“Resilience”

The January 2012 article in ASIS International’s Security Management magazine has an interview with Dr. Stephen Flynn,  who is a major “think tank” guy and professor at Northeastern University in Boston.  Here’s one of his answers:

The Obama administration has not changed far enough. They’re tilting in the right direction, but I think more movement needs to happen more quickly.  To the credit of the administration, they’ve embraced the concept of resilience  - a public acknowledgement that every act of terror cannot be prevented and some capacity to respond and recover from them is necessary.  That’s difficult for political leadership to say, but the president and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have said it, and that’s a necessary dose of reality.  The Obama administration has also gone a bit further than the Bush administration with the all-hazards recognition of the importance of what FEMA’s Craig Fugate calls the “whole community approach.”  I give them credit for recognizing that homeland security needs to expand beyond a narrow focus on terrorism risks to include the broader issues of all hazards and that there needs to be a greater degree of outreach and engagement of communities.”

Couple that with the latest issue of Inside Home land Security (Winter 2011) issue in which Dr. Dave McIntyre, VP for Academic Affairs at the National Graduate School and Visiting Fellow at both the Homeland Security Institute and WMD Center, wrote in his article: Reducing the Risk of Risk Management.  He said:

The traditional approach sees risk as a product of an attacker’s intent, the vulnerability of a target and the consequences of a successful attack.  In forecasting the risk of a natural hazard, likelihood of a disaster may be substituted for an attacker’s intent and capability.  Whatever system of calculation is adopted, someone (or some team) must place numerical values on each aspect of the calculation and then adjust the weight of factors for qualitative differences.  For example, if the calculation of risk to a warehouse and an elementary school turn out exactly the same, you might want to weigh the loss of children more heavily in terms of consequence, than the loss of materials (consequences).  Are Risk Management and management of risk the same?  Many experts say yes. But if Risk Management deals with cycles, processes and allocation of resources over time…then what do we call the day-to-day manipulation of available resources to meet threats?  Are police or security on patrol really risk managers?  Or are they managing the day-to-day risk?  Perhaps we need two different terms for these two different activities.

Remember our fallen friends and colleagues

Last year, January 2011, two security professionals lost their lives and here is the brief I sent out. I am reposting it for all of us to remember our fallen friends and colleagues.

Mexico Intelligence Brief January 2011

Over the last month there has been another escalation with regard to supply chain security issues. Unfortunately the ongoing battle on the borders has claimed the lives of two security professionals. These gentlemen have been attempting to create a safe haven system in Mexico. The idea was to identify several key routes leading to the Mexican and U.S. borders.  Once these routes were identified the next step was to then create a network of safe havens. The safe haven approach is similar to the secure parking areas used in Europe.  It was conceived to protect company drivers (mostly U.S.citizens) should the driver perceive he/she was in any danger. The safe haven was to be stocked with food and additional suppliers to support a driver for several days and allow enough time to enable a response, in the form of a security extraction team, to arrive. It also was to have sufficient space to discreetly hide a semi truck and trailer.

The company the individuals worked for has had several security incidents during this past year.  The result was that they lost several priority customer loads. Regretfully the company's security efforts were being thwarted by an insider...an employee that had been co-opted and working for the cartels for nearly a year.  This co-opted employee was responsible for route planning and dispatching drivers to pick up loads. Security had asked the “trusted” employee to develop a list of misinformation with regard to route plans to try and confuse the cartels.  The misinformation was purposely leaked to individuals that were known to have been working for the cartels.  Of course, this approach was not working because the cartels knew all the true details from the co-opted insider. Information that was being disseminated related to high value loads.

Belatedly, after the two security personnel were killed, the company realized there was an inside leak and that is why they had been suffering losses in spite of their countermeasure efforts. They conducted an investigation and identified the insider who had been providing information to the cartels.

During an interview, the employee finally confessed to working for the cartel but claimed that his family was under threat by the cartel. This was sibseqiemtly found to be untrue.  In fact, the co-opted employee's family is currently living in New York and works in a Catholic Church, operating a child day-care service for the parish. The family is fine and under no threat according to authorities at the Church.  Church authorities explained they had known the family for years and they never displayed any sense of fear or appeared to be threatened in any way. Because this happened in Mexico the employee has not been brought up on any formal charges and the local police have claimed they have no idea what to charge the employee with, even though he is clearly involved in theft and murder. Since the interview with company security, the employee has "disappeared."

Details of how the cartel was able to target the foreign security personnel is not clear but both bodies have been recovered.

Analysis

What lessons can we learn from this unfortunate incident.

First, it is important for security personnel operating in Mexico to understand that if they are threatening or impeding cartel operations, they are potentially subject to being killed.  Security personnel operating in Mexico must take precautions and practice all security measures commensurate with the risks.

It is unfortunate that the company did not realize there was an insider earlier.  As is often the case, too many of the high value thefts were viewed, incorrectly, as being "bad luck" on the part of the company.  It is important to thoroughly investigate each theft and incident.  A good investigation could have uncovered the insider and potentially prevented two deaths and multiple high value cargo losses.

In fact, the majority of thefts and incidents in Mexico involve "insiders” who provide details to the cartels to enable them to successfully carry out their operations.  As in this case, when caught, the drivers or other insiders who have betrayed the company will claim they were under duress.  While duress does occur, in the majority of cases there was no duress.  The primary motivation for their actions is, very simply, greed.  Company security personnel should know that the "duress" claim is one the cartels recommend and train their personnel to use if caught.  They have determined that Western companies are sympathetic and are too often willing to accept this excuse.

Additionally, it was worth noting that the Mexican police are either incapable of, or unwilling to, adequately respond to insider betrayal.  If the individual has an opportunity, they will "disappear" so it is important to take immediate action and not plan on subsequent interviews or contacts.

Finally, it was sadly interesting that the "safe haven" concept was one that the cartels felt had enough merit that the individuals responsible for setting it up were killed.

A threat to supply chains in Mexico still remains a major security issue.

Kidnapping and Cargo Hijacking Incident – Mexico (follow-up)

SUMMARY:

I recently had an opportunity to interview the victim of a business-related kidnapping that occurred in late August, 2010, in Monterrey, Mexico.  This is a follow-up to the earlier security memo I published about related truck hijackings/thefts.  The hijacking and this kidnapping incident were all interrelated.  For purposes of the interview, the name and some details were altered to preserve confidentiality.

 The victim of the kidnapping was a 26-year-old engineer who resided in Toronto, Canada.  We shall call him, “Sam.”  At the request of his company he was sent to a manufacturing facility in the Monterrey area.  Sam arrived approximately two months ago and lived in a gated apartment complex with several other foreign staff.  Sam received no security briefings from his company except some general things about the threat of robbery, etc. which was concluded with the overall statement:  “Don’t believe all you read.  It is not that bad in Mexico.”

Based on these assurances, he went to Mexico to live and work.  Sam regularly went to work every day, leaving at the same time.  He usually went with a fabricating specialist, a European national, who worked at the same facility and company as a fabrication specialist and frequently drove.  He and the fabricator had no training in how to spot surveillances and pre-operational activities by criminal elements and Sam acknowledged they were oblivious to the threat.  Sam said they did not pay attention to anything around them because they lived in a gated community that had a “roving” security guard.  And, as Sam put it, “No one would be interested in us.”  On the morning they were kidnapped, when they pulled out of the complex, an automobile sped past them, as the fabricator, who was the driver, pulled his car out into the street, the speeding vehicle in front suddenly slammed on the brakes.  Since they were accelerating as they pulled out, this forced them to do a sudden stop as well.  As they stopped, a second car came up behind them and struck their vehicle on the bumper.  The driver (the fabricator) got out thinking he was involved in a “fender bender” accident.  The driver of the lead vehicle and two individuals from the car behind them all exited their vehicles and confronted the fabricator.  While he was watching what happened, Sam was distracted as one of the individuals broke off and came up the passenger window and banged on the window.  The engineer rolled the window down and was grabbed by the individual.  The occupants of the two vehicles suddenly brandished weapons and the fabricator and the engineer were threatened with being shot if they did not give up.  Sam related that the man holding him, then opened the door and pulled Sam out, while continuing to threaten him with a gun.  These individuals appeared to be of Hispanic ethnic background.  They spoke Spanish but also spoke some English to fabricator and Sam when giving them directions. The fabricator was handcuffed and put in the trunk of the follow car, the engineer had a black hood placed over his head and was put in the back seat of the fabricator’s car and was told to lie down on the seat/floor.  He was told not to talk or do anything and if he did, he would be shot.  The vehicles then drove for what Sam estimated to be 30-40 minutes and made a stop.  The engineer overheard individuals speaking in Spanish and talking.  After a while, everyone got back in the vehicles and another individual got in the car with Sam, while Sam was forced to lie on the floor and back seat.  They drove again.  This time Sam believed they drove for approximately 20-30 minutes when they made another stop.  This time the engineer heard individuals speaking in English.  He said they were apparently arguing about directions and where to go, to make turns, etc.  One of the individuals used the phrase:  “”bloody hell.”  They then drove to another site.  Because he had a hood on, Sam could not see anything but from sounds he believed they were now is some kind of industrial park, common in the Monterrey area of Mexico.  This time Sam heard a mix of individuals, some speaking English and some speaking Spanish.  He and the fabricator were placed in another vehicle.  It felt like there was a bench seat and Sam believed he and the fabricator were placed inside a van.  An individual entered the vehicle and began an interrogation in English.  This individual sounded as if he were “uncomfortable” with the whole situation and his voice sounded “stressed” to Sam.  He had some apparent engineering expertise and asked a lot of technical questions about the IC’s, things like the pull, ohms, etc. and usage.  While Sam got the bulk of the questions, they also asked the fabricator a few questions about fabrication issues.  There were two “interrogators” -- both speaking English – one apparently had engineering expertise, the second individual would ask the questions again (repeat them) if they paused in answering and would “push” them to cooperate quickly and answer the questions.  Sam said he tried to sort out voices and believed there were at least nine people at this site.  The fabricator and Sam talked and the fabricator said he thought he heard someone talking in what he thought was an “Asian” language but he could not identify it.  After a while, they heard two truck engines start up and they drove in the van to yet another site.  At this point all four individuals – the two truck drivers, the fabricator and Sam were all placed in the fabricator’s vehicle and were told not to move.  Apparently at that time, the kidnappers left.  The next thing they all heard, after sitting for a “long time” inside the car, was the voice of police officers, speaking in Spanish, as they were pulled out of the car.  As the police took off their hoods, the individuals found they had been parked on the side of a road, along with the two “hijacked” trucks.  Examination of the truck trailers determined that many of IC’s had been removed but some, along with some finished product, were left untouched.   According to Sam, these sensors are in very short supply in the market place right now because of production limits that started when the global economy slowed.  While the demand has increased, production has not yet ramped up to meet the new, expanded demand.  Sam said the police did very little and just asked some general questions, after an interpreter arrived.  All of the individuals involved – the two truck drivers, Sam and the fabricator, were interviewed together, as a group.  Sam said he was in “shock” and was still recovering, mentally, from the kidnapping incident even though he was not really injured.  His company had sent he and the fabricator back to their homes and told them to take a couple weeks off to recover and then return to Mexico.  Sam said he told the company he would not be returning to Mexico and tenured his resignation.  He said the fabricator was also resigning.

ANALYSIS/COMMENTS:

In spite of the company’s lackadaisical attitude about security in Mexico, there are some serious security issues in Mexico and employees – especially expatriates – need to receive security training and know how to avoid putting themselves in a vulnerable situation.  In hind sight, Sam acknowledged that if there was an opportunity to escape and if they had driven around the car in front and had gone to a police station or “safe haven” they probably could have avoided being kidnapped but they did not recognize that the threat until it was too late.  Sam was very angry at the company for not accurately describing the threat situation and advised he was contemplating legal action against the company.  As a minimum, the company’s poor security caused one valuable employee to resign.

It is obvious that this was a sophisticated well planned kidnapping where Sam and the fabricator were targeted and kidnapped in the same time frame as two trucks were hijacked that had left the factory where they worked.  To carry out this kind of operation, would require a great deal and coordination.  The sophistication and planning, and the description of the mixed team and voices, indicates this operation was probably carried out by an organized crime group in Mexico.  A number of the groups have taken to hiring mercenaries of various nationalities and are involved in supply chain security operations and kidnapping, ransom and extortion operations.  This incident highlights the complexity of supply chain security issues in Mexico and the importance of having a comprehensive security approach.