The
threats against U.S. Embassies have been described as the “most significant in
over a decade.” Are we prepared for this
threat?
Maybe
not. Something happened recently that
concerns me about our national security overseas, particularly in our
embassies. I own a company that sells
the same security film that was installed on all federal buildings in
Washington DC after 9/11 – from Congress to the Smithsonian to the
Pentagon. Yet recently we were contacted
about a bid to “armor the glass” of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya.
The
problem? The specifications called for a film half as thick as we normally sell
for Level 2 explosion protection. We recently put our 8 Mil Solar Security film
on a Drug Enforcement building in Houston. The specs included a special
structural sealant to “bond” the film to the window frames – to keep it from
blowing off in the event of an explosion. Yet the Tripoli bid did not require
that frame bonding. It called for a 4 mil film.
That
means if there is a blast, the windows could blow out of the frames, even with
the film on it. They also wanted a “Clear” film – not a tinted version that
would block views into the building during the day – and cut the heat and
energy consumption inside the building. When I questioned the specifications,
the company asking for the quote (which is based in Turkey) said “they are what
they are.” I could tell that they were not pleased with my questions.
I
served as a TV terrorism analyst during 9/11 and for a couple years after that.
That is what led to setting up my company, Armor Glass. The technology has
proved invaluable in preventing break-ins on houses where we have installed it.
It prevents window blow-outs during hurricanes that lead to roof loss and
structural failure. It is explosion-rated film – but if you don’t use the
proper thickness of film and use a frame bonding agent like Dow 995, it won’t
work.
Needless
to say my company did not get the Tripoli job. I really didn’t want to do
something that wasn’t going to work properly. I hope that the “chatter” about a
pending attack against U.S. interests does not become a reality, but sooner or
later it will. If we learned anything from Benghazi, it is that we need better
security for our embassies. Just before
the Benghazi attack, Congress CUT security funding for embassies. I am
wondering if that is why the specifications for the Tripoli Embassy were
inadequate. Is it because of the lack of Congress funding and sequestration?
Congress
has to do better in protecting American interests and the Administration should
also insure that corners are not being cut. If you wonder what could happen,
look at the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing by Al Qaida in Africa – or the 1995 truck
bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City by Tim McVeigh’s truck bomb.
We
face threats from a more hostile climate, bigger storms like the tornado that
hit Moore, Oklahoma, the West, Texas explosions that blew away houses for
blocks, not to mention hurricanes and terrorists. Armoring our weakest link –
the glass –is not a luxury but a necessity to protect the occupants and
buildings from 21st century threats.
Michael
Fjetland
Global
American Series
For
more frequent updates Follow or Subsribe to our Blog at:
Sponsored
by Armor Glass International, Inc.
Follow
Blog updates at:
“Like”
us at Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/ArmorGlassIntl
