Friday, November 30, 2012 - 7:50 AM

By Steve Donnelly
Best Defense Libyan wars and Fox flak-catcher correspondent
In 2011, Ambassador Robert Ford boldly engaged his new assignment in Syria, brazenly and very publicly meeting with opposition leaders on the brink of armed rebellion against the al-Assad Regime.
Three times in as many months he had been surrounded by mobs of pro-government protesters, pelted with eggs, and attacked in embassy cars on the streets of Damascus. No phalanx of Blackwater. No body armor and helmet. No impenetrable motorcade of up-armored SUVs.
Was he nuts? What was he doing there?
Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin got the answer from the horse's mouth for a September 29, 2011 article:
"When an ambassador makes a statement in a country that's critical of that country's government, when that government visits an opposition or a site where a protest is taking place, the statement is much more powerful -- and the impact and the attention it gets is much more powerful if it's an ambassador rather than a low-level diplomat," Ford told The Cable in an interview last week.
Ultimately, the Syrian pressure cooker was nearing boil, and Ford had to pull out.
Three years before, Ryan Crocker, himself a survivor of the 1983 Beirut Embassy bombing, whose residence had been attacked in 1998 when he was Ambassador to Syria, and one of the first diplomats on the ground in Kabul after the Taliban's departure in 2002, took up his post in Baghdad, not before or after conflict but in the midst of it, and charged with the dangerous and difficult task of US conflict stabilization and transition out of that historically conflict-ridden country.
With Special Representative Sérgio Vieira de Mello killed along with 20 of his staff in the massive 2003 Canal Hotel bombing attack on the UN's Baghdad office, Crocker was, no doubt, the next prime trophy for Iraqi bad guys, but even if almost suffocated at times by Blackwater, and US military and diplomatic security, he stayed on and directed the civilian side of the US Surge.
The unusual aspect of Crocker's task in Iraq was not just to knowingly put his own life on the line, as many prominent diplomats have done in this region with inevitable results, but to institutional that role within the State Department ranks by managing the deployment of hundreds of Crocker-inspired diplomats out into the dangerous Iraqi landscape to support the civilian transition through the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, or PRTs that walked into Sadr City in 2008 behind the US crackdown after hundreds of mortars fell on Embassy Baghdad for more than a month, and regularly met in provincial capital buildings that were themselves routine targets for massive truck bombs, and firefights.
Surprisingly few of Crocker's PRTs were killed in Iraq, primarily due to the robust US military presence there. But that is seldom the case in most unstable areas where US engagement is essential. From 1968 to 1979, a US Ambassador was killed in office on the average of one every two years, so its is not just about "our times."
Does that explain the professional tradition that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was following as he settled in for a restless night in the Benghazi compound after an important day of carrying the US flag into an unstable and emerging democracy? Risky business. Important work. Speaks for itself.
Ten Libyan guards, after all, were killed along with three other US civilians, before, finally, the US diplomatic survivors in Benghazi reached the marginal safety of the larger CIA compound a few blocks away, with help from Libyans.
In June 2012, the Center for New American Security (CNAS) held its annual conference at the snazzy Willard Hotel in Washington, DC ,for the national security elite to discuss waging wars in the face of budget cuts. No one, however, was lamenting any shortages of battleships, packhorses or the plumes for parade helmets. The masthead for the CNAS Conference said it all: "Rethinking U.S. Security: Navigating a World in Transition." As strongman dictators fall, things just get chaotic, especially in landscape characterized by non-state actors and factions with scores to settle with each other, transnational terror networks with scores to settle with us, riots trigger by Facebook, and cyber-attacks that can destroy a power plant grid by attacking the operating software. Much more complicated than the days of Gavrillo Princip and Professor Moriarty, and little to do with negotiating arms treaties in Helsinki.
The same hawks who cheered Crocker and his PRTs in Iraq, and Ford in Syria, including Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, know why US diplomats take these risks, especially in these fractured areas, underscoring Tom Ricks' accurate observation of Fox News's political "hyping" of Benghazi as a "wing of the Republican Party."
The oft said, "It's complicated," explains the chaos of Benghazi. We may never know anything more than that those whose lives were lost bravely put them on the line for what they believed to be important enough to do so. What don't you understand about that?
Stephen Donnelly is former senior planning advisor on Iraqi reconstruction for the Department of State.
STRINGER/AFP/GettyImages
GALE
4:08 PM ET
November 30, 2012
"We may never know anything
"We may never know anything more than that those whose lives were lost bravely put them on the line for what they believed to be important enough to do so. What don't you understand about that?"
A more perfect expression of State Department's trademark combination of condescension and incuriosity may not be possible. At any rate, let's try to answer the question. Start here: we don't quite understand why a murdered Ambassador is no longer a casus belli.
DUMBASROCKS
7:01 PM ET
November 30, 2012
casus belli
"We don't quite understand why a murdered Ambassador is no longer a casus belli."
Because: 'ask first, shoot later'; 'measure twice, cut once'; etc...
I mean, how annoying is this non-state-actor-terrorism world we live in?
GALE
5:01 AM ET
December 1, 2012
Slightly less annoying than
Slightly less annoying than brain dead cliches and pitiful attempts at irony, but I take the point. We should not act too rashly. However, in wonderful Washington such sophistication has long since become enervation, and investigations have long since become excuses for inaction. Perhaps if it was well-known that attacks on American interests have obvious and immediate consequences for the perpetrators, situations like Benghazi would never happen in the first place. But at this point, that's an unknowable. Just like the actual evens at Benghazi, at least according to this article.
STEVE358
5:12 PM ET
December 1, 2012
Following your thread, maybe
Following your thread, maybe over-promoting these things makes the terrorist that much larger than he might actually be without it, and makes it that much harder to hunt him down? (Osama Bin Laden?)
Perhaps better a very big story/inquiry afterwards, and some measure of stealth/stoicism until then?
GALE
7:19 PM ET
December 1, 2012
It's a very fine line, isn't
It's a very fine line, isn't it? Not "over-promoting" a murdered ambassador or, in the bin Laden example, 9-11 style attacks looks to a lot of folks like weakness. And not all of those folks are DC neo-conservatives. Some live in much, much rougher neighborhoods. It would be nice if our current leaders were stealthy and stoic, but lately it seems indignant and indifferent is a more precise description.
STEVE358
11:02 PM ET
December 1, 2012
On target, but, with so much
On target, but, with so much politicization...
There was none in the early 2000's and too much now.
An average seldom represent anything more than a hypothetical...
JOHNG
11:18 PM ET
December 1, 2012
I think that we should make
I think that we should make of Benghazi that serving our country abroad is dangerous for anyone, soldier or diplomat, anywhere.
I recently read an article in the NYT Magazine by Robert Worth on Nov 14 this year, about the dangers that diplomats have faced now and in the past. I think it's worth a read. (I would post the link,but that seems to trigger FP's spam filter.)
Lets remember to honor all who fall in service to our country, military and civilian, and work to make their sacrifices worth something.
cheers
john