the role of private security in combating terrorism

charles p. connolly

july 2003

charles p. connolly was assistant commissioner of the new york city police
department, chief of the yonkers, ny, police department, and vice president in
charge of security for merrill lynch corporation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this article is adapted from a speech given at the national executive institute
associates, major cities chiefs association, and major county sheriff�s
association annual conference at sun valley, idaho, on 13 june 2003.

the world trade center attack on 9/11 not only changed the way we think but, from
an organizational perspective, how we are to function in the future. it may also
be time to redefine ownership of our national security. law enforcement, in my
judgment, will at some point transform itself to meet the terrorist threat in ways
that are not yet on our police screens�in training, surveillance, investigative
techniques, disaster prevention and response, and, most important, developing
collaborative relationships. we face a challenge to examine and change, if
necessary, a mindset to allow the public and private protection sector to
accomplish its mission through recognition of the merits of shared assistance and
cooperation.

all disasters are essentially local. there is no such thing as a homeland security
department disaster or an fbi disaster; there are only new york city, los angeles,
chicago, or even des moines disasters. yes, their impact matters and relates to
the larger community. if we are to be successful in developing a more productive
antiterrorist environment, both the public police sector and the private security
sector need to change their client culture from one of mere security awareness or
knowledge to that of security ownership and responsibility.

essentially, in today�s climate the stakes are too high economically and in
personal safety to ignore the potential contribution of the private sector to the
nation�s security. historically there were valid reasons as to why partnership was
not possible. the issues of quality in private security and trust in government
come to mind. but today, the protection professional must recognize that we can�t
pick the environment in which we live or the circumstances under which we operate.
therefore we must not attempt to solve a problem with the same mindset that
creates it.

having been a long-term advocate of the potential for this public-private

partnership, i found it difficult to understand why many police chiefs did not
want to recruit another army.

they don�t have to pay for it.

they don�t have to be responsible for its operational success or failure.
they would receive the lion�s share of credit for whatever joint success is
achieved.
more important,

it would provide greater access and opportunity for a very lucrative second
career.
if you still have concerns, remember, the police chief is always in control as the
only governmental constitutionally empowered authority in town.

so in combating terrorism, why is the role of the private security sector so

important?

given that today�s battlefront is on america�s homeland, the police are the
frontline troops in this war. however, they are not alone in this effort, as
private security assumes a greater role in safety, prevention, and preventing the
misuse of proprietary assets. in fact, security is often at the scene when the
police arrive. yet neither is prepared, trained, or equipped to combat an
invisible enemy whose stated objective is disruption, destruction, and mass death.

although the state department lists over 50 identifiable terrorist groups who are
capable of providing cooperation to each other, al-qaeda is different. terror has
often been a tool to win a place at the bargaining table. al-qaeda appears to just
want to blow up the table. to paraphrase their attitude, �it�s our way of life,
stupid.�

it would appear to today�s fanatics that everything is black or white, curse or

blessing, friend or foe. they increasingly perceive tolerance as weakness and are
apt to remind us that they are much more enthusiastic about dying than we are
about living.

what may be happening now may prove more important and dangerous than bin laden or
al-qaeda. the real issue, in my judgment, is a growing ideology rather than
organizational intent. we are witnessing an awakening in which al-qaeda inspires a
movement, encouraging other fanatics to recruit among the larger muslim community.

fundamentalism in the islamic world is something we know little about. but it is a

world in which one-half of its population is probably under 25 years of age, and
it appears that you can�t talk some of them out of their obsession. there are
those among us who honestly believe that our grandchildren might witness the
fruits of any victory. 9/11 has shown us that we can�t ignore this threat of
radical islam, as these fanatics

do not practice self-restraint.

wish to inflict mass civilian casualties.
live among us. the department of justice reports that in the united states there
are some 314,000 absconders�people ordered to be deported but who can�t be found.
at last year�s conference, dale watson, then assistant director of the fbi,
reported that in the prior 30-month period, 93 million visas were issued.
it is entirely logical that our antiterrorist response must adjust and adapt to
these ideologies but also possible that the 21st-century challenge is to find
appropriate countermeasures that will allow us to live with such constant threats.
the old u.s. tactic was �wait and respond.� the new wisdom appears to be that we
take the battle to them.

self-defense, however, is no less important regardless of our international

strategy. 9/11 will affect the conduct of corporate america more than any prior
threat. why? because 9/11 is the gold standard for terrorist success. it also
encourages copycats. the technology formerly controlled by the few is now
available to the many. also, that technology is reaching the stage where one can
program a project to be operated by the less skilled.

i and others would like to see the national executive institute play a greater
role, as the threats domestically will be concentrated in jurisdictions under the
responsibility of the major cities� police chiefs and active institute members. my
experience indicates that the call for partnership is not a new gospel. yes, the
call has been followed up by genuine interest on the part of some police
officials, while other attitudes range from lukewarm to lip service. in some
departments there was simply no interest. i suggest that attitudes will change or
some careers will. allow me to offer an explanation.

a protection transformation is on the horizon, as society�s safety is, in fact, no

longer viewed simply as the exclusive role of government. one can make the
argument as to whether government is the primary provider of protection, given
research showing that a host of nongovernmental groups have assumed responsibility
for their own protection. the restructuring or shifting of public protection can
be witnessed by these facts:

private police outnumber public police. in this country the ratio is three to one.

people increasingly spend more of their daily life in places where visible crime
prevention and control are provided by the private sector�for example, the
workplace, transportation, recreation, education, and at home in gated communities
and large residential complexes.
the police function is transforming itself as a result of community demand and
input, economic restraints, and constant and unrelenting (often unfair) criticism
exaggerated by the political process and the media.
if you cannot accept this future of protection, let me offer another level of
concern to the police chiefs of the future in fulfilling their protective
responsibility to society as well as the economic well being of this country: with
85% of the nation�s infrastructure owned and operated by the private sector, the
united states increasingly relies on american companies to safeguard the nation�s
economy, security, and well being.

a sustainable partnership between the public and private sectors is imperative if

we are to protect the essential elements of our economy and way of life, in
agriculture, food production and distribution, water, communication, energy,
health and drug services, telecommunications, transportation, banking and
financial services, chemical and hazardous materials, and commercial and sports
centers. the list is endless.

america�s private sector�businesses, universities, and labor�have long been a

partner to government, supplying the tools and technologies to support national
security. unfortunately, this first war of the 21st century puts america�s
businesses and employees on the front lines of the battlefield�they have become
targets and pathways for attack and destruction. there will be no personal safety
or economic vitality without a secure environment. that is the challenge for
private security as well as the law enforcement community. equally important is
the transformation of law enforcement to lead in rethinking a systematic
collaborative security response that will adapt to the world�s new realities.

domestically, we must further explore what partnership potential exists. what role
does or can police leadership play in recognizing, recruiting, and developing
police�private security initiatives?

if this notion has value, then the national executive institute is in the perfect
position to identify that value and ask why is it not being initiated on a much
larger scale. what are the obstacles to successful implementation, and where are
the opportunities to resolve them?

aside from the domestic war on terrorism, it�s important that we recognize what is
occurring on the international side. despite world tension and wall street
scandals, we see national governance�the role of nation-states�falling behind on
the world scene. global corporations are increasingly assuming the positions of
influence. world and domestic events should cause us to reflect that we may not be
able to address today�s needs�much less tomorrow�s�with yesterday�s answers. while
some economic and terrorism concerns have tempered the triumph of globalism, there
has been an interesting transformation in world influence and power. several years
ago it was reported that general motors had a bigger budget than denmark, toyota
had surpassed norway, and wal-mart�s budget exceeded that of poland. in the same
context, ford exceeded south africa, while mitsubishi and unilever together
outsized indonesia (believed to be the fourth most populous country) and vietnam.
actually the hundred biggest economies in the world are equally divided between
corporations and government. surely, it can be said that big business has a dog in
this fight against terrorism. while this transformation has met a few bumps in the
road, a major challenge according to the international monetary fund is a world
that is moving from a public-sector dominance toward one of private enterprise.
bill gates of microsoft gave away more money last year to underdeveloped countries
than did the world health fund. if government and business need to adapt to the
world�s new realities, surely the public and private protection sectors should not
be too far behind.

our best statistics suggest that some 700,000 law enforcement officers are on our
nation�s battlefront. nationally they are supported by approximately 12,000 fbi
personnel plus the personnel of other federal agencies, such as the secret service
and the drug enforcement administration.

yes, we have a sizable customs and border patrol force, but they are attempting to
secure some 7,500 miles of border with canada and mexico, covering some 160 points
of entry. at those points of entry they are checking 50,000 trucks and another
50,000 sealed containers, the latter having only a 2% inspection rate. while this
is occurring, some 2,660 aircraft, 520 vessels, 348,000 vehicles, and 1,300,000
persons are crossing the border. everything i just described moves across the
border each day. then there are some 39,000 u.s. commercial flights and 18,000
privately operated airports. the vastness of our country is such that we can never
fully protect it, try as we might.

if absolute guarantees can�t be the core of our national defense, shouldn�t we

strive to ensure that our intelligence capacity is equal to or better than our
first response capability? surely it is better to prevent a catastrophe than
effectively respond to its aftermath. therefore, if prevention through
intelligence is a goal, why not explore the intelligence contributions of
america�s most successful corporations?

there are legitimate, possible legal and long-term historical concerns involving
cooperation with the government. yet there is a compelling rationale for exploring
to the utmost private security�s participation in the war against terrorism. the
private sector has the technology, the resources, and, i suspect, the analytical
intelligence to be a major contributor to the security of the nation. the issue,
in my opinion, is how to harness it.

i believe that you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would deny that
transnational crime and terrorism undermine the very foundations of international
democratic order. transnational crime corrupts political leaders, while successful
terrorism undermines the cause of human rights. with this in mind, we need to be
aware that sophisticated illegal operations and enterprises have increased greatly
since the berlin wall came down. many countries are, like the internet, without
secure controlled borders. the nature, scope, and function of public
protection�international, federal, and domestic�suggest a transformation, given
that its traditional perspective is one of reaction and rarely proactive. the call
for action is often predicated on the existence of critical mass prior to
unmasking organized criminal activity. this is not meant as a criticism; it merely
reflects a function of governmental monitoring. terrorists and organized criminals
are not adversely affected by jurisdictional boundaries. law enforcement,
unfortunately, is so affected. political change has been accompanied by the rapid
advance in technology, communication, and transportation, creating a universal
global village and information highway.

who will police this village and this elusive highway? it is an important
question, given the projected decline of national governance. the internet
provides each of its users with the equivalent of a printing press. its use can be
for good or bad. again, we are not about to solve today�s or tomorrow�s problems
with yesterday�s solutions.

i would like to leave you with a few questions that i believe need to be addressed
in combating both terrorism and global crime:

what changes can be forecast for the future regarding the transnational nature of
global crime and terrorism? who best can make such forecasts?
are there changes occurring now that law enforcement in many countries is ill
equipped to handle?
if so, what extensions, new roles, or partnerships will be required among
security, law enforcement, and prosecution?
who will be able to analyze, interpret, prevent, investigate, and secure
successful prosecutions internationally and domestically? what kind of borderless
paper trails will exist, given the reliance on electronic impulses?
given fiscal trends, can the world criminal justice system afford to train
personnel to function in the new world of globalism, instantaneous crime, and
terror?
where are the expert witnesses going to come from if we are to successfully
investigate and assist in the prosecution of transnational crimes involving
sophisticated telecommunications or computerized networks?
in the future, will we or can we consider the use of corporate experts during
investigation and prosecution? i have observed that law enforcement personnel,
upon achieving a certain technical proficiency, tend toward the private sector,
given the financial benefits. our best technical skills group may not be
government employees.
what legislation, domestic and international�treaties included�might be necessary
in combating both global crime and terrorism?
the war on terrorism will not likely be won solely in traditional military
fashion. according to some experts, it has the potential for long duration, and
the new weapons of choice may require methods of collaborative intelligence and
process in addition to any new technology we may acquire.

only law enforcement leadership can replace our culture of independence with that
of interdependence. however, it is important that we define the term partnership
more clearly. it�s not simply a law enforcement commitment to communicate in a
more timely and relevant mode. that is merely a promise to create a better
communications network. it has to be more than a one-way street, even though we
fully recognize that their function and authority make the police the essential
controlling player.

we must do something different or creative amid a world of information and

technology that continually transform and alter the way we conduct our business
and go about our daily lives. undoubtedly, we are more conscious of our
limitations in protecting our people and assets. technology moves in nanoseconds
and challenges its boundaries. unfortunately, people move more slowly in
challenging their mental and operational boundaries. are we prepared to respond to
things differently as well as to situations that have yet to occur? is failure a
result of not solving the problem or simply the result of not seeing the problem?
prophets of doom and gloom need not define the future. our future may be merely
different in handling crisis. in the past we have handled plagues, world wars,
holocaust, the evils of hitler and communism, and countless other evils. our
ability to deal with the unknown is not in question. i suggest that our
creativity, commitment, and will need to be energized, challenging old boundaries
and setting new frontiers of partnership for public and private protection.