Table Of ContentI .
UnitedStates Marine Corps
CommandandStaffCollege
Marine Corps University
2076South Street
Marine Corps CombatDevelopment Command
Quantico, Virginia 22134-5068
MASTER OF MILITARY STUDIES
TITLE:
Can Marine Security Guards Be Assigned To
RoofTop DefensivePositions at Diplomatic Facilities Overseas
DuringExigent Circumstances?
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THEREQUIREMENTS FORTHE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF MILITARY STUDIES
AUTHOR:
Wayne Mastriano
AY 07-08
Mentor and Oral De£ ns
Approved:_--f--¥---'oL.-i,-'-=--:~T-~,t---,I-'-_=--~ _
---.£~~-l-!-fF-!---W--="':::"":-.jl---~----------------
Date:
Defense~",,"
Oral 1:>,Cnll£>,:rc •
Approved: ,
Date: IV) . PWH (/)t!4
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED
2008 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2008 to 00-00-2008
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Can Marine Security Guards Be Assigned To Roof Top Defensive
5b. GRANT NUMBER
Positions at Diplomatic Facilities Overseas During Exigent
Circumstances? 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
United States Marine Corps, Command and Staff College,Marine Corps REPORT NUMBER
University 2076 South Street,Marine Corps Combat Development
Command,Quantico,VA,22134-5068
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 31
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
Executive Summary
Title: CanMarine Security Guards be assigned to rooftop defensive positions at diplomatic
facilities overseas duringexigent circumstances?
Author: Wayne Mastriano, United States Department ofState
Thesis: Marine SecurityGuards assignedto United States diplomatic facilities overseas can
legallybe assignedto rooftop over watch positions during exigent circumstances. Armed with
the knowledgethat sufficient authority and doctrine exists, itmay benecessary, or simply good
policy, to ensureMarine Security Guards are postedto overwatchpositions such as rooftops
during exigent circumstances in orderto make certainthe integrity ofthe diplomatic facility is
maintained.
Discussion: Thereis astrong and persistentrumor inthe AmericanForeign Servicethat states
Marine Security Guards areprohibited from being assignedto rooftops during exigent
circumstances. Overtheyears, the rumorhas been passed down by American Foreign Service
officers departing American embassies and consulates at the end oftheir tour ofduty to their
successors. Subsequently, the prohibitionrumor is passedto their successors and the mythis
repeated andperpetuated. As a result, this has leadto awidespread beliefinthe American
Foreign Servicethatthe prohibitionis official policy.
Marine Security Guard overwatchpositions such as rooftops ormezzanines are rarely
indicatedin embassy orconsulate emergency action plans. When queried by an inquisitive chief
ofmission or otherAmerican Foreign Service officerwhytactically significant overwatch
positions are omitted from emergency action plans, the response from American Foreign Service
officers and Marines isthe same. Word ofmouth knowledge passed from one generationto
another overtime, has ledthem to believe, without a doubt, that Marines are prohibited from
rooftops.
There exists no authoritative writtendirective, policy, statement, orregulationthat
expresslyprohibits Marine Security Guardsfrom rooftop over watch defensive positions. This
rumor deprivesthe diplomatic community ofavaluabletool to apply indefense ofAmerican
diplomatic personnel,property, and information. The beliefthatthe prohibition is fact
needlesslyties the hands oftalented Diplomatic Security officers lookingfor creative solutions
to embassy and consulate security challenges. A highly trained Marine Security Guardpostedto
a significantoverwatch rooftop positionhas the potential to thwart a well-planned attack on a
diplomatic facility.
Conclusion: Contraryto a strong and persistentrumor inthe American Foreign Service, Marine
Security Guards canbe assigned to rooftop overwatchpositions during exigent circumstances.
This is supportedby inter-agency agreements, the ForeignAffairs Handbook, and Marine Corps
warfighting doctrine. Armed withthe knowledge that sufficient authority and doctrine exists, it
may benecessary, orsimply good policy, to ensure Marine Security Guards are postedto over
watchpositions such as rooftops during exigent circumstances in order to make certainthe
integrity ofthe diplomatic facility is maintained.
DISCLAIMER
THE OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS EXPRESSED HEREINARE THOSE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL STUDENTAUTHOR AND DO NOTNECESSARILYREPRESENT THE
VIEWS OF EITHERTHE MARINE CORPS COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE ORANY
OTHERGOVERNMENTALAGENCY. REFERENCES TO THIS STUDY SHOULD
INCLUDE THE FOREGOING STATEMENT.
QUOTATION FROM, ABSTRACTION FROM, ORREPRODUCTION OF ALL ORANY
~ PART OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PERMITTED PROVIDED PROPER
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTIS MADE.
