Introduction
Frank Gallagher is one of the few protection professionals that have the credentials to write this article. Those credentials are impeccable, and his concerns are valid. Frank writes from the perspective of a person that has worked at all levels of risk. He was the AIC of the Bremer detail in Iraq, and the Director of Security for Henry Kissinger for more than six years, and he was a lead instructor for the ATAP program.
He has done protection operations in 46 countries. Some extremely high threat, some nearly zero threat. To date his track record is pretty good. He has had zero casualties for VIP’s and zero for his team. He has taught protection in another dozen extremely high threat countries. None of the people that he has taught have ever had a VIP injured.
Read it and feel free to comment – you can comment here on the Blogs or contact Frank at fg0321@gmail.com
Executive Protection in 2010 – Have We Lost Perspective?
Being an executive protection agent used to be a vocation of a higher calling. Think about it – we knowingly put ourselves in harm’s way every day to make sure that other people are not hurt or embarrassed. Yet 99% of the population goes through their daily lives avoiding confrontation at all costs. And, for some reason, we look to put ourselves directly in the path of potential danger. The people that we protect may or may not have significant risks to their safety due to their political views, are movie stars, rappers, famous entertainers, their socio-economic standing (rich people), or have made business decisions that angered fringe groups. Some fanatics may believe that based upon their notoriety that these folks are open game to insult or injury at the time and choosing of their fanaticism.
Other times, we are there to simply keep the protected from becoming a target of opportunity. We analyze their daily routines and try to keep them from becoming predictable and attempt to dissuade them from doing stupid things. Oft times we are successful, other times we are not. We strive to keep them from being hurt, killed, their kids kidnapped, from being blackmailed, embarrassed, or cast in an unflattering light. This is an honorable profession. We do what we do because we can. We fight for those who can’t or won’t fight for themselves. We allow them to live a semblance of a normal life.
Think about it for a second. The reward for the truly successful is to be surrounded by people (myself included) that they would never even talk to, if we did not provide a service to them. They look at us as an evil necessity. They don’t and will never understand why we do what we do. To them, we are truly the Neanderthals – we haven’t evolved. We serve a purpose that is not understood by them and never will be. If nothing ever happens to the people that we are protecting it raises the question in their mind of whether or not they really need us. But, the real question is: did nothing ever happen because we were there?
I have been doing this for a long time. I have done protection in 46 countries, have taught thousands of students (both American and foreign), worked in extremely high threat environments and on details where there really was no threat. I have met hundreds of fellow protection specialists (both American and foreign). Some were outstanding, true professionals, others were the epitome of everything that is wrong with the industry today. Why are the less than the best still working in the field? They are destroying our image and making life very difficult for the guys and gals that know what they are doing. They are the reason that our protectees look at us with disdain most of the time.
Fat, lazy, stupid, excuse driven people should not be in the business. We need to know what our job is and how to do it. We need to run routes, do our reconnaissance, our threat assessments, and pick the best ways to keep our principals safe. Unfortunately, there is a subset of protection agent today that seems to think that they should be friends with the principal, that they should cross the line between protector and servant. They want to keep their job at all costs and will do anything to keep it.
Yes, we are in the service industry. In the private sector, do we sometimes carry bags and run to the store for the families that we are working for? Of course we do. The acid test for me always comes down to the question of what is safer for my client. Is it safer for me to run to the drug store and pick up a prescription or is it safer for the VIP to do it? The safety and security of our clients always comes first.
There are, however, some lines that should never be crossed. And once crossed, there is no putting Pandora back in the box. Every time one of us crosses this line, it makes it impossible for the agents that follow to do their jobs properly. We, as professionals need to make sure that our VIP’s realize what our true functions are. We are not butlers, cooks, servants, or other members of the house hold staff. Our job is to give up our lives if called upon to do so. We move in front of threats, cover and evacuate our charges. We do so knowing that may be injured in the process.
Every time a client asks a protection agent to do something out of the norm, we have to respectfully explain that the task asked is not part of our responsibility. We are asked to do these things most often because the client has lost complete respect for our profession. This usually happens for a couple of reasons. We got lost taking the client somewhere, we were late for work, late for a pickup, forgot some equipment (medical gear is the most often problem i.e. band aids, aspirin, meds) or we get caught sleeping in the command post or we get caught trying to impress the buxom maid with our masculine charms. The client begins to think we do nothing but take their money because there never has been an attack or a kidnapping and as long as we’re there, we might as well take the coats of guests and help serve drinks. And, believe it or not, there are protection agents that do these things. They gladly do these things to keep their jobs not realizing that they are allowing the client to disrespect them to the highest order. Do you think for a second that the Secret Service agents take coats and serve drinks? Or the State Department protection agents? Hell no, they don’t.
I recently had a protection agent describe to me how he made breakfast for his client. When I asked why he didn’t wake up the chef to do so, he told me the chef was sleeping. I asked him if the chef would have taken the client to the office that day if the protection agent were asleep. Of course not he answered. Well, I asked him why would he ever make breakfast? He answered that he thought the client really liked how he made his scrambled eggs. What happens when the client asks the next protection agent to make him breakfast and the real professional says no, that’s not his job? Again, what are these agents thinking? This same guy also described to me how the client likes his bagels and cream cheese. When I asked him why he knew this, he said that he prepares them for him all time. The agent gets a sesame bagel, toasts it, and then hollows out the bread part of the bagel before applying the proper amount of cream cheese to the bagel. Are you fucking kidding me? And he was proud of this. This guy is not a protection agent, he’s a servant.
Of course, this same detail does not have route cards so new agents can learn the basics of the daily routine. Evidently this client has a preferred set of routes that cannot be deviated from. Again, why? Has no one ever explained to the client that varying routes is an easy way to NOT being predictable? There is nothing written down that can be studied by new agents. And, of course, these were all brand new ideas that were met with extreme resistance because they it would have meant the agents actually sat down and did some work instead of flirting with the house staff.
Is this the way of the profession in the 21st century? I hope not. When the principals lose respect for the protection agents, then it is time to move on. Are we becoming a profession of man servants or do we still answer to a higher calling? I, for one, still have to shave every day and the man in the mirror does not lie. You see who and what you are. You can deceive others, but you can’t fool the guy in the mirror. Is there something wrong with being a professional? Or have we reached the point that the clients have such a disregard for protection agents that we are now only drivers/cooks/butlers/house maids?
The only way to change this problem is through education. Both for the agents and the clients.
Respect has to be a 2 way street. We have to respect the wishes and wants of the clients, but the clients have to understand what we do and why. We can’t keep crossing the line between protector and man servant. We have to have enough self respect and self esteem to verbalize what our job is. We need to make the clients understand what we are there for. And we need to do our jobs properly. And when push comes to shove, an agent has to make the right decision each time. Do we face off with bad guy with gun? Of course, we do. Do we face off with VIP when he says to cook his breakfast? In my world, the answer is YES. Breakfast is not my job and never will be. We don’t ask the chef to take on the man with gun, why should we scramble eggs?
All vehicles are supported by a cushion of air contained in four flexible rubber tires. If you could place a car on a glass floor and look at it from below, you would see four patches of rubber, most folks are surprised at the size of these four patches, depending on the vehicle – each patch a little smaller than a hand. These are the only points of contact between the vehicle and the road. Each of these four small patches of rubber is known as the “contact patch”. It is these four patches that create the traction which makes the vehicle – go – stop and turn. It is these four patches that send the feedback back to the driver, and it is these four patches the driver has to manage. Consider them to be the source of information needed to control the vehicle.
How Much Rubber Do You Have?
If you conduct training and want to know the size of the contact patch your vehicle creates, jack up your vehicle, put ink on the bottom of the tire, and let the car down on a piece of paper (we use finger print ink). Have someone keep their foot on the brake as you let the vehicle down, it keeps the tire from rolling, and lower the tire on the paper – the tire will leave a mark on the paper that represents the tire contact patch. The paper should be outline paper dived in one inch blocks, it makes measuring the contact patch easier.
Once done you have a “picture” of the tire contact patch, and can easily measure the size of the patch in square inches (width of the patch times the height of the patch). If you take that number multiply it by four that is how much rubber is on the road.
In our vehicles, police package Crown Vics with P225/60R16 tires with 32 PSI, we have 36.75 square inches per tire and all four tires will give us of contact area of 147 square inches of rubber touching the road.
Derek Humble – an old friend (old describes most of my friends) sent me a film clip from a movie called “Year of the Gun” It is the movie version of the Moro ambush – if you are doing training it is a great learning tool.
