Sequestration Threatens Embassy Security Additions

Sequestration Threatens Embassy Security Additions

Sequestration is expected to weaken readiness across the U.S. military, but it’s also likely to thwart plans to beef up security at vulnerable American embassies around the world, a top Marine Corps official said Thursday.

The Marine Corps is slated to report to Congress by Oct. 1 on its plans to add hundreds of Marine guards to embassy posts in an effort to prevent another incident like the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The Marine Corps’ proposed fiscal 2014 budget funds 1,635 Marines that support 152 embassies and consulates worldwide.


“We are working with the Department of State, the Department of Defense and the Joint Staff and we seek your support as we determine the additional manning of approximately 1,000 Marines and the associated funding to support them” to increase embassy security, Marine Gen. John Paxton Jr., told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee during an April 18 hearing on readiness.

Right now, the plan is to select Marines with combat experience that have recently reenlisted or plan to reenlist and begin training them at Quantico Marine Base at Quantico, Va.

“That’s the talent pool that will go to the school, so we will ask the commands as they look at reenlistments and to send that talent to Quantico,” Paxton said.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., wanted to know how the mandatory defense spending cuts under sequestration will affect the effort.

In the short term, the effort is protected from sequestration, Paxton said, explaining that the additional Marine security falls under the fully-funded, next-to-deploy category.

“We have a good model. We can predict the number of people we need. We can predict the facilities we need,” he said. “Consequently, when you get to the resources piece, with sequestration in effect, it is going to be” a challenge.

There is a growing demand for more Marine guards from “both consulates that have not been protected or embassies that need additional protection that we feel obliged to support; that are ready to support operationally,” Paxton said. “But it’s going to require extra end strength or if we take it out of existing end strength, then those are other missions that we may not be able to do.”

Join the Conversation

TO: USMC: Consular Protection MUST remain the Corps’ highest priority…Growth-Staffing ALL U.S.Embassies ensures boots-on-the-ground readiness, and a pre-emplaced backup security force, able to quickly redeploy as needed, for a more flexible Security Posture, and reserve readiness capability. It’s LONG PAST TIME for USMC to get that “Navy albatross” off from around the Corps’ neck, and stand-up the USMC as it’s own Service Branch. Let the frikken’ Coast Guard fill in the gap left behind in the Navy…With a new, 4-Branch Military, DoD can be better emplaced to meet evolving future needs..
*Semper*Fidelis*AMERICA*
~rideslegacy773~

We don’t need another second rate army, navy and air-force.

Let the army do the 1000 or so embassy vanity postings and scrap the marines.

spot on! 773! The USMC with min. organizational modification could be a stand alone “sea based forced entry organization” LHA’s + LPD’s with a low cost surf & air asw screen + some light skimmers & wala: a reach out & touch someone ground force deployable worldwide! With proper diplomacy for basing rights around the world competently negot. its a 0–4/0–5 class exercise on how to execute it. Convence the DOD flag officers, ha!, to much of a common sense approach!

oblatt: once while OCONUS on vacation I visited a U.S. Embassy. There’s nothing more re-assuring than a Marine at the entry way & further more, why we’re thay pulled from guarding USN fac. to be replaced with a cohort of well-fed “private security officers”? I’m gettin’ old.…

No. Defense of our beloved country MUST remain the Corps’ highest priority. Let Obama and the State Dept worry about consular security. They did a fine job in #Benghazi when… Oh

Benghazi was a consulate, not the embassy (which was in Tripoli). On 9/11 the embassy in Tripoli was locked down and nothing major happened in Tripoli.

It was a bum rap to leave the ambassador out to dry; but AQ has been known to use coordinated attacks like this. Attack the ambassador while he’s out, suck in the QRF, then hit the embassy with everything you’ve got. I imagine this possibility was on the minds of field commanders; and until someone leaks the proof that BO or Hilary issued an order to leave the ambassador to die in Libya, we’ll never know.

Ironically, it would take another Bradley Manning (but for different reasons!) to make the leak, but the same folks who hate BO for Benghazi kind of hate that guy too.

The real responsibility belongs to Department of State. I think the Marines should train closely with the DSS guys because they will be the doorkickers in any embassy rescue/reinforcement, but if the Marines want to proclaim how combat they are, they should be recusing themselves from static “defensive” assignments like Okinawa and go back to being a fully fleet-mobile force. If necessary, they should be based aboard every ship in the fleet, like good ol’ days.

Manning is a Traitor! ur a strange bird blight, comparing POTUS w/a Traitor?

The real Q’ bout Benghazi is was the alamo call belayed by the sit. room & if so, who made the call!

The idea that the Marines are crying wolf about reconfiguring 1,600 Marines within a force of 200,000 is ridiculous. The Marines (along with the rest of the military services) have squander billions of dollars over the last twenty years on stupid stuff (two failed USMC AAV upgrades) and now say that having a few less dollars threatens our embassy’s securities? Give me a break!

We should fund these embassy/consulate alert forces by cutting the numer of Marine Corps generals we now have. We have more Marines generals now than we had in WW2, where the Marines Corps was twice as big.

I guess that is what the GOP and President wanted, making America less save and the laughing stock in Russia and China. Who elected these characters?.

there is a typo, it should say less safe.

We have more Admirals than we have ships. All around the US has become bloated with officers of every kind just like the europeans. Meanwhile we don’t have enough sailors, soldiers, or marines.

The GOP was stupid and thought the President would want to give a little if they all had to give up something. Of course this was stupid sense the President came up with it first anyways. He thought it was a Win-Win for him. Blame the GOP and others for all of the hardships by saying that they wouldn’t compromise and get the cuts he needed while weakening the US to the point it wouldn’t be able to take action alone.

Of course he miscalculated. People are blaming everyone but the president most of all because HE is in charge and its his job to Get Sh*t Done.

He’s saying it would take a leak to answer all the questions that we have about Benghazi. Not calling the President a Traitor. A politican yes so there isn’t all that much different sometimes bit not a traitor.

Thanks Bel. Yes, it would take a leak to learn the truth. But the truth comes at a heavy moral price for the truth-teller.

It’s easier to just throw stones at someone’s house out of hypotheses than to have someone pay the heavy price of delivering Truth.

When I enlisted In the Marines, it was because I wanted to be as best prepared for combat as I could be. Well, they saw to that, and then sent me to the air wing where I met one of the most squared away Marines that I would encounter in my tour. It is with great pride that I mention that he is the Marine that I would want in that fox hole next to me, and he was going on to MSG after he left Cherry Point. He was the kind of Marine that they make commercials about.

As a Marine with six years exp., and three as a Marine Security Guard. I can tell you that the only people you want guarding US Embassies/Consulates (we do both) are Marines. So all these crazy talks about the Army doing it, or making the USMC its own branch, are just silly. Remember, there is a reason why we are the best. Because when the sh*t hits the fan they turn to us for guidance and safety. Granted our primary mission is to guard classified material, a close second are the personnel and property.

We have more issues with red tape and dealing with being PC/diplomatic then we do with staffing. Assuming that it is in fact, a facility that we are guarding. Since we are not at all of them.

Read your history. The Marines were given the mission in 1949 after the army bungled it.

Are you out of your mind. The highest priority ? We have attached to the Navy since 1775. In fact John Paul Jones muttered those famous words “I have yet began to fight” All he had was a detachment of Marines, and paid Turkish Sailors. I was on Embassy Duty, Vietiane Laos, and Athens Greece but our mission must change. Less spit and polish and more training on Combat. Instead of being issued Tear Gas, We should
be able to hold any Embassy until help arrives. We are Marines, That what we do. First to fight for right and freedom and to keep our Honor clean. To protect those who can’t protect themselves.

The Country Team has their own security, The mission of the MSG’s is to protect Classified Material., and the Embassy. How many times have I been on the roof of an Embassy overlooking the city. Why Marines, The Army had the Job a long time ago and they used Officers. They blew it. When Marine’s got the job, using enlisted members we never left. It is by far the best duty in the Corps. The next time I see that class of Marines is when I go to heaven and see the streets guarded by Marines.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.