Home  >  Subjects  >  Military / Army / Navy / Marines  >  current page My Profile

Variables in Personal Security EnvironmentEssay

Pages: 10 (3393 words)  |  Style: n/a  |  Sources: 10

Custom Writing

Personal Security Officer Conceptual Framework

Personal security refers to the general conditions resulting after suitable steps are adopted for (a) deterring; (b) delaying; (c) providing warning before any potential crime; (d) sending for assistance should such warnings occur; and (e) constructively preparing for the risk of personal crime (Dickinson, 2007). Sufficient efforts in executing the above five tasks could greatly lower security threats, to even trivial and/or nearly non-existent levels.

Security services take charge of protecting dignitaries as well as protecting other individuals prone to high risks. These services act in the zones of responsibility of commanders. Commanders should be capable of providing expert personal protection appropriate for any potential threat. The susceptibility to threat of visiting 'very important persons' (VIPs), designated high-risk individuals, families and/or any other individuals requiring personal security should be offset. If a requirement for security services is created as a result of threat circumstance(s) due to an individual's grade, location, and position, or special situations that present potential danger, resources should be on hand (CJCSI, 2009). In addition, such resources should be steadfast in forming an advanced response for providing adequate personal security to counter possible adverse actions.

Among the chief resources of a commander for countering possible threats to individuals is ensuring that an available protection services (PS) unit is in place. A PS unit may be comprised of military police (MP), United States Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC), or other professionals in law enforcement (Dickinson, 2007). The PS unit offers an advanced response to security threats developed against individuals within the zone of responsibility of the commander (Cockayne, 2009). Generally, it is the PM who is in charge of training, equipping, maintaining and organizing the PS unit.

While some installations require a full-time protective services detail, permanent details are generally more the exception than the rule. Most installations only need part-time protective facilities (UN office on Drugs and Crime, 2014). Also, in some cases, such as when the defense secretary visits a region on military responsibility, local commanders might be asked only to provide additional support to the PS unit accompanying the dignitary. All United States Army installations must, however, have a trained and identified protective services task-force available when required (Nicolas, 2011).

Specific responsibilities and missions are fixed based upon the nature of circumstances. The Government of the United States of American (USA) and, particularly, the Army Protection Services mission, are partly limited by Department of State and Department of Treasury authority, HN responsibilities, appropriate regulations, and political and legal restrictions. Certain response abilities are restricted by resource availability, such as equipment and personnel, by training time, and by the anticipated danger time (Dickinson, 2007). Security services are, sometimes, restricted due to the personal wishes of protectees and commanders.

Literature review and critique

Those who advocate private security work advance several arguments in favor of out-sourcing this task to private service agencies. First, they lay emphasis on the opportunity provided to states for substantially decreasing their public expenses. More specifically, states can, in periods of peace, avoid training and supporting costs for standing armies because, in case additional military capabilities are required, the requisite personnel can directly be obtained from the private market (Nicolas, 2011).

On the whole, the case for money-saving is very powerful indeed in recent times, owing to the worldwide economic crisis, as well as to the struggle of states to come up with means for reducing their large debt and deficit burdens. Further, PMSCs (Private military and security companies) claim to possess human resources that consist of military veterans commended for their first-rate qualifications, experience, and professionalism (Eisenhower Study Group, 2011). Because private contractors possess economic motivations rather than political ones, they are supposedly less prone to harm civilians purposefully than those belonging to the State. PMSCs further help in restoring public safety and order and combating crime through their work.

Security for deployed internationals, such as non-governmental (NGO) workers, and United Nations (UN) personnel, is provided by private contractors; they also help with immediate relief distribution (UN office on Drugs and Crime, 2014). Private agency work-forces may also show greater operational readiness, efficiency, and coherence as compared to ad hoc worldwide missions of global companies that offer slow deployment, and are often plagued by internal struggles within their national components (Cockayne, 2009). Further, PMCs claim to be handy in instances where international communities lack the readiness, will and cohesion to act in prevention of a humanitarian and/or other disastrous outbreak.

In the field of military training and organization, private agencies expand the capabilities of states in safeguarding their regional integrity. Further, they offer advice on enhancing civil -- military relationships; in this manner, they contribute greatly to the democratization process (White, 2011). Additionally, an investigation into DynCorp's work in Liberia proved that PMCs can generate inventive ideas for reforming armies instead of an indiscriminate usage of the 'ill-fitting' practices and procedures of other nations. This is an aspect of the functional activities of PMCs. This is distinctly different from the manner in which the 'train and equip' programs of the U.S. Army are implemented (Abrahamsen & Williams, 2007). The latter typically strives to apply the U.S. Army's template to other countries' military units, perhaps inappropriately.