Derek’s info
A good article/outline about motorcade accidents, although I do think the authors may have an axe to grind.
A while back I contributed a short article to the “Training Log Book” by Rob Pincus. Rob came up with a rather unique and ingenious idea, a book that documents your training. The book contains over 2 dozen essays from training industry professionals offering their advice in regard to defensive and tactical training. Whether you do a little or allot of training the book is a must. The essays are worth the price of the book.
A project we are working on requires us to put together a series of animations depicting vehicle ambushes. The Gus Boulis ambush is a rough draft of our first animation, which means you will need to read the scenario (below) to get an idea of what is going on. We will be adding voice over and making some small changes. Eventually we will have a series of animated vehicle attacks – all with lessons learned. The animation is the work of Larry Snow from SJC if you have any comments or questions you can reach Larry at lawrence.snow@yahoo.com
On Feb. 6, 2001 Boulis left his offices on Southeast 17th Street in Fort Lauderdale about 9:30 p.m. and headed down Miami Road, a shortcut to Federal Highway on his way home to Hollywood.
As he was driving down Miami Road a car stopped in front of him, blocking his way. A vehicle coming from the other direction pulled up next to Boulis. A passenger sitting in the back seat fired on him with a semi-automatic weapon.
Boulis managed to drive out to Federal Highway before crashing into a tree. He died a short time later at Broward General Medical Center.
Background
Gus Boulis was the owner of SunCruz Casinos, a Florida company. SunCruz consisted of boats that would travel off shore onto international water, where the passengers could gamble.
In September of 2000, Boulis sold SunCruz for $147.5 million. Problems arose between Gus and the people that bought the boats. Throughout his business career Gus had a knack of pissing people off. You can read about him in this series of articles.
At the time we were doing some work with the people who bought the boats. Because of the concerns they had for their safety they had bodyguards and an armored Mercedes (I was a consultant with Mercedes at the time). The people who bought the boats eventually ran afoul of the law and wound up in jail, but nothing to do with the Boulis attack
In September 2005 Anthony Moscatiello and James Fiorillo, both Florida residents, were arrested in connection with the murder. Anthony Ferrari, who resided in New York, was also detained in connection with the killing. You can gather from the names of the individuals who Gus pissed off.
A short article I did for State Farm Insurance
It has been more than 20 years since the assassination of Alfred Herrhausen. The roadside bomb that killed Herrhausen changed the way protection was looked at. In the late 80’s surveillance detection had become part of the protection plan but it was not given the attention that was needed. It was unorganized, and most of the time the surveillance detection team had no idea what it was they were trying to detect. At that time most training was reactive in nature, basically protection teams were trained to ram or shoot their way out of a problem. This attack and another roadside bomb that occurred in Bogota made surveillance detection a top priority with companies working in high risk area. But, as time moved on, it seems we have gone back to the reactive approach to training. This is an article that appeared in Wired Magazine a few years back. The author highlights an article I wrote for Security Management Magazine in 1990, a year after the incident took place.
This article was written by Gordon Mitchell, PhD, CPP. Dr. Mitchell operates Future Focus, a Seattle based company which provides electronic eavesdropping. The article was written more than ten years ago but still has some valid points.
A good chauffeur is concerned about not spilling the boss’s coffee and avoiding bumps. Generally chauffeurs can handle routine emergencies if they happen slowly. This has nothing in common with the skills needed for a trained security driver.
Security drivers are very aware of the environment and are always prepared to drive out of a problem using the full potential of the vehicle. This is guaranteed to spill coffee. It also saves lives.
Good Security Driver
In no particular order – security
The most critical skill is learning to recognize trouble and stay out of threatening situations. The most critical thing to recognize is the presence of surveillance.
Security skills of course include defensive driving but the most memorable training involves offensive driving. Even though few security drivers use their training in ramming or pursuit driving these sort of high adrenaline activities make an impression. In fact making an impression on a student is what a good driving school must do.
Out of Control
A security driver has absolutely no control over several critical factors in executive security. The first is where the executive lives. Only in unusual cases such as high threat overseas assignments will the executive home be chosen by security personnel. The executive’s neighborhood may be on a dead end street, an apartment building or near a busy highway. All require different approaches to avoid the problems that threaten the executive.
Weather and traffic are also out of the control of the security driver. They affect the general security environment and may allow threats such as ambushes to become more of a problem than they would be on “normal” days. These variables must be part of a security driver’s thinking and need to be part of overall contingency planning.
Ex-cops make good Security Drivers
Because they are naturally suspicious of people and circumstances, former police officers make good security drivers. They have been trained and conditioned to observe their environment and have generally been prepared for some of the driving situations that security drivers may encounter.
A significant change of strategy is necessary in the transition from ” To Protect and Serve” to being concerned about the person in the back seat. Good security drivers do not think about apprehending anyone; they are expected to drive away from dangers, not confront them. Police officers that are able to leave their egos behind do well in the driver’s seat.
All drivers must have good driving skills and physical capabilities. Since physiological changes occur with age, which can make drivers less effective, it is critical that basic vision, hearing and reactions are tested for all security drivers. Additionally, over the age of forty, night vision should be measured. At the age of fifty-five, peripheral vision should be added to the annual physical.
Even a driver in good physical condition can become a liability if fatigue is present. This is especially a factor in city driving. Overtime pay may lure drivers into working longer than they should but eight-hour shifts should be the rule. A tired driver may only be able to operate the vehicle missing all of the security aspects of his job. A very tired driver may not even be able to handle the basic driving tasks.
Knowing the Threat is Key
Even though it makes sense to avoid danger by understanding the threat, many drivers do not employ effective surveillance detection skills or have a basic knowledge of threats. It is critical to begin the security driver’s work well before getting behind the wheel. This includes working closely with corporate security and executive assistants to keep updated on threats to the executive, changes in the corporation, and the general image of the organization.
Background work to identify and contain threats is much more effective than last minute offensive driving to get out of a tight spot. If a driver spends significant amounts of time with the executive she bears an even greater responsibility for the executive’s welfare. This situation requires even more work with security to define threats and avoid them.
Medical Emergencies
Most executives won’t be kidnapped but many will face medical emergencies of some sort while traveling. The obvious requirement for security drivers is knowledge of medical facilities along any given route. This does not just involve knowing the address of a hospital. Specific information on the nearest trauma centers, emergency rooms, fire stations, and outpatient facilities should be at hand. Knowing the direct line to an emergency room can save valuable minutes for a seriously ill or wounded executive.
A sensitive issue that is not normally addressed involves medical background information for the executive. Sharing medical history information with security drivers improves the survival probability for an executive but it is not common for “just a driver” to know about the boss’s chronic illness. If a medical emergency does occur or if an accident threatens the life of an executive a driver’s knowledge can be a lifesaver.
Watch out for the TaxMan
The Internal Revenue Service look for opportunities to tax corporate compensation and executive protection can become a problem in this area if it is not handled properly. Imagine the difficulties associated with an unexpected $100,000 tax bill for the CEO. It is possible if the salary of a security driver and other related expenses are considered executive compensation. In a 40% tax bracket the personal income tax on several years protection can easily reach astronomical amounts.
To avoid this problem it is crucial to employ an independent professional to study the corporate security needs. The study should be based on objective facts and circumstances. If security threats require a trained driver and security car for the benefit of the company the IRS should not tax the individual executive who also benefits.
Dealing with Executive Objections
Whenever a change of executive lifestyle is involved, expect a problem. This is especially true for security where there is no direct link to corporate profits. If the CEO must have a security driver expect that the change will be resisted. The same security survey that was done to justify the expenses to the IRS may be helpful in convincing management of the need.
One approach to the subject might be to explain the need for a proactive approach in terms of the other parts of the organization. No good manager would wait for a disaster to make changes in manufacturing, accounting or marketing. The same is true in security. Spending an effort and some money up front can produce significant results in the future.
I just read an article that was in Slate Magazine by Benjamin Popper – “Why do so many terrorist have engineering degrees?” – It caught my eye because I have a degree in engineering and knowing what it takes to get that degree could not imagine why, after all that work, would anyone would look at terrorism/suicide bomber as a career opportunity, and a short one at that.
The article mentioned that 8 of the 25 hijackers from 9/11 were engineers, and that the person that attempted to blow up the airliner this Christmas was also an engineer. The article references papers written by scholars that to explain why an engineer would take this career path. A good read.