Brains Versus Brawn

Far too often, security relies on brawn alone — uniformed guards, guns, alarms, locks, armoured vehicles, blast and ballistic resisent engineering. Unfortunately, force can be defeated by guile and superior force.

An example of brawn’s failure is that of Alfred Herrhausen, the Deutsche Bank Chief who was murdered by the Red Army Faction in 1989.

He knew that he was a target. He had a thirty-man security detail and armored vehicles. His murderers had work clothes, a city works vehicle, and explosives. Posing as city workers, his murderers engaged in their own construction project to mine the road that their victim frequently used.

Brawn thrice failed. The first failure was to notice the initial surveillance that led to the terrorists identifing the attack site. Second, brawn failed to recognize and regularly inspect an obivous attack location. Finally, the terrorists were engaged in their construction project for about one month and the security detail didn’t call the city to confirm that the construction activity was legitimate.

The brain would have had a surveillance detection detail. The brain would conduct a route survey to identify likely attack locations. The brain would assign the surveillance detection detail to observe possible attack locations to look for unusual activity. The brain would have called the city about the construction activity.

The brain’s greatest enemy is the budget wala. Brawn is tangible, surveillance detection isn’t. Surveillance detection is like insurance — an expense for something you probably won’t use. Budget walas want proof that surveillance detection is worth the cost because when they spend money on brawn they get something tangible.

One thought on “Brains Versus Brawn

Comments are closed.