Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Marines Exit Yemen Forced to Surrender Dignity, Weapons
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="druryj" data-source="post: 2707459" data-attributes="member: 10465"><p>In the early 80's, I was the Asst. Director for MSG School and headed up the MSG Recruitment and Selection team. I was subsequently a Company Commander for MSG Battalion. In the course of my duties, I visited many U.S. Embassies, Consulates around the world. The MSG Primary Mission is: "The primary mission of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) is to provide <u>internal </u><u>security </u>at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States". Note that the mission is one of <em>internal </em>security. The protection and security of the space outside the facility is the responsibility of the host government. MSG Marines are authorized the use of deadly force <em>inside</em> the compound and the buildings that comprise it themselves; that doesn't apply at the host governments' airport. The whole idea of US Marines guarding foreign missions is one of as much tradition as anything else. These Marines picked for MSG duty go through one hell of a rigorous selection, screening and training process. You don't just put any old PFC Joe Schmoe fresh-off-the farm on duty in a sensitive, potentially volatile location and tell him to ensure the security of highly classified materials and perform "other duties" as directed. They have access to damn near <em>everything </em>inside; these Marines are very, very well trained. Having said that, the key here may very well be that part about "other duties" as directed. The Ambassador is the direct representative of the POTUS in a foreign nation. His or her word is the law. Once they step outside that compound, the Marines generally do not have the authority to use their weapons. (Remember, there's a lot of diplomatic missions around the world and what is okay <em>here </em>may not be okay <em>there</em>...different host countries have different agreements with the U.S. pertaining to the MSG Detachment). Example; in one visit I made to a nasty little country in Central America called El Salvador in the early 80's, the Marines met me at the airport fully armed <u>and </u> supported by host nation security forces as well. Obviously, they were granted the authority to carry and if necessary, employ their weapons outside the compound by the host government. In the course of my visit, this is one of the things I reviewed to make sure we kept out of trouble. (It was crazy there then; the buildings at the U.S. Compound were draped in chain link fencing so as to make the rocket propelled grenades explode prior to hitting the building). It's much like later, when I was the CO of the Marine Barracks in Rota, Spain. Part of our responsibility there was the protection of classified materials and certain facilities inside and on U.S. Naval facilities onboard a <em>Spanish Naval Base</em>. Granted, the people of Spain are a tad more amenable to Americans than some other countries, but we still had to abide by our Memorandum of Understanding between the host nation and the U.S. We had the authority to use deadly force in the performance of our duties, but could not carry our weapons off the base unless we were on a training mission and provided notification to the Spanish Authorities that we were going to do so, and honestly, it was never a problem. We just gave the appropriate folks the notice that we were going to be conducting training at so-and-so location and went about our business. On base, it was a different story, just <em>try </em>to get to one of our designated facilities with ill-intent in mind and my little Marine Security Force Company was gonna be on you like ugly on a damn ape real damn quick and the use of deadly force would be applicable. However, here is a <em>huge </em>difference in the level of security provided and the use of Marines abroad in securing a <em>highly classified weapons system </em> that is very securely stored and say, a bunker that contains small arms ammo that some poor old Spanish rabbit hunter is maybe poking around in. Shooting an intruder trying to breach a highly classified weapon/system of <em>enormous and significant power </em>in a foreign country is one thing, shooting them for trying to steal a box of small arms ammo out of a pad-locked ammo storage cabinet is something else. What I'm saying is that there must be certain rules in place for the security of U.S. personnel and materials at installations abroad or else the situation would perhaps deteriorate into utter chaos. The MSG presence and mission at U.S Diplomatic facilities is one set in stone by formal agreements between the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Marine Corps. Complicate that by whatever diplomatic agreements must be or are in place with the host nation and there you have it. Bottom line: <u>IF </u>the sequence of events is <em>as reported </em>and <em>as we have read</em>, and if the destruction of classified materials and the safety of U.S. personnel was ensured, then it sounds like the plan as described by SMS in post#10 pretty much worked.</p><p></p><p>But, as an old Marine Infantry officer, I still don't have to like everything I've read about it so far.