Conservative
Type 40
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10290t.pdf
They were told there were security issues back in 2009. Apparently, they didn't feel the need to do a full review. Dumb asses.
Finally, State has expanded Diplomatic Security without the benefit of solid strategic planning.
As a result of the low level of available staff, Diplomatic Security reported that many posts go for years without updating their security training.5 Officials noted that this lack of available agents is particularly problematic given the high number of critical threat posts that are only 1-year tours that would benefit from frequent training.
Diplomatic Security requested funding to add over 350 security positions in fiscal year 2010. However, new hires cannot be immediately deployed overseas because they must meet training requirements.
Diplomatic Security faces a number of other operational challenges that impede it from fully implementing its missions and activities, including:
Inadequate buildings: State is in the process of updating and building many new facilities. However, we have previously identified many posts that do not meet all security standards delineated by the Overseas Security Policy Board and the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999.
Foreign language deficiencies: Earlier this year, we found that 53 percent of Regional Security Officers do not speak and read at the level required by their positions, and we concluded that these foreign language shortfalls could be negatively affecting several aspects of U.S. diplomacy, including security operations.
Experience gaps: Thirty-four percent of Diplomatic Securitys positions (not including those in Baghdad) are filled with officers below the positions grade. For example, several Assistant Regional Security Officers with whom we met were in their first overseas positions and stated that they did not feel adequately prepared for their job, particularly their responsibility to manage large security contracts. We previously reported that experience gaps can compromise diplomatic readiness.
Host country laws: At times, host country laws prohibit Diplomatic Security from taking all the security precautions it would like outside an embassy. For example, Diplomatic Security officials said that they prefer to arm their local guard forces and their special agents; however, several countries prohibit this. In cases of attack, this prohibition limits Diplomatic Securitys ability to protect an embassy or consulate.
Balancing security with the diplomatic mission: Diplomatic Securitys desire to provide the best security possible for States diplomatic corps has, at times, been in tension with States diplomatic mission. For example, Diplomatic Security has established strict policies concerning access to U.S. facilities that usually include both personal and vehicle screening. Some public affairs officialswhose job it is to foster relations with host country nationalshave expressed concerns that these security measures discourage visitors from attending U.S. Embassy events or exhibits. In addition, the new embassies and consulates, with their high walls, deep setbacks, and strict screening procedures, have evoked the nickname, Fortress America.
While States strategic plan for 2007-2012 has a section identifying security priorities and goals, we found it did not identify the resources needed to meet these goals or address all of the management challenges we identified in this report.
In our report, we recommended that the Secretary of Stateas part of the QDDR or as a separate initiativeconduct a strategic review of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security to ensure that its missions and activities address States priority needs. This review should also address key human capital and operational challenges faced by Diplomatic Security, such as
.
- operating domestic and international activities with adequate staff;
- providing security for facilities that do not meet all security standards;
- staffing foreign missions with officials who have appropriate language skills;
- operating programs with experienced staff, at the commensurate grade levels; and
- balancing security needs with States need to conduct its diplomatic mission
State agreed with our recommendation and noted that, although it is currently not planning to perform a strategic review of the full Diplomatic Security mission and capabilities in the QDDR, the Under Secretary for Management and the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security are completely committed to ensuring that Diplomatic Securitys mission will benefit from this initiative.
They were told there were security issues back in 2009. Apparently, they didn't feel the need to do a full review. Dumb asses.