Table ofContents
DISCLAIMER i
PREFACE .iii
Introduction 1
Departments ofDefense and State as Bureaucracies 2
AmericanDiplomatic Facilities Overseas 3
TheVienna Convention onDiplomatic and Consular Relations 3
The Three Rings ofSecurity 4
The HardLine ) 4
Marines and the Department ofState ; 5
The Memorandum ofAgreement 6
The Memorandum ofUnderstanding 6
Two Chains OfCommand 7
The Administrative Chain ofCommand 7
The Operational Chain ofCommand 7
Department OfStateResponsibilities 8
ChiefofMissionAuthority 9
The Regional Security Officer : 9
Direct Operational SupervisionofMarine Security Guards 10
Responsibilityfor Guard Orders : 11
Execution ofGuard Orders : 11
Primary Mission ofMarine Security Guards 12
SecondaryMission ofMarineSecurity Guards 12
Appropriate Duties for Marine Security Guards 13
InappropriateDuties for Marine Security Guards 13
Use ofMarine Security Guards during Exigent Circumstances 13
The ForeignAffairs Handbook 15
The InteriorDefenseTeam 15
InteriorDefense TeamProcedures and Responsibilities 16
Why RoofTop Over-WatchPositions Are Significant.. 17
Marine Corps Urban WarFighting Doctrine 18
I I
CONCLUSION 19
END NOTES ; 21
BIBLIOGRAPHY 25
11
i
>0
I
Preface
Threatsto AmericanDiplomaticfacilities andpersonnel continueto challenge
Diplomatic Securitypersonnel overseas. Resolved to ensurethe integrity ofAmerican
diplomatic facilities, itwas suggestedthatRegional Security Officers consider assigning Marine
Security Guards to rooftop overwatch defensive positions during exigent circumstances to
detect, deter and deny attempts byinsurgents to gain entryto U.S. diplomatic buildings. Highly
trained Marine Security Guards assigned to rooftop overwatch positions during exigent
circumstances have thepotential to thwart awell-planned attack. The idea ofassigning Marine
Security Guards to rooftop overwatchpositions met considerableresistance. The resistance was
based onastrong andpersistentbeliefin arumor that Marine Security Guards are prohibited
from rooftop defensive positions. Despite directives from Diplomatic Security Headquarters,
formal training, education, and the lack ofauthoritative writtenpolicythatexpressly prohibits
theuse ofMarine Security Guards onrooftops, the rumorpersisted. Subsequently, I felt that an
academic study oftheproblem was in orderto settlethe issue. This researchpaper accomplished
the mission ofprovingthat Marine Security Guards can legally be assignedto rooftop defensive
positions during exigent circumstances. Perhaps the nexttime aninsurgentforce attacks an
Americandiplomatic facility theyytill have to contendwithhighly trained Marines onthe
rooftop applyingthe appropriate amount offorce requiredto terminate the threat.
This research wouldnot have beenpossible withoutthe guidance and support ofLtCol.
BJ. PayneUSMC/Dr. Eric Shibuya, Dr. Paul Gelpi, and my mentor Dr. Richard DiNardo.
iii
Introduction
There is astrong and persistentrumor inthe American ForeignService that Marine
Security Guards are prohibitedfrom being assigned to rooftops during exigent circumstances.!
Exigent circumstances are defined as urgenttemporary circumstances, which require immediate
aid or action.2 The exact date and origins ofthe allegedprohibition are unknown. Whatis
known, however, is that the rumorhas been circulating long enough for itto become acceptedas
fact. Overthe years, therumoredprohibitionhas beenpassed down from one generation of
AmericanForeign Service officers departing embassies and consulatesto the next generation of
Foreign Service officers who have replaced them. Subsequently, the rumored prohibition is
passed along and the myth is perpetuated. This has leadto awidespread beliefthatthe rumored
prohibitionis officialpolicy.
Marine Security Guard overwatch positions, such as rooftops ormezzanines, are rarely
included as a course ofactionto be considered in embassy or consulate emergency actionplans.
When askedwhytactically significantoverwatch positions are omittedfrom emergencyplans,
the responsefrom AmericanForeignService officers and Marines is the same. Word ofmouth
knowledge passed from one generationto another overtime, has led Foreign Service Officers
and Marinesto believethatMarines are prohibited from taking defensivepositions onrooftops.
There exists no authoritative writtendirective, policy, statement, orregulation that
expresslyprohibits Marine Security Guards from rooftop over watch defensive positions. This
rumored prohibitionthatsuch a directive exists deprives the diplomatic community ofa valuable
toolto apply in defense ofAmerican diplomatic personnel, property, and information. Certainly,
ahighly trained Marine Security Guard postedto a significant overwatch rooftop positionhas
the potentialto thwart awell-planned attack on a diplomaticfacility. This capability is necessary
1
to defend diplomatic facilities nowmore thanever sincethe United States is encountering
irregularwarfare threats from counterinsurgents employing asymmetrical warfare tactics against
fixed American assets such as American embassies and consulates.