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="druryj, post: 2707459, member: 10465"] In the early 80's, I was the Asst. Director for MSG School and headed up the MSG Recruitment and Selection team. I was subsequently a Company Commander for MSG Battalion. In the course of my duties, I visited many U.S. Embassies, Consulates around the world. The MSG Primary Mission is: "The primary mission of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) is to provide [U]internal [/U][U]security [/U]at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States". Note that the mission is one of [I]internal [/I]security. The protection and security of the space outside the facility is the responsibility of the host government. MSG Marines are authorized the use of deadly force [I]inside[/I] the compound and the buildings that comprise it themselves; that doesn't apply at the host governments' airport. The whole idea of US Marines guarding foreign missions is one of as much tradition as anything else. These Marines picked for MSG duty go through one hell of a rigorous selection, screening and training process. You don't just put any old PFC Joe Schmoe fresh-off-the farm on duty in a sensitive, potentially volatile location and tell him to ensure the security of highly classified materials and perform "other duties" as directed. They have access to damn near [I]everything [/I]inside; these Marines are very, very well trained. Having said that, the key here may very well be that part about "other duties" as directed. The Ambassador is the direct representative of the POTUS in a foreign nation. His or her word is the law. Once they step outside that compound, the Marines generally do not have the authority to use their weapons. (Remember, there's a lot of diplomatic missions around the world and what is okay [I]here [/I]may not be okay [I]there[/I]...different host countries have different agreements with the U.S. pertaining to the MSG Detachment). Example; in one visit I made to a nasty little country in Central America called El Salvador in the early 80's, the Marines met me at the airport fully armed [U]and [/U] supported by host nation security forces as well. Obviously, they were granted the authority to carry and if necessary, employ their weapons outside the compound by the host government. In the course of my visit, this is one of the things I reviewed to make sure we kept out of trouble. (It was crazy there then; the buildings at the U.S. Compound were draped in chain link fencing so as to make the rocket propelled grenades explode prior to hitting the building). It's much like later, when I was the CO of the Marine Barracks in Rota, Spain. Part of our responsibility there was the protection of classified materials and certain facilities inside and on U.S. Naval facilities onboard a [I]Spanish Naval Base[/I]. Granted, the people of Spain are a tad more amenable to Americans than some other countries, but we still had to abide by our Memorandum of Understanding between the host nation and the U.S. We had the authority to use deadly force in the performance of our duties, but could not carry our weapons off the base unless we were on a training mission and provided notification to the Spanish Authorities that we were going to do so, and honestly, it was never a problem. We just gave the appropriate folks the notice that we were going to be conducting training at so-and-so location and went about our business. On base, it was a different story, just [I]try [/I]to get to one of our designated facilities with ill-intent in mind and my little Marine Security Force Company was gonna be on you like ugly on a damn ape real damn quick and the use of deadly force would be applicable. However, here is a [I]huge [/I]difference in the level of security provided and the use of Marines abroad in securing a [I]highly classified weapons system [/I] that is very securely stored and say, a bunker that contains small arms ammo that some poor old Spanish rabbit hunter is maybe poking around in. Shooting an intruder trying to breach a highly classified weapon/system of [I]enormous and significant power [/I]in a foreign country is one thing, shooting them for trying to steal a box of small arms ammo out of a pad-locked ammo storage cabinet is something else. What I'm saying is that there must be certain rules in place for the security of U.S. personnel and materials at installations abroad or else the situation would perhaps deteriorate into utter chaos. The MSG presence and mission at U.S Diplomatic facilities is one set in stone by formal agreements between the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Marine Corps. Complicate that by whatever diplomatic agreements must be or are in place with the host nation and there you have it. Bottom line: [U]IF [/U]the sequence of events is [I]as reported [/I]and [I]as we have read[/I], and if the destruction of classified materials and the safety of U.S. personnel was ensured, then it sounds like the plan as described by SMS in post#10 pretty much worked. But, as an old Marine Infantry officer, I still don't have to like everything I've read about it so far. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Marines Exit Yemen Forced to Surrender Dignity, Weapons
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom