For Benghazi diplomatic security, U.S. relied on small British firm

Comments (9)
USAPragmatist wrote:

Personally I am sick and tired of all this outsourcing of ‘security’ from our more than capable military to private contractors. I wonder how much of this has been driven by lobbying by the security firms? And before someone spouts off about it being more expensive, you get what you pay for.

Oct 17, 2012 5:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

Blue Mountain sounds like a white elephant. I agree with you, USAPragmatist. The trend to privatize has not been the smart way to cover certain critical tasks. Perhaps the forensic analysis of the incident will bring expose the matter to some daylight.

Oct 17, 2012 6:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


Blue Mountain Group is an unknown company in Britain. Britain doesn’t even use them for security. I very seriously doubt they have lobbyists in the US. We certainly get what we pay for, and it looks like the State Department was putting security in Libya down at the bottom of their priorities list. This is a sad event for the Obama administration, who is very clearly to blame for this event.

Oct 17, 2012 6:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
saavedra wrote:

Good God not security from Wales. Really Welshmen? What’d they pay them with, Ale?

Oct 17, 2012 7:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bokhara wrote:

Personally I think the whole thing is a cover story for a CIA station, or in this case, the correct term is “camp.” I don’t think there were any real State employees within 100 miles of Bengazi. The two security men who were killed were both “former” SEALs, not UK citizens, and the CIA and the SEALs are two halves of the same coin. I also think Stevens was under State official cover.

Oct 17, 2012 8:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

Since the US military lost so many trained, heavily armed, experienced soldiers to RPG’s and mortars in Iraq and Afghanistan, how is any security force going to prevent RPG’s and mortars from blowing up an embassy, since the security forces are not allowed to patrol the area around the embassy?
This whole thing has been made totally political by Romney, who is in fact himself, a draft dodger.

Oct 17, 2012 8:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CDN_Rebel wrote:

I think this goes to show how far America’s ‘volunteer’ army is stretched when they can’t find a marine or army detatchment to guard this temporary embassy. Also, it goes to show that the penny-pinching from Congress and TP types has hurt national security greatly, when not only can’t America afford her own troops, but can’t even afford the good mercenaries! Yet ask any conservative and the only thing it shows is that Obama sucks.

Oct 17, 2012 9:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
neahkahnie wrote:

Why don’t we use U.S. Marines or other U.S. troops to guard American embassies, missions and consulates? Having contractors cost more. More privatizing of military functions brings nothing but trouble. Flashlights and batons? Whoopee! That should stop real criminals whose ages are below five.

Oct 17, 2012 9:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
oneofthecrowd wrote:

By using contracted security Obama gets to say statements like ‘all the troops are out of Iraq’ while leaving thousands of unreported, contracted (and more expensive) “security forces.” And the American public doesn’t hear about a locally hired contractor raping a local girl or going off the rails and killing civilians. Our Marines would have had no problem securing the compound, but Obama would have had to admit we had Marines, Americans, on the ground. A stupid, stupid, choice was made.

Oct 17, 2012 12:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.