WhatFinger


If you are a dignitary or executive, you need to consider a VIP protection specialist

Decision-makers should hire Protection Specialists, not Bodyguards



By now people have heard of the knife attack on US Ambassador Mark Lippert when he was in South Korea attending a breakfast seminar. The visit occurred in the context of joint South Korean-U.S. military exercises at sea. Lippert had one guy news articles referred to as being either a “bodyguard” or a “security guard”.
The knife-wielding attacker was Kim Ki-jong, who approached Ambassador Lippert when he was seated at a table. This incident teaches us about what true protection of a dignitary requires. The fact the attack happened means two things: 1) that the bodyguard did not perform a threat analysis of the possible dangers Lippert was likely to face travelling to Korea, and 2) that the bodyguard could not react quickly enough to stop the attack (Ki-jong did succeed in slicing up Lippert’s hand and face). The difference between an executive or dignitary protection specialist and a bodyguard has always been that the former conducts threat assessments and then, through a threat management plan, pre-empts hazards from occurring. So, if a protection specialist were hired to conduct a threat assessment for this situation what would he have learned? When looking at intentional hazards against the safety or life of a client, the most likely attacker of a US ambassador in South Korea would be the North Korean dictatorship—or anyone working for the regime as a spy/saboteur. North Korea’s regime views S. Korea as the enemy. Because America is South Korea’s ally, N. Korea would view the US as an enemy, too. In fact, N. Korea would especially hate that the world’s only superpower (as opposed to a weaker country) would be supporting the South Koreans. As a superpower, the U.S. government can use it’s vast resources, its global economic influence and political power to help South Korea against N. Korea.

Support Canada Free Press


A threat assessment based on those facts would show that an attack on a U.S. ambassador visiting South Korea would symbolize disapproval of the US-S. Korean alliance. It would also represent opposition to the joint military training exercises. (North Korea did, after all, shoot missiles into the water where S. Korean and U.S. military ships were conducting their training. And Ki-jong himself said he attacked Lippert in protest of the S. Korean/American exercises). Further, an attack on a U.S. Ambassador will also show S. Koreans that even a representative of a super power like America can easily be bloodied-up and victimized. In demonstrating that a US ambassador is very vulnerable to injury, such an attack would demoralize the seminar’s S. Korean attendees who view the US and its representatives as “strong” allies. The attack would make Lippert, and by extension America, look “weak”. The attack would also disrupt the breakfast seminar. Therefore, North Korea or one of its spies would be the likeliest attacker. At the very least, a threat assessment would reveal a strong possibility that an attack would occur either from a radical “protester” acting on his own or a saboteur specifically recruited by the N. Korean regime for the purpose. The greater likelihood is for the later possibility since demoralizing the Southerners in the aforementioned way is something the N. Korean regime has a stronger interest in doing than the lone “protester” has. The above evaluation is information that a competent threat assessment would have unveiled for the ambassador and his protector. Had a threat assessment been done, a protection specialist would have devised counter-measures to pre-empt Ki-jong’s attack. By contrast, the fact the attack on Ambassador Lippert did occur should teach travelling business executives and dignitaries that security/bodyguards are not enough to keep them safe and that it is much better to hire a protection specialist. A protection specialist can preempt trouble whereas a security/bodyguard can only react after the attack has started. An effective dignitary/executive protection plan would safeguard the client’s life, save him humiliation, help him achieve his mission, maintain his government’s reputation and prevent legal/financial liabilities and medical costs. If you are a dignitary or executive, you need to consider a VIP protection specialist.


View Comments

George Koukeas -- Bio and Archives

George Koukeas is a freelance writer focusing on political news and commentary and has been published in newspapers, magazines and websites. 


Sponsored