shp065

Check out the just-released book "Just 2 Seconds" by Gavin de Becker. It will definitely prepare you to get the most out of any EP course you decide to take. www.just2seconds.org

Rich H

Agreed, it does indeed look an interesting read. However, it also looks like that much of what is written is built on the reactionary and statistical approach as opposed to the more effective proactive approach.

The American protection philosophy is one of ‘attacking’ the potential envelope of attackers and to dominate the ground by swamping the areas with security; searching, sealing, barricading, guarding and monitoring. Yet, they appear to fall short, or rather, do not implement the use of covert operatives amongst crowds to identify and react to any individual(s) during this monitoring phase.

In 1998, 28 people died in a horrific bomb blast in Omagh, Northern Ireland. Two weeks later, President Clinton visited the area and spoke with the bereaved. I was in RAF Aldergrove, NI a week prior to his visit when one of the Presidents aircraft landed with all the presidential vehicles necessary for the visit. I was informed that some 200 advance men from the Secret Service had arrived to prepare. During the visit, the United States special purpose AWACS, (Airborne Warning and Control System), reconnaissance aircraft was airborne. The aircraft system is designed to carry out surveillance, (radar and electronic eavesdropping), and command and control, battle management, (C2BM) functions. In addition to this, two black hawk helicopters were also airborne. The heli’s would probably have been used in a reaction to attack role whereby the President could be extracted far quicker than by road and to also provide air cover in the event of any threatening low level aircraft.

My point here is one of the use of assets. Criticising operational procedures from the comfort of an armchair is not something that is recommended, however, if for instance we take the attempted Assassination of President Reagan into consideration, the outcome of a close quarter shoot could have been thwarted by the introduction of covert operatives amongst the crowd in the immediate area. The USSS especially, has much manpower available, as illustrated above, for this implementation and it strikes me that they should either adopt this method in more situations or increase the resources for this specialist role.
The '2 seconds' could certainly be far better used.

Rich H

jmaccauley

Rich H

I'll disagree with you on a few points. First, the book by Debecker is just the opposite of a reactionary approach. In fact, the emphasis is on moving towards the potential threat before confirmation of a hostile intent. Using the "intuition" as it were. Using the hundreds of examples in the book, it shows how futile it is to react after the deed has been done. It goes on to indicate that most successful attacks were completed in under 5 seconds. The Reagom attack was an example of quick reaction, but 6 shots were fired in under 2 seconds. Quick enough to make an arrest, but not stop the attack. You're right, more undercover operatives might have identified the threat, but not necessarily done anything proactive to prevent it.

Second, your comment about the "American philosophy. You are speaking of the concentric circles provided by the USSS with all of the manpower at their disposal. Unfortunately, much of the security is uniformed police with no exceptional training. Again, a show of force, but not enough to stop an attack. Don't, however, assume that the average PPS or EP guy will have that type of manpower available. There are many proactive techniques available, but most depend on the size of the detail, venue, laws, etc.

Protecting the President does indeed allow for bringing the entire city to a standstill, shutting down roads and airports for hours, and extremely tight rings of security. Few American protectors have that luxory.

Even with the venue flooded with undercover agents, a lone assassin can still get off a shot (or 6) before he is caught. The ability to read body language and identify the pre attack signs are more crucial to preventing the attack.

It's not the final word on protective services, but a very interesting read. Most would be hard pressed to compile such a compendium and put them in perspective.

Jerry

Rich H

Jerry,

I have never read the book just a few excerpts briefly so I was obviously misreading concerning reaction after the event as opposed to actions prior.

The 200 men SAP during the visit to NI were in fact all USSS. I was also present during the Chile incident when the USSS agent got into an altercation with the Chilean police. That visit also included a great deal of manpower. I think the bottom line here and the point I am trying to make is that I am surprised the USSS do not train their men, of which there are many for the purpose, more in behavioural science, to read the body language and position covertly to pre-empt any close quarter attack as much as is possible. You agree that the ability to read body language and identify the pre attack signs are more crucial to preventing the attack then you must also agree that the use of covert operatives in the crowd, (with an emphasis on 'could'), identify anyone who is likely to pose a threat prior to the threat being presented. Agreed, the police are not trained to such an extent with their main duty of course being crowd control as opposed to specific protection methods. The USSS do have a considerable budget and manpower, probably more so than any other protected person on the planet. Attacks on Reagan and other Presidents just proves that no such thing exists as 100% protection but if we can learn from history and adopt methods to be more proactive as opposed to operating in a reactive one then the probablity of chance will be altered in our favour.


Rich H

jmaccauley

Yes Rich, I agree that the USSS could train better. I am not a huge fan of them (being local law enforcement and having worked with them on many occasions), but the manpower thing seems to be their primary thing, especially when out of the country. Surprisingly, they do utilize covert agents, but there are lagging with some of the behavioral training that we are talking about. There is something about having a small army with you that causes a lack of concentration, where a smaller detail would be much more alert. Where I do give them high marks is in their advance work. Again, they have the money and resources. Like I said, those of us who work within our means don't have that luxory.

Interestingly, Gaven deBecker, author of Gift of Fear and Just 2 seconds, provides some of the training for USSS, as well as a few other federal agencies.

I also agree that learning to recognize these behavioral cues is more valuable than running and gunning, but not nearly as CDI. (Chicks Dig It, for the uninitiated).

Good discussion, by the way.

Rich H

It is indeed and it makes a welcome relief to discuss with someone like minded. I must admit, I do enjoy pulling apart (mentally) the methods of operation of other commercial and government teams alike, when watching either for real or on the box. For all their good traits, I do feel that the USSS let themselves down with their appearance and actions on occasion. As a result, other countries adopt what they see on TV and also have their guys wearing shades on cloudy days.

In 1996, I was providing CP to the UK Special Envoy to the European Union in Mostar, Bosnia, Herzegovina. We were to travel to Sarajevo as the Boss had to attend an important meeting with delegations and other political figures. We drove in a two car convoy wearing suits with our ‘longs’ in civilian adapted weapon bags. On arrival at the meeting location we went through our orthodox ‘debus’ drills smoothly, efficiently, not rushed and not drawing attention to ourselves. The boss went quickly inside with the BG and TL with the rest of the team remaining outside in the car park.
It wasn’t long before we heard sirens. From our position we could see the main road which consisted of about 4 lanes of traffic. As the sirens became ever louder we noticed vehicles on the road moving left and right allowing space for the ‘emergency vehicles’. It shortly transpired that these were not to be emergency vehicles but the US Ambassador and Co., arriving for the same meeting. 4 large SUV’s pulled up sharply, lights flashing and with short ‘warping’ bursts of siren. US Navy SEAL types jumping out of the vehicles weapon butts in the shoulders and aiming at likely sniper positions wearing baggy tan trousers, black jackets and shades. I had never seen such a pathetic and comical drill and that sight is as clear to me today as it was then. What image does this portray? A heavy handed pushy approach without a care for the local citizens perhaps? Is this the same image for the US Ambassador to portray? Of course, one cannot presume that the threat to the US Ambassador was the same as any other diplomatic official in the area. The threat could well have been much higher but there are methods to adopt that would negate much of the risk posed by the threat and improve local relations as opposed to giving the ‘Big come-on’ with the ‘Big I am’.

Maybe us British are a little too ‘stiff-upper lipped’ and ‘straight laced’ at times but drawing attention to the arrival of your boss in an aggressive manner is exactly the opposite of what you should do. Bad for the whole image – bad for the whole protection operation.

It is a shame but the US teams get a bad rep for such actions.

jmaccauley

It's a lot like the high roller who hires the biggest, baddest looking guys to flank him everywhere he goes. It's more for show than anything else. When USSS does put on a show of force like this, it's usually at the request of the principal rather than normal operation procedures.

I taught a police class in St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands a few years back. Same thing, a lot of sirens and a motorcade for the mayor. I asked if there was something special going on. the guys told me this clown always travels like that. Motorcycles and 3 cars, flags waving and everything. The locals have learned to ignore him.

Again, the difference between a professional and someone pretending. Professionals will always have work. They also hardly ever lose clients.

jmaccauley

Before I forget to throw this in. You don't see this with most US teams, but the ones that you do see get a lot of attention. It's like watching crime television shows. Suddenly all the victims think you can solve every case wuthin 30 minutes by DNA collection.

Rich H

I think Jim, without speaking out of line, that there would be a certain amount of truth with regards to the 'in yer face' operating methods of the US as a whole, whether that be military or commercial, or indeed, tourists. A tendancy for being 'louder' and pushing their weight by making your points known in a sensitive environment causes a little friction with other countries. I am certain that there must be teams who operate in a discreet manner and operate with a little decorum and social etiquette but personally, I have yet to experience it, either both military or commercially. The op in Bos involved a 'heart and minds' campaign aswell as dominating the land. Us British are used to these type of ops due to the 25 odd years during the troubles in NI. I believe the character of operating methods employed by US teams is too aggressive and selfish and this is continued all the way up to the White House on a political front with the manner of 'Amercanism opinion' being 'forced' down the throats of countries far less powerful.

I am in no way, of course, slanting the good of the American people or indeed, the professionalism of many good operators. I am merely just outlining my personal perspective which I believe is a common ground with many Brits, ex-mil and in this line of work. I have to admit that I don't truly agree with your statement that in many cases it is the clients wishes that this is the image he wants to portray. All of the situations I have experienced are on the diplomatic front involving US Ambassadors, Secretary's of State and the US President himself. It is just a difference that is emphasised in great contrast to the more discreet operating methods of the UK Prime Minister's team and those teams providing protection to members of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and senior military commanders.


Rich H

jmaccauley

Well, setting aside you're attitude of superiority and limited exposure to non-military or diplomatic details in the US, you have a point. However, I must say that from reading posts on this site, there seems to be an overwhelming attitude of guns and grit over finesse even amongst the genteel and discreet Brits.

Generalizing never paints the entire picture and your experiences are simply that: experiences and opinions. More important is the fact that you know your world and I know mine. I'm just as easily misinformed about SOP in the UK as you seem to be about the US, regardless of who you worked with.

This is why professional training downplays the sexy running and gunning and emphasises thorough advance work, discretion and limiting protectee exposure to problems. The negative image of hollywood celebrity BG and spec forces conducting SWAT ops to get their protectee from the car to the restaurant are obviously just for show. Trust me when I say, those details are encouraged by their clients to act in such a primitive way. Cowboys are certainly not limited to the US,regardless of how nationalistic you wish to be.

And please, don't inject American politics into these discussions. I'm starting to enjoy our conversations.