I think we blundered in leaving Christopher Stevens so lightly guarded.

[trumad]

After watching Rachel's excellent report about that region, I gotta ask, why would we put our Ambassador in a compound that was previously attacked with only 2 American security guards?

[RandiFan1290]

1. Maybe the "private security company" called them off?

I want some answers and I want Blackwater away from these positions. Why trust a company that prefers a republican in office.

[mr_hat]

2. Don't have a link, but I read >

that the attacked compound was temporary while a permanent one was being built. It was little more than an office building. And it seems it was guarded.

[dkf]

7. But he made a special trip to get there right?

[JohnnyLib2]

3. Yes, damn it, and the finger pointing will go into November.

Or at least the Rs will try. Damn, again.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. There were 2 former SEALs with him

But I did see Rachael's report last night. It seemed to me that Stevens was very engaged and dedicated there and wondered if they were trying to continually defuse the "castle with a wall and moat" type thing. As it is, that was a consulate vs the embassy that is in Tripoli and I think he was there visiting vs staying in Tripoli normally.

[dkf]

5. Yes, He should have been warned to avoid possible vulnerabilities on 9/11.

I wonder if we have let our guard down because Bin Laden is dead. When he was alive we seemed to be more cautious about 9/11 anniversaries.

[bklyncowgirl]

6. I think if the State Department could do it all over again they would agree with you

Unfortunately, they did not heed the warnings that now seem so clear. It may very well be that there was a mole in the consulate staff. On the other hand, Stevens was a guy who liked to be accessible to real people. No doubt the enemy knew that and took advantage of it.

[HereSince1628]

8. Hindsight is 20/20, I suspect there are many at the state dept. looking backwards

to identify what actually transpired and what might have been done differently.

We don't really have much to explain why he ended up exposed to such risks, but I suspect that some things cannot be done via twitter from "the bunker."

[apples and oranges]

9. He died from smoke inhalation

100 guards couldn't have prevented that!


Edited: You're right. More guards could have secured the perimeter of the building, which may have kept the bombs from going off.

[Canuckistanian]

10. ... from a missile attack

They could have surrounded the embassy with a small army and it wouldn't have made a difference.

[dkf]

14. He shouldn't have been there. Especially not on 9/11.

[mmonk]

11. I think we've blundered by still having embassies

in Middle Eastern countries. I'm bored with murder and violence. All for what? Hegemony?

[apples and oranges]

12. This.

[bluedigger]

13. I don't think Isolationism is a good idea.

Embassies serve many purposes other than "hegemony" and indicate a State's willingness to engage in global affairs of all kinds. We should reduce staffing to the bare minimum to limit exposure to terrorist acts for the foreseeable future, not disappear completely.

[mmonk]

16. Me either. But international hegemony games have consequences.

Rather be isolationist than a putrid neocon empire in decline financially and morally.

[bluedigger]

15. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Obviously there was insufficient security. Perhaps it was a balance book decision, as his security was provided by a private firm. Another benefit of the increased efficiency of government privatization.

So far I haven't heard any reason given for Ambassador Stevens' trip to Benghazi. The attackers seemed to be organized and prepared, which makes me wonder if there was a breach of his travel plans, if this was a routine and expected trip, or if he was set up and lured in.