Reduction in French Presidential Security (Tearline)
Video Transcript:
Video Transcript:
Media reports indicate that France's newly inaugurated President Francois Hollande has decided to decrease his presidential security team. An Associated Press report indicates that the team will "shrink" from 93 protection agents to less than 60. We'd like to examine the ramifications of both the decision to reduce staff, and the public knowledge of the decision. To be blunt, a reduction in presidential security is not prudent, nor is the public admission.
The office of France's new president, Francois Hollande, has announced that the presidential security team will be reorganized, including a significant decrease in staff. According to the official statement, the decision was made in part due to Hollande's desire to live a more normal life than his predecessor, while also decreasing public spending. Hollande also told reporters that he would continue to live in his rented Paris apartment, rather than moving into more secure presidential quarters.
The positions that will be eliminated are still unclear, so the exact impact on Hollande's protection is still to be determined. But even if Hollande retains enough staff to keep the president safe, the announcement of these measures is not prudent from a protective intelligence perspective. There are several reasons for this.
First, individuals who are likely to be targeted -- including heads of state -- often fail to recognize the public safety ramifications of their decisions, usually because they do not fully understand the threats they face. Because of his position and the symbolism attached to his role as the head of state, the president now carries that threat to every location that he visits. This also places the public in these locations in harm's way. This is especially important in France because of the persistent threats of violence, as evidenced by the recent attacks in Toulouse. Hollande's decision to stay in a residential area rather than moving into a more secured and secluded presidential residence is, in essence, placing not only himself, but also the public, at greater risk.
Second, the public admissions of a reduced protective detail may actually raise the president's threat level. Why? The idea that there is less protection around the president will give mentally disturbed persons, stalkers and terrorist groups the opportunity to plan for reduced protective coverages. Instead, a more prudent measure would be to better use the resources that are already available, including reprogramming the visible assets into covert countersurveillance agents who will look for the threat before it materializes.
What is the Above the Tearline aspect of this video?
Protected persons want to live a normal life, which we very much understand, but in reality, they cannot do so without compromising their own safety and the safety of those around them. Public messaging of the intention to decrease security protection can only increase this risk. The U.S. Secret Service and the State Department have learned these lessons through countless tragedies. The protectee's level of comfort or the political situation should not be the deciding factors in the level of security coverage.
