Many of our embassies are heavily fortified and easy to defend if our personnel are permitted to do so. In countries of dubious stability or a somewhat hostile government, the US is well within its treaty rights to equip our Marines with an assortment of weaponry that can be used on embassy grounds.
In this case, let us imagine how this should have happened.
Once the attackers attack the embassy grounds, just trying to get over the walls, the ambassador issues an instruction to the duty Marines: “Defend the embassy and its grounds.”
Then he and the other non-combatants, if they are unable or unwilling to assist the Marines, retreat to a very difficult to penetrate safe room with notification to the nearest US military base or duty station that they are under attack and request reinforcements.
The first thing the Marines do is to set up and man four M2 .50 caliber machine guns on the four corners of the roof of the embassy, in concealed and covered positions.
If the attackers initiate the attack by blowing out a section of wall with a car bomb, with intent to send a second car bomb through, the Marines will then engage the attacking vehicle with rocket propelled anti-tank weaponry.
During any of this they may feel free to send less than lethal projectiles, such as tear or vomit gas, over the walls into the riotous crowds without.
By the time four ma-deuce have had their say, as well as several RPGs, there will likely be a substantial number of deceased heathens within the walls of the compound. If they still have any fight left in them, the Marines should then downgrade to 7.62mm belt fed machine guns.
In all likelihood, the USAF should be enroute in force by this point, and if the heathen regroup there will be far fewer heathen.
Long after this successful defense, if the host country, which failed in its treaty obligation to protect our embassy, objects to our defending ourselves, we should invite them to sue us in the International Court of Justice, where by treaty, such disputes are to be heard.
After watching the hearing Issa held about Benghazi, my impression was that it is the host country’s military or police force responsibility to combat this many attackers. Their idea is get the ambassador to a safe room, hold and protect him/her until the host country can contain the protest/attack whatever.
Problem with this approach was the safe room wasn’t smoke proof in Benghazi.
I had always thought Marines at embassies could/would defend with serious firepower if something like what happened in Benghazi went down. What are they allowed to do?
“Once the attackers attack the embassy grounds... ambassador issues an instruction to the duty Marines: “Defend the embassy and its grounds.”... non-combatants... retreat to a very difficult to penetrate safe room ... Marines ... man four M2 .50 caliber machine guns on the four corners of the roof... engage the attacking vehicle with rocket propelled anti-tank weaponry... as tear or vomit gas ... a substantial number of deceased heathens ... then... 7.62mm belt fed machine guns... USAF ... enroute ... if the heathen regroup there will be far fewer ... invite them to sue us in the International Court of Justice...”
Great run-down of what SHOULD have happened on 9/11/2012 in Benghazi.
One quibble - it would be worth while to note that such an attack IS an “act of war” prima facie.