"Reports: Marines Not Permitted Live Ammo"

This was the title of the report posted by the Washington Free Beacon on September 13, 2012 (Reports: marines not permitted live ammo).  According to the report, based on blog entries from a marine blog site, our ambassador prohibited marines tasked with the protection of the US Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, the use of live ammunition.  In foreign countries, it is the ambassador who determines the rules of engagement (ROE) for the marine security detachment assigned to their duty station.  In this case, the blog entries indicate that the ambassador, who happened to be stateside when the attack on our embassy occurred, apparently believed that a simple show of force would be sufficient to deter a determined aggressor.

History has shown us, however, that "shows of force" are counterproductive in the middle east.

In the fall of 1982, US Marines were sent to Beirut, Lebanon, as part of a multi-national force designed to provide a show of force (officially designated a "Mission of Presence") calculated to calm tensions in that area.  Before the deployment, US policy makers were strongly advised that, if they insisted on intervening in Beirut, they would need to do so by force of arms; a mere show of force would be taken as a sign of weakness.  Despite the warnings, policy makers proceeded with their plans.  We know what eventually happened.  A Vehicle borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) were detonated at the marine barracks, killing 241 American military personnel.

An investigation into the incident, for which the US never truly retaliated, revealed that guards stationed outside the barracks were required to keep their weapons at Condition 4 - no magazines inserted, and no rounds chambered.  The fact-finding commission established by then-President Reagan found that there might have been fewer deaths if the barracks guards had been permitted to carry loaded weapons.

Which brings us to the present day, and the question, "What if?"  Three of our embassies in Libya, Egypt, and Yemen have been attacked in the last week.  In none of these instances have we heard about marines responding with live fire.  An ambassador and at least three other embassy personnel have been killed.  Would these events have happened if marines had been allowed to carry weapons with live ammunition?  What if the ROE had allowed marines to truly defend US soil?  Would we have dead personnel?

And what are we going to do about it?