The other element of that essentially amounts to architecture: Do you have a high wall, and another retaining wall? But if you make your embassy a fortress, how can a diplomat relate to the population he is accredited to? That's what the ambassador in Benghazi was known for: He was prepared to go outside the traditional embassy walls. Before diplomatic relations were even formal, he was going about trying to articulate the benefits of a free Libyan society and what the U.S. could contribute to that end. So, he was always outside the compound. If you're behind a medieval fortress, as some diplomats find themselves today, it's very difficult to have a give and take with the people you want to talk to, and to read the mood of the people. On the one hand, you have a diplomatic role, but on the other hand, you have to be concerned about the safety of the diplomats. Exactly. I think you have to take that risk in order to maintain some sort of presence in the country, and I think that risk is an acceptable one. You can't connect, or develop relationships, by sitting back in Washington, Ottawa, Berlin, Tokyo, or other capitals pontificating. You have to be on the ground to make some sort of connection, however difficult that may be. That's the decision governments are going to have to make, and I think it's one that today's diplomats are prepared to respond to. Would it be wise to shut