The Foreign Service Journal, September 2005

F O C U S S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 27 facilities first and, through standard- ized designs, complete them expedi- tiously. Nevertheless, a recent Government Accountability Office report suggested that “most office facilities still do not meet State’s security standards.” It is the rare diplomat who would object to such physical security efforts. Even those con- cerned about living in “blockhous- es” or developing a “garrison men- tality” that prevents diplomats from doing their jobs have realized that unprotected embassies in central cities are asking for trouble. Our host countries are not going to thank us for maintaining insecure structures; after all, the overwhelming pro- portion of casualties in the 1998 embassy bombings were Kenyan and Tanzanian citizens. A heavily guard- ed, physically well-protected embassy or consulate is not just safer for U.S. diplomats, but also safer for the surrounding neighborhood and its residents. In this regard, DS regional security officers have reviewed all U.S. installations overseas, imple- mented countless physical up- grades, arranged for augmented guard forces with enhanced train- ing, and provided instruction for embassy personnel in avoiding and countering security risks. While the bureau’s public affairs office declined to provide even “ballpark” numbers for DS staffing in Iraq or Afghanistan, citing security rea- sons, there are at least 30 officers in Embassy Baghdad, all at even greater risk than the rest of the staff. There have already been casualties among them: agent Edward Seitz was killed in October 2004. If Foreign Service personnel are all on the firing line, DS is oper- A heavily guarded embassy or consulate is not just safer for U.S. diplomats, but also for the surrounding neighborhood and its residents.