The Foreign Service Journal, February 2013

18 FEBRUARY 2013 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL originate in Hollywood and Silicon Valley, not the local post. So long as U.S. facilities in a host country are secure, the physical appearance of our embassies is unlikely to significantly influence popular opinion. Lots of Talk, But Few Actual Problems Just how fortified are U.S. embassies? It depends on who’s speaking. We hear often of the fortress-like appearance of our embassies in Baghdad and London, to cite two examples of cities with a history of serious terrorist concerns. But visiting the other 270-odd diplo- matic facilities around the world reveals potential vulnerabilities in many of our buildings. I still recall one mid-sized embassy where I worked a few years ago. It was so close to the street that visa applicants waiting outside could look into our offices and read our e-mail. And the chancery in one small island nation is so unprotected that I once overheard some U.S. tourists remark, “That’s it?The McDonalds at least has armed guards.” During my first few weeks in Kabul in 2006, I regularly fielded complaints from colleagues that the embassy was overly security-conscious and we were too isolated from the public. Then one morning, the concussion from a suicide bombing at the front gate cracked the blast-resistant window in the room below mine—a sobering reminder of the value of the setback requirements imposed by the Secure Embassy Construction and Coun- terterrorismAct. The complaints stopped for a few weeks, but resumed when new staff arrived. Whatever the security situation in a given place, U.S. diplomats need to leave their offices to meet with contacts, learn about the host country, visit assistance projects, and carry out the many activities