Peter Spiro at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") is, as always, asking some of the right questions.
(Even if he is a lawyer.)
Money quote(s):
"It now seems to be the conventional wisdom (hard to shake once in place) that the U.S. has been slow off the mark on Libya. That may have consequences for U.S. standing in the region."
Conventional wisdom isn't always wrong. It just seems like it most of the time.
Still, perception influences reality, even if it does not (as some believe) equate to reality.
"The Administration got a defense out (on background) that it held off on more decisive action — such as imposing the sanctions that were finally put in place last night — pending the evacuation from Libya of U.S. citizens, U.S. diplomats in particular. As always, safety of U.S. citizens is said to be the highest priority in such unstable situations. Apparently, the U.S. embassy compound in Tripoli is poorly secured, with no Marine guards in place to defend."
No marines in Tripoli? Sounds like the inspiration for a Country & Western song, perhaps using the "Do They Know It's Christmas" tune from 1985.
But I digress.
"That’s a tough place to be. Obviously you don’t want to end up in a hostage situation (the politics of that would be horrific for Obama in addition to all the other reasons — the Carter comparison perfected). But does it have to be the case that U.S. policy itself is held hostage?
Perhaps the lesson here is to have contingency plans in place to pull U.S. officials out of such situations quickly (as of today, think Sanaa, Libreville, Yaounde, among others). That would have the downside of leaving other U.S. citizens without exit assistance, at least not in place. But many of them are taken care of by their corporate employers. Many others will be dual nationals, and only nominally American, and should be able to fend for themselves as well as locals."
There are contingency plans for lots of things. The Marine Corps has something of a sideline in NEOs (non-combatant evacuation operations), but some of the sketchier places tend to rather out-of-the-way and would need some assistance to get out and that assistance would take time getting there.
Recall that during the Rwandan genocide, our embassy folks had to convoy out of the country on their own, something that good RSOs and consular chiefs keep in the back of their minds as one of the nightmare scenarios to prepare against.
The argument about dual nationals has come up before, and The Onion recently did a piece lampooning the American practise of having to evacuate visitors to places nobody in their right mind should want to visit. I don't have an answer to either question, but it's nice to see people asking in public fora what consular officers sometimes ask each other quietly, where the public can't hear us.
(Don't get me wrong, we'll do everything we can to help, but think of us as firemen who can't help but wonder to one another just why you were playing with matches.)