#rsrh State Department prepares for the Lebanese Embassy being overrun.

That’s the semantic translation of this sentence: “Diplomats at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut have started to destroy classified material as a security precaution amid anti-American protests in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa.”  You always want to destroy the paperwork ahead of time; when the mob actually shows up at your door with torches and various hand weapons it’s usually too late.  And while sensible regimes always send along agents to make sure that embassy staff (well, the foreigners, at least) make it out alive*, they’re also there to make sure that as little paperwork as possible gets destroyed.  But you also don’t want to do it too early, either.  Or at all, if you can help it.

Apparently, they decided not to take the chance**.

But don’t worry! The President is on the case!

…sort of. Look, at least he didn’t move too far from where the White House staff parked him, OK? That’s… progress, if you squint and look at it right.

Moe Lane

*Don’t let this administration’s apparent disinterest in the murder of our Ambassador to Libya fool you; that was a legitimately big deal, and there eventually will be a proportionate response to it.

**By the way: just because something is ‘routine’ doesn’t mean that it’s not significant.  It’s actually routine to destroy the documents when you think that you’re about to lose control of your diplomatic station.

12 thoughts on “#rsrh State Department prepares for the Lebanese Embassy being overrun.”

  1. To be clear:
    This is likely in the interests of protecting Lebanese sources and collaborators moreso than actual US interests, right? We have a ton of people that could/would get burned (which is my impression as to what the loons in Libya were actually after), no?

  2. Dangerous for the administration in more ways than one. The Marines have a long memory, and an abiding hatred of Hezbollah, with Beirut being right at the heart of the matter.
    Commanding them to go unarmed and surrender the embassy grounds will not go over well. At all. Discipline and professionalism only go so far.

  3. Shakil Afridi would probably testify the Obama Administration has no problem burning US sources to our enemies.

  4. “Don’t let this administration’s apparent disinterest in the murder of our Ambassador to Libya fool you..there eventually will be a proportionate response to it.”
    Seriously? Seems like Obama goes after US citizens with more gusto.

  5. If things are this bad, please tell me we are surging aircraft carriers, amphibious assault groups, Marines, and fighter squadrons towards the Middle East as we speak.

    If they’re getting twitchy about being over-run, we ought to be getting serious about at least having the means to get the embassy folks out of there, by force of arms if need be.

    Has anybody in the press even asked the Administration if they are doing this?

    No and no, probably.

  6. Updating the last – press reports indicate three carriers and one amphibious assault group in the Persian Gulf/ Arabian Sea. No information as to what may be available in the Mediterranean.

  7. UtahMan .. we have 1 Enterprise class (the Enterprise, specifically), 10 Nimitz class (the Nimitz, the Eisenhower, the Vinson, the Roosevelt, the Lincoln, the Washington, the Stennis, the Truman, and the Reagan) with a couple Gerald Ford class (including the Gerald Ford and the JFK) under construction. (note – this is all sourced from Wikipedia..)

    It looks like, according to Wikipedia so .. trust issues .. we have at least 3 carrier groups in the ME, and at least 1 in the Med with at least two others able to get there fast.. two that are on post-major-overhaul shakedown cruises, and two that should be done with major overhauls by January… so we should be okay in the Med.


Comments are closed.