Protecting the Homeland

However, the security situation has now changed. We are being forced to face up to a new kind of terrorism. Terrorism that's of a global nature but also operationally fanatical, ruthless and perpetrated with little regard for human cost.

In allying closely with the USA, Great Britain has placed herself firmly in the front line. It's almost inevitable that, as some parts of the Western world harden their protective defences, those areas where Westerners go but which don't enjoy the same target hardening have become vulnerable soft underbellies for the terrorist. Bali and Kenