Diplomatic blood. And the requirement for unnecessarily spilled blood always includes an accounting to the American people. We are the ones who pay the salaries of the minions required to feed the appetite of the dinosaur over at Homeland Security, the (respected) raptors of our CIA, and even all of the lowly reptilian population over at the NSA listening posts. We finance the regional fusion centres that have been noted to spy on average American citizens who could not locate Benghazi on a map before the attack occurred. And last but not the least, we are also the taxpayers who provide the salaries, expense accounts and perks for our Commander-in-Chief and all Cabinet ministers. This includes Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. This happened on his watch. This happened on her watch. Double indemnity. Except that the death of Ambassador Stevens was not an accidental event. Read my lips. It could have been prevented.

My own blood still runs cold when I consider the images of Ambassador Stevens. One image, showed him with his life leaving his body. By the second image, he was ready for the taxidermy consult. The man looked like road kill. I still cannot get that picture out of my mind. I wish I had never seen it.

Was there dereliction of duty by the US Department of State to provide adequate protection for the embassy staff in Libya? It is my belief there was both dereliction of duty and gross malpractice in play regarding the denial of needed services as requested by a United States ambassador.

It was back in November of 2007 that (Secretary of State) Dr Condoleeeza Rice was busy twisting arms because there were approximately 50 unfilled vacancies for the tour of duty to the American Embassy in Iraq. Diplomats were hiding under their desks and volunteerism was lacking. Dr Rice was forced to admit, “We must go forward with the identification of officers to serve should it prove necessary to direct assignments…Should others step forward, as some already have, we will fill these new jobs as we have before — with volunteers. However, regardless of how the jobs may be filled, they must be filled.”

I can just imagine how few career officers are now lining up for a tour in Libya. They will certainly not be stacked up like the men at the doors of the bin Laden compound. Those men are a walking menace. Diplomats are a different breed. They are the ones in the nice suits who smell like cologne. My guess is the ones who are already on the ropes to go to Libya next are probably updating their last will and testament. Either that or fleeing to Canada. They did not sign up for what happened to their predecessor in Libya.

Many nations are still in political flux after the Arab Spring. National boundaries have become permeable as transit corridors for both state-sponsored terror and soldiers of fortune. There is money to be made, and in the millions, in moving military hardware into the cesspools of political chaos. As it is now, the safety boundary between Turkey and Syria is crumbling. None of the Arab Spring nations can be fully classified as stable. We are sending the best of our talent into these zones of conflict and they are unarmed and not classified as combatants. So when they request additional security, when they express concern for their life and limb, there should be no denial of such requests.

The issue is not money. The issue is asset management. The issue is a modicum of respect for the concerns expressed by a man on the front lines of diplomacy. The issue is vibrant strategic foreign policy that interfaces effectively with the needs of our diplomats on the ground. Ambassador Christopher Stevens deserved better. Americans deserve better. Soon.

The writer is a freelance journalist and can be reached at tammyswof@msn.com