Written on January 4th, 2008 by Hucky

Was Inadequate Security to Blame For Bhutto’s Demise?

Posted in Executive Protection Articles | RSS 2.0 | Trackback

« Book of the Month
A SLIPPERY SLOPE: Balancing Ethics with Discretion as a Bodyguard »

12 Responses to “Was Inadequate Security to Blame For Bhutto’s Demise?”

  1. Carl Jones Says:
    January 5th, 2008 at 1:31 am

    hucky do you have “bhutto assination video”

  2. A.S Hayat Says:
    January 5th, 2008 at 5:23 am

    This is truein P very true being of Pakistani decent and personally involved personal Protection and related fields I can say that Bhutto perhaps the most popular leader ever in Pakistan could have survived. I know for a fact that just as the article stated. She wasn´t even given real ISI Protection (ISI is the Pakistani version of C.I.A). The people that protected her was mainly party members and fans and some local police WITH NO training. They have highly trained security experts in Pakistan but there is a loyalty problem with those agency agents - Bhutto could not trust them, what she needed was an International Protective Team that was loyal and protected her no matter what happened. Many high-end people in countries such as India, Pakistan and The Sub Continent call upon services from Westerners only because there is so much corruption in their own countries….

  3. Mike Franklin Says:
    January 20th, 2008 at 5:31 pm

    Dear Hucky,
    I have read you article and find your comments to be very interesting. How on earth did or could you have come to this conclusion and what special knowledge and experience are you speaking from? I have been in the close protection world all my adult life. I would like to say that your comments about Mrs Bhutto’s security was in any way inferior or substandard is insane! Anyone who has ever worked at the higher levels of close protection knows that political rallies are from a security stand point extremely well organised and professionally executed. The CP people planned and participated in the events leading up to her death were flawless. Like any first year CP student learns, events are relative secure venues from which political figures can operate…entry is control through metal detectors, searches and explosive sensing machines, dogs and close personal protection measures. In this case the security people had done a very professional job…in that nothing happened inside the event area or cordon of security. Now, we all know that Bosses are in danger when they travel between point A and point B. There just isn’t enough security people that can provide coverage for every inch that a motorcade travels. However, to overcome this vulnerability we use armoured cars…which she had! The inherent danger presents itself when the Boss decides to work outside the CP security blanket (armoured) car. Standing up through a sunroof of an armoured car was an insane act. It gave the assassins the needed opportunity that they had patiently been waiting for. John Dryden warns that we should “Beware the fury of patient man!” In this case it is entirely possible that there may have been as many as 20 to 30 assassins alone her route just waiting for the opportunity that she gave them…one shooter and a secondary bomber in the event the shooter missed. The point that I would like to stress here is that this isn’t the first time nor will it be the last time that an endangered Boss is assassinated because they fail to work within the proven security measures that professional BG have been hired to implement. It is therefore, my opinion, based on the information that has been available to me that the CP team in this case had done literally everything within there power to protect her. It was her conscious decision to work outside those security measures and technology (standing up outside the armoured car) and not only did it cost her her own life, but several who were there to protect her.
    Mike Franklin

  4. Georges Says:
    January 20th, 2008 at 11:53 pm

    Mike,

    I had the opportunity to review your comments on the forum and to be honest I was somewhat taken back by many of your observations. For such a trained Close Protection specialist working in this realm for most of your “adult life”, I am both in utter shock and bewilderment at some of your interpretations with respect to the Bhutto article.

    You state; “I would like to say that your commentsabout Mrs Bhutto’s security was in any way inferior or substandard is
    insane!”.

    On the contrary Mike, Bhutto’s protective detail was inferior to most western standards. Bhutto and her husband had major concerns with respect to her safety and security. These concerns were so strong about the protective detail that was in place that the American firm Blackwater was consulted to put together a special team to provide protection to Bhutto.

    The Blackwater team never deployed due to problems with the Pakistani government refusing to give a group of American PPS’s visa’s to enter the country. When the Blackwater deal folded, Bhutto went to a well known British firm seeking help. The British firm was also denied the visa requirements needed to enter the country.

    Because of concerns from both Bhutto and the US Government with respect to per protective detail, the US State Department’s Diplomatic Security gave advice to the Pakistani protective team on how to improve the security measure…..The information provided fell on deaf ears.

    Mike, I am not sure where you received your formal training from in the art of CP/PSD operations but one only needs to go to the countless websites that show Bhutto’s protective details during previous speeches. How can you tell me that her team was not inferior? The team movements were both sloppy and unregulated when Bhutto was moved, ” Any first year CP student” would be able to tell you that.

    Mike you may work CP in a European setting , it is my gut feeling that you have never worked in a true high threat environment, and if you did it was most likely in the “Green Zone”.

    Working in this field is not only about protection but also education and pre planning. It is your duty to educate your principal on matters that involve their protection and to plan ahead. I will not “armchair quarterback” the tragic attack and death of Bhutto, but her protective detail could have done many things differently.

    If you wish to contact me off line with respect to my comments I would be more than happy to speak with you and further address your comments. I have give Hucky permission to forward you my personal e-mail.

    Kindest regards in advance

    Georges Tabet

  5. Mike Franklin Says:
    January 21st, 2008 at 7:43 am

    Dear George,
    Thank you for your comments and please allow me to respond. My email address is: judson012@yahoo.de and I would very much enjoy continuing this conversation.
    “shock and bewilderment” I don’t want to get involved in any kind of a pissing contest with you nor do I want to question your qualifications. However, it has always fascinated me how people tend to find faults with close protection operations when people are killed. The inevitable finger pointing of who’s to blame and how everyone else could have done it better. I have no problems with your opinions, as a matter of fact I welcome them.
    But the topic that we have been discussing is it the fact that Blackwater didn’t get the contract, that the powers to be didn’t listen to the American Diplomatic Service or a horrible job of close protection? What I witnessed was business as usual in that part of the world. Have you ever been in Pakistan? Again, if you have a Boss that doesn’t work within the security provided… you could have teams from Shin Bet, The Secret Service or RMP 101 protecting her and she would still have died. The same as Rabin was. Again, if your Boss provides that opportunity and refuses to follow the SOP’s for their safety…you can’t make them. I have been doing this a long time and I have never met a Boss (Political, Royalty, Military, Business, Sports or Tycoons) that didn’t do exactly what they wanted to do when they wanted to do it. Naturally, we have to advise people, sometimes in the strongest possible terms. However, the bottom line is that they decide what and when they are going to do something.
    I’m not too sure if you are familiar with the American Secret Service’s assessment of the CP measures one the day Mrs. Bhutto was killed. I happen to share their opinions and having seem most of the videos clips that were taken of the event…I’m convinced that the CP team at this event acted in a professional and responsible manner. I wouldn’t give comment on how they had acted at other events, but I stand by what I said about this event and the events leading up to her death.
    Kindest regards
    Mike Franklin

  6. peter Says:
    January 21st, 2008 at 8:46 am

    we need not fight over Bhuttos death,

  7. Jeff Says:
    January 21st, 2008 at 10:45 am

    The current level of threats against our nation is ever increasing. The purpose of Executive protection is just that Protection. Her Bodyguards may have been of high caliber but, Awareness and due diligence is ever increasing to the point of reaction rather than proaction.The powers that be need to ,in my opinion do more advance work and utilize their experience and know how to prevent this type of assasination from recuring Use the professionals, Let them do their job and choose the right Professionals. Jeff Morgan President /Atack Protection Group Inc.

  8. Hucky Says:
    January 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    Mike, thanks for the comment. Please note the change to the title of the article
    regarding Bhutto\’s passing.

    I must tell you that other than the unfortunate error of the title of this story, I’m not sure
    why you think that I am personally criticizing Bhutto\’s security detail. Mike, it
    sounds like you have first-hand INTEL on the OPSEC of this detail, but I do not. So for me
    to criticize the PPO on this detail would be totally irresponsible on my part.

    However it’s no secret that on several occasions Bhutto publicly criticized Pakistan for providing her with insufficient security. One colleague had this to say about her security detail: “Hucky, compared to the disorganized Pakistani security forces even a 3rd rate Somalian detail would have done a better job.”

    It appears to me that there were too many people and not enough organization. Mike, I agree with you, a PPO team can’t protect a principle effectively amidst a great deal of chaos. In the 1980s, the Pope allowed anyone and everyone to be near
    him.

    After an assassination attempt, the Vatican learned and tightened things up (somewhat) which meant he had to be less accessible to the public–which meant he was able to stay alive and continue his work.

    One would have thought that because of the Bhutto family history, security might have been handled differently. There was too much chaos, too many people allowed to be around her. In my opinion, there were too many personal staff members and people in her entourage, as well.

    In retrospect, even the US and the BRITS with all their technology, ASSETS, CAT
    teams etc., probably could not have saved her from a
    committed suicide attacker. May she rest in peace.

  9. Mike Franklin Says:
    January 21st, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    Dear Hucky,

    Thanks you for a wonderful and very professional reply. I would also like to thank you for the gesture and changing the title. Many of your comment are in my opinion right on the mark and very accurate.

    I can’t speak for past CP details that protected her. However, everything that I have seen, been privy to and observed…her CP team acted in an organized and very professional manner. Not to forget that this was a co-ordinated, multiple phased, well organized and professional hit of opportunity! She made herself a target!

    This has been the first time that I have visited your website and have enjoyed it a great deal. I shall visit you more often and have my people check it out.

    It is often quite upsetting to me when I read or think that others (real or perceived) criticize CP people. I know that in some countries and some regimes protecting their top people is extremely difficult given the situations, budgets, Intel, resources and conditions that they (the BGs) are required to work under.

    Having worked together with organisations in that part of the world I know that they are very professional, loyal and dedicated individuals. I do have the utmost respect and admiration for those CP people who as is in this case have been working under a very real sustained threat for such a long time that any blame be attached to them for her death (I also wish that she may rest in peace) is unfair (not that I’m in any way saying that you have.)

    The point that I really wanted to make was that if we protect those people who have to be convinced to save their own lives…trying to find fault with her BGs would make about as much sense as handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

    Kindest regards

    Mike Franklin

  10. Don Says:
    January 22nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm

    Gentlemen,
    I believe those of us that have spent sometime in the field doing risk assessments, advance work, and protective intelligence would show that information is the primary and most basic commodity needed in the protection barrier.

    Ms. Bhutto’s death in unfortunate and unnecessary. There has been much said about the corruption of the government and the lack of support that was given in regards to her protection. Even with a previous threat on her life, with significant collateral damage done, her needs were not met. Just watching the video on the route she was on and the mass of humanity crowding the event makes me cringe.

    I do not want to criticize on to much do to the lack of confirmation of actual security details as to who and how many and what was their qualifications. Also, you cannot discount the level of corruption in the halls of government when it comes to a threat to a power base.

    What can we learn from this. In a perfect setting, the more time, information, and preparation one can have along with documented well trained experienced agents can make all the difference in the world. The question is, in Ms. Bhutto’s case, would that have been enough?

    Be safe all.

    D. Moe

    Certified PPS
    Certified Anti-Terrorism Specialist
    Emergency Medical Technician
    http://www.kingsleybergling.com
    http://www.assaultprevention.org
    http://www.myspace.com/donmoe1
    Member: Overseas Security Advisory Council

  11. Jim Says:
    January 28th, 2008 at 6:18 pm

    “The assassination of Benazir Bhutto was a tragedy, not just for the people of Pakistan who were on the verge of electing this dynamic, pro-democratic, and anti-extremist as their next president, but also for the United States\’ war on terrorism. In terms of whether or not she was adequately protected, I would say she was not.

    Most of her protective agents were members of the Pakistani security service, the same agency that protects her political rival, current president Musharef. Thus, they were probably under subtle direction to \”look away, \” or not be there for her if she was attacked. Sure, they would make it appear as if they were adequately protecting her, but I highly doubt it.

    In fact, she recently requested increased security from the Musharef government. Questions need to be asked: Were areas where she was appearing adequately advanced and site survey agents posted? Was a sniper team, or teams in place at large events overseeing large crowds? Were agents posted in the crowds?

    I understand Scotland Yard will investigate this murder, but conspiracies have a way of being quickly covered up. In terms of her causing her own death by sticking her head out of her armored vehicle; well she mad herself more vulnerable.

    Yet, that would be the time when security agents climbed up on the top of her vehicle with other agents \”working the fenders\” and watching the hands of those in the crowd. As we know, it was a set of hands from that crowd that took her life. So, no she did not cause her own death or invite murder.
    Jim

  12. Carlos Amaya Says:
    February 20th, 2008 at 1:39 am

    I kindly respect everyone’s comments on Ms Bhutto’s assassination. I would like to offer mine - Although I have no specific information on her security detail, it seems to me that it was inadequate because the assassin was able to penetrate Ms Bhutto’s “kill zone” which leads me to believe that there were no bodyguards around her perimeter to keep potential threats at bay or if there were any bodyguards, perhaps they didn’t care or perhaps they were not trained properly to recognize and respond to any potential threat.
    It is true that a sniper could have taken her out from a farther distance or a more powerful bomb could have as well without getting that close to her but the fact is that the perpetrator got very close to her and in the cp business that is a definite NO!
    Sometimes I ask myself what the words “close protection” mean? Does it mean staying near your principal so you can protect her/him better? or Making sure that the potential threat does not get “close” to your principal so that she/he won”t be harmed?

    Thanks!!