Thepurpose ofthis paper is to reviewthe Marine Security Guard chain ofcommand,
pertinent inter-agency agreements, foreign affairs regulations, and Marine Corps warfighting
doctrine to determine ifMarine Security Guards assigned to United States diplomatic facilities
overseas canbe assigned, in accordanceto regulation, to rooftop overwatchpositions during
exigentcircumstances aswell as to provethat:
Itmaybe necessary, or simply good policy, to ensure Marine Security Guards are posted
to overwatchpositions suchas rooftops during exigent circumstances in orderto make certain
(
the integrity ofthe diplomatic facility is maintained.
TheDepartment ofDefense and the Department ofState as Bureaucracies
Marine Security Guards assigned to American diplomatic facilities overseas are a
_/
DepartmentofDefense asset on assignmentto the DepartmentofState. The Department of
Defense andthe Department ofState are large government bureaucracies. These bureaucracies
are governed bywell-defined chains ofcommand, inter-agency agreements, and comprehensive,
publishedregulations that address all aspects oftheir departmental operations.
The aforementioned chains ofcommand, inter-agency agreements, and regulations define
policy, procedure, and responsibilities associated withpersonnel, property, and information. An
analysis ofthese sources shouldprovide sufficient datato determine thatMarine Security Guards
canbe legally assignedto rooftop overwatchpositions during exigentcircumstances.
American DiplomaticFacilities Overseas
2
According to aMay2006 United States GovernmentAccountability Officereport, the
United States Department ofState operates more than260 embassies, consulates, and otherposts
in approximately 180 countries around the world. These diplomatic facilities are staffedby more
than 11,000American Foreign Service officers and over 35,000 Foreign ServiceNationals.3
ForeignServiceNational employees are hostnation orthird countryforeign nationals who
provide clerical, administrative, technical, fiscal, and other supportatAmericanForeign Service
facilities overseas. As platforms for the conduct ofAmerican foreign policy, diplomatic
facilities mayprocess and store sensitive informationvital to national security. Dependent on
local conditions, extraordinary securitymeasures may be required in orderto safeguard
Americandiplomatic personnel, property, and information overseas.
TheVienna Convention on Diplomatic and ConsularRelations
TheVienna Convention onDiplomatic and Consular Relations is an international treaty
that defines diplomatic interaction, privileges, immunities and hostnation security
responsibilities. The Vienna Conventionwas adopted in 1961 bythe UnitedNations Conference
on DiplomaticIntercourse and Immunities held inVienna, Austria. TheVienna Convention was
4
ratifiedbythe U.S. Senate in 1965 and the U.S. Presidentin 1972.
Hostnationprotective services for diplomatic facilities are required in"orderto be in
compliancewiththe Vienna Convention onDiplomatic and Consularrelations. Articles 3 and
22 ofthe Vienna Convention onDiplomatic and ConsularRelations statethat hostnations are
responsible for the safety and security ofdiplomats and diplomatic facilities intheir country.5
Host nations are under a special dutyto take all appropriate stepsto protectthe premises
ofdiplomatic facilities against intrusion, damage, andto prevent any disturbance ofthe peace of
the mission orimpairment ofits dignity. Thepremises ofdiplomatic missions are normally
3
(
considered inviolable. Host nation agents may not enter designated diplomatic facilities without
the consent ofthe chiefofthe mission. The premises ofthe mission and missionproperty are
6
immune from search, requisition, attachment, or execution.
Thereare times when American diplomats overseas musttake into account the possibility
thatthe host nation, as protector, may beunwilling or unable to ensurethe safety and security
diplomatic missions inaccordance withthe Vienna Convention. In the event hostnation security
is insufficient, Americandiplomats mustrelyontheir ownmechanisms for protection.
TheThree Rings ofSecurity
Securityfor diplomatic facilities is predicated on a conceptthat embraces three rings of
security. The outerring is generally acknowledged as the perimeterwall ofthe diplomatic
property. Protectionfrom the perimeterwall and outward, as addressedinthe Vienna
Convention onDiplomatic and ConsularRelations, is the responsibility ofthe host nation. The
middle ring is generally recognized as the exterior ofthe diplomatic buildings. The areabetween
the building exteriors, outwardto the perimeterwalls and inclusive ofthe grounds, is the
responsibility ofthe diplomatic facility's locallyprocured contract security guard force. The
innerring is the designated safe haveninthe building interior. Marine Security Guards, when
assigned to a diplomaticfacility, are generallyresponsible for interior security.7
TheHard Line
Twenty-fourhours a day, seven days aweek, all who enter aUnited States embassy or
consulatethathas aMarine Security Guard detachment mustfirst pass a vigilant Marine Security
8
Guard standingpostinafortified guard booth insidethe main entrance. This fortified postis
commonlyknown as "Post 1". The physical barrier at Post 1is known as the "Hard Line."
4
