Department of "Huh?"

The U.S. government doesn't already offer protection to foreign diplomats in Iraq? Why not?

WSJ.com - U.S. May Offer Protection To Foreign Diplomats in Iraq: The U.S. military is considering offering protection to foreign diplomats in Baghdad after al Qaeda agents killed three Arab envoys this month, the American ambassador said Thursday. "Coalition forces.. are planning to look at this problem and see what could be done to fix the security for the diplomats," Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters. "It's very important for foreign diplomats who come here to have a sense of security."...

Comments

[John Emerson]

We're trying to pretend that Iraq is not a totally-owned subsidiary.

[Bob O]

Because it would violate Republican principles to have the government provide a service that the free market can provide more efficiently. There are plenty of "Security Consultants" flocking to Baghdad to protect foreign diplomats, for a market-determined fee.

(I wrote that, and now I can't tell whether I'm being snarky or not. Appalling as it sounds, it's plausible that it's not far from the Administration's "reasoning.")

[SamChevre]

Normally, embassies, being technically part of the country whose embassy they are (not the host country), have security provided by the country whose embassy they are. For example, US Marines guard all US embassies everywhere AFAIK. Thus, normally, security for (e.g.) the Egyptian embassy would be provided by Egyptians.

[md 20/400]

SamChevre's right on the internal security, but by the same rules of sovereignty the host country is supposed to ensure the external security. Since Iraq is sovereign ...

But Iraq is partially sovereign (is that like a little bit pregnant?) so it boils down to which does the US value more: the fig-leaf of Iraqi as an independent state or the lives of diplomats from countries that the US wants to support the nascent Iraqi state. Face or facts, which?

[Sean McCann]

Because it's more than they can do to hold things together as it is?

[Christopher Ball]

No, the host country (Iraq) is responsible for the security of foreign embassies. In Washington DC, the Secret Service Uniformed Division handles this. The State Dept.'s Bureau of Diplomatic Security handles protection of foreign officials in the US, except for heads of state, which the Secret Service usually guards, and oversees security at US embassies abroad, many of which have Marine Security Guard Detachments of 6-30 Marines. Others have BDS agents or contract guards, usually local ones. The Marines guard the embassy itself, not embassy staff traveling outside the embassy. If needed, that role would fall to BDS special agents or contract guards. The MSG or BDS agents are used because host country security is often insufficient.

[P.M.Lawrence]

Christopher Ball, that "host country" stuff is in fact a measure of the USA's lack of diplomacy. The USA refuses to accept this sort of overriding of itself, in its own embassies. US practice in disarming diplomats is no measure of acceptable practice.

In fact, the USA was most put out when it was refused permission to buy the freehold of its embassy in London. The landlord said he would consider it as, when and if the USA fulfilled its obligations to the estate for properties seized in the 18th century, as undertaken (but never fulfilled) by the peace treaty.

For the USA to "offer" security in Iraq would be undiplomatic both to the provisional government and to the diplomats, as well as dangerous by drawing hostile attention - and, knowing that, the offer would be further undiplomatic. The only proper response would be "we'd get along a lot faster if only you'd stop helping".

[me]

Does no one remember Michael Moore interviewing the US Secret Service and asking why they guard the Saudi embassy in DC?

And always remember, as Dick "Fuck You" Cheney sayd, the more they kill of us the more we are winning becuase they are desparate.