DR - Diplos Wonder if They'll Withdraw from Iraq, Too

Danger Room

Diplos Wonder if They'll Withdraw from Iraq, Too


By Nathan Hodge March 04, 2009 1:19:45 PM

The hulking, heavily fortified U.S. embassy in Baghdad was built with war in mind. But now that the battle for Iraq is starting to wind down, is the biggest American diplomatic mission in history really necessary? Some in the State Department are staring to wonder.


Read the whole article here.


Snippet(s):


"The recently-opened embassy -- sometimes described as a "Vatican on the Tigris" or (more unkindly) as a "Crusader castle" -- houses over 1,000 employees. Built at horrific cost (and possibly with slave labor), the 100-acre compound features a residences for the ambassador and staff, a PX, commissary, cinema, and Olympic pool.

Baghdad may remain an important diplomatic mission, but with a scaled-back U.S. military presence, it may be increasingly difficult to justify maintaining a super-sized embassy."


&

"Many argue that the State Department -- along with other civilian agencies of government -- will need to take on a larger role as the transition continues (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen has called for a civilian "surge" to Afghanistan as well)."

re: "Senator Lugar Wants to Bring Back American Centers"

TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("Giving my fellow Americans the view from my cubicle") examines some of the issues involved with Sen. Lugar's suggestion.

Money quote(s):

"Far be it from me to nit-pick what a U.S. Senator says, especially when I agree with him,"

"(O)nly new embassies - meaning those that were built under the new construction program that started around 2000 - are located far from city centers, and not all of them are. Only 21% of our embassies and consulates are new ones, so I doubt the location factor alone can account for a systemic loss of public access. Many of the remaining 79% of our diplomatic facilities are right smack in the middle of downtowns areas, even those so excessively 'vibrant' (Damascus and Belgrade, for example) that it would be safer for our embassies to be a little more distant. Still, I take his point: our embassies get fewer walk-in visitors than our old American Centers did."

"(A)ll the offices and agencies under the authority of the Ambassador in a given country must be located together on a single compound rather than scattered around town. I must note the collocation requirement is not some State Department security standard, but rather part of Public Law 106-113, Title VI, Section 601, known as the "Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999." The same law also requires every diplomatic facility to have a certain setback distance between it and the perimeter of the property on which it is located, something which is rarely possible in downtown areas and therefore contributes to the embassy remoteness problem."

He suggests:

"If Senator Lugar really wants to be helpful, he ought to sponsor a bill to amend the law so as to exempt American Centers. Then we might be able to open a few in those city centers where he wants them to be."