Furthermore, with regards to support services for the military (such as logistics), private company out-sourcing enables states to devote a larger portion of their armed forces to deploying war capabilities. This is likely to result in producing a more professional and combat-ready unit (Dickinson, 2007). Finally, the private protection industry claims to be sufficiently flexible to produce rapid, reliable solutions to handle new or mounting threats. For example, the recent rise of piracy incidents in Somalia spurred private security companies to advertise anti-pirate security services specifically tailored to meet this threat.

Though several analysts voiced concerns that the presence of armed security on merchant ships might escalate violence, this kind of service has been contracted by some shipping companies (Cockayne, 2009). Essentially, it has been maintained that the private protection service sector is expanding precisely because a serious security gap has been left by states. Contractor firms crop up to satisfy market needs. Thus, if the firms in question were outlawed and/or didn't exist, illegitimate agencies for providing these services would be likely to come into the market (Leander, 2010).

Furthermore, the actual work of PMSCs indicates that they do not question or challenge the sovereignty of states. Some amount of control is maintained by states over the private security sector. States are the largest PMSC clients and, in some instances, they even co-own contractor corporations. In fact, many PMCs avoid taking up contracts which their native countries strongly disapprove of. PMSCs, therefore, could perhaps merely be viewed as being 'tools' that states, NGOs, enterprises, international organizations, and citizens can utilize for their safety and protection (Leander, 2010). Evidence to support this claim are scrutinized in the following sections.

Protection Concepts Analysis

A protection services' (PS) mission goal should always be protection of clients from every possible hazard. This comprises hazards that are brought about by negligence, accident, and/or personal design. However, absolute security is impossible (White, 2011). Therefore, a PS unit's objective(s) should be to function in a way that reduces the possibility of an assault, and increases the probability of successful protection.

Specific requirements

The element of deterrence offered by a PS unit's presence is invaluable. If the security force is vigilant and resolute in dispatching responsibilities, apparent control remains clear. Voluntary public cooperation generally follows. The atmosphere of control acquired usually prevents the necessity for more action. Ostentatious show of security personnel and equipment is sometimes needed under certain circumstances, for instance, in combat zones or hostile fire zones, where it serves to bolster, or enhance, the deterring factor (Nicolas, 2011). All elements of protection should be planned thoroughly, in advance. All movements of the protection team and the principal (person or persons being protected) should be scrutinized in order to ensure maximum security. Every member of the PS force should be properly briefed with regards to emergency procedures, and should be capable of reacting immediately, and appropriately. Sound preventive measures could save the lives of both the protectors and the protected (Cockayne, 2009).

Proper planning is crucial to success. All phases of a security mission should be planned carefully. Flexibility should be present in planning of such missions in order to accommodate unexpected changes that may possibly occur. Alternate contingency plans must be prepared; these should take into consideration such situations as possible threats, inclement weather, and/or any other situations that could affect the principal's security (Dickinson, 2007). It is also essential to coordinate with the host agency and with other people involved with the visit.

In any case, the foundation of success lies upon advance work. This includes coordinating all protective arrangements prior to the principal's arrival, at all locations being visited. In some cases, the advance work tends to be complex and extensive; for others, less advance work may be needed (Leander, 2010). Resource and manpower… [END OF PREVIEW]

Download Full Paper (10 pages; perfectly formatted; Microsoft Word file) Microsoft Word File

Security - Agip Kazakhstan North Caspian Operating


Security in Information Technology (IT) Infrastructure


Security Risk Management Process Microsoft Company


Security and Online Privacy Regulations: An Analytical


Security Issues Creating a Site Using Trend


View 406 other related papers  >>

Cite This Paper:

APA Format

Variables In Personal Security Environment.  (2015, April 22).  Retrieved September 22, 2017, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/variables-personal-security-environment/5097439

MLA Format

"Variables In Personal Security Environment."  22 April 2015.  Web.  22 September 2017. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/variables-personal-security-environment/5097439>.

Chicago Format

"Variables In Personal Security Environment."  Essaytown.com.  April 22, 2015.  Accessed September 22, 2017.
https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/variables-personal-security-environment/5097439.

Disclaimer