Overt approach-what you gain and what you lose

As I started on yesterday’s blog there are pros and cons when you have an overt [obvious] and covert [less obvious] footprint when you are protecting your principals.  Today I will address the overt or standard footprint.  So that I don’t loose the new guys and girls when I refer to footprint I am talking about your presence in security coverage while protecting.  Is everyone with me now?  Ok let’s go.

The standard overt approach is designed to just that- to be obvious that there is security.  It’s purpose is also designed to be a deterrance.  The formations are set [if done properly] to maintain 360 degrees of coverage.  It is “implied” that the more specialist in the formation, the higher the threat is on the principal, and the better secured the individual.  But is this necessarily true?

The overt or obvious formations DO NOT deter an attack and history shows us that.  So if that is true, how is a less obvious or covert coverage better for the security of an individual?  In fact, the overt approach helps in an attackers study of the principal for an attack.  It also reveals how many specialists are on the detail.  It can reveal if they are trained or not, when the shifts change etc.  There is so much that can be gleaned from a standard footprint that most specialists are unaware of until now.  I can tell by looking at anyone’s formation if the specialists are vigilant or just riding along trying to look pretty.  These are factors that are taken in when a target study is being done.  If a surveillance team is assigned to do target study it is easier to see if you are as crisp at the 12th hour as you were at hour 1. An overt team can be the perfect setting during target study in order to show vulnerabilities.  So be aware of that.

If, during the target study the team appears to be trained, vigilant and conducting surveillance detection, they are “more” inclined to move onto another target.  Read Arthur Bremmers diary, “An Assassin’s Diary” or the famous statement “It is senseless to hunt the tiger when there are so many sheep to be had.”   …Carlos the Jackal.

Remember this: History shows us that successful protective efforts require a pro-active and visionary approach.  Security methods must be continually assessed, re-evaluated and adapted to changing environments, needs and threat levels. In essence, the security must be scalable to adapt to changes as much as possibleIt is vitally important to understand every scintilla of our protective mission.  What is gained and what is lost during our efforts.  Having a complete and thorough grasp of these factors can mitigate any attack effort.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *