While appearing on Fox News Channel on Monday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
told anchor Megan Kelly that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may
testify before a senate panel in about two weeks to answer questions
about embassy security and the bloodbath at a U.S. consulate that
suffered from insufficient security.
During Sunday morning’s television news shows, the primary focus of
discussion was the testimony given on Friday by former CIA chief and
retired four-star general, David Petraeus, and the bloody terrorist
attack on the Benghazi, Libya, U.S. consulate. However, according to an
expert in security management, very little attention is being paid to
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s failure to heed the warnings
contained in a congressional report on the subject of embassy security
and safety released in July 2011.
“Secretary Clinton and her staff received a report regarding
diplomatic security from the U.S. Congress but she and her staff appear
to have ignored its findings and failed to implement its
recommendations,” said Thomas Sullivan, a security and safety expert.
“Clinton said she took responsibility for what happened on Sept. 11,
2012, but then she refuses to make any statements regarding that
incident.”
Sullivan believes a full investigation is needed since the Obama administration was warned by a Government Accountability Office report
that was released to the U.S. Congress, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and concerned agencies and organizations in 2011.
According to a Government Accountability Office report, prior to the
Benghazi terrorist attack, there had been more than 40 violent attacks
on embassies worldwide since 1998, including the attack on the American
embassy in Monrovia, Liberia in 2003.
The Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security protects
people, information, and property at over 400 locations worldwide and
has experienced a large growth in its budget and personnel over the last
decade, according to the GAOanalysts.
Diplomatic Security trains its workforce and others to address a
variety of threats, including crime, espionage, visa and passport fraud,
technological intrusions, political violence, and terrorism. To meet
its training needs, Diplomatic Security relies primarily on its
Diplomatic Security Training Center (DSTC).
The Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security is
responsible for the protection of people, facilities, information, and
property at over 400 embassies, consulates, and other facilities
throughout the globe, according to the GAO analysis.
In addition, Diplomatic Security provides protection to the Secretary
of State, foreign dignitaries visiting the United States, and several
other U.S. government officials. Diplomatic Security dedicates 72
special agents to provide a 24-hour protective detail for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton alone. Yet, a consulate in terrorist-infested Benghazi didn’t have half that number of trained security officers.
Since the 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, the scope
and complexity of threats facing Americans abroad and at home has
increased and diplomatic security must be prepared to counter threats
such as crime, espionage, visa and passport fraud, technological
intrusions, political violence (riots and intrusions), and terrorism,
according to analysts at the GAO.
To address these objectives GAO analysts interviewed numerous
officials at Diplomatic Security headquarters, several domestic
facilities, and 18 international postings. They also analyzed diplomatic
security and State Department budget and personnel data, as well as
assessed challenges facing diplomatic security officials through the
analysis of interviews with personnel positioned domestically and
internationally, budget and personnel data provided by the State
Department and Diplomatic Security, and planning and strategic
documentation.
Since 1998, the Office of Diplomatic Security’s mission and
activities — and, subsequently, its resources — have grown considerably
in reaction to a number of security incidents. As a consequence of this
growth, analysts identified several challenges. In particular, the State Department is maintaining a presence in an increasing number of dangerous posts, which requires additional resources, the analysts noted.
In addition, staffing shortages in domestic offices and other
operational challenges — such as inadequate facilities, language
deficiencies, experience gaps, and the difficulty of balancing security
needs with State’s diplomatic mission — further tax Diplomatic Security
officials’ ability to implement all of its missions.
Diplomatic Security’s desire to provide the best security possible
for State’s diplomatic corps has, at times, been in tension with State’s
diplomatic mission. For example, Diplomatic Security has established
strict policies concerning access to U.S. facilities that usually
include personal and vehicle screening, according to the GAO analysts.
Some public affairs officials — whose job it is to foster relations
with host country nationals — have expressed concerns that the security
measures discourage visitors from attending U.S. embassy events or
exhibits. In addition, the new embassies and consulates, with their high
walls, deep setback, and strict screening procedures, have evoked the
nickname, “Fortress America.”
The State Department has also received criticism from liberal-left
think-tanks for adopting what seems to be a “zero tolerance” for
security incidents. Two groups are encouraging State to change its
security culture and practices from risk avoidance to risk management.
The GAO analysis revealed that Diplomatic Security’s ability
to fully carry out its mission of providing security worldwide is
hindered by staffing shortages in domestic offices–even in light of its
workforce growth–and other operational challenges such as inadequate
facilities, pervasive language proficiency shortfalls, and host-country
constraints, among others.
GAO recommended that State enhance Diplomatic Security’s course
evaluation and tracking capabilities. The GAO also recommended that
State develop an action plan and time frames to address proposed
increases in high-threat training.
No comments:
Post a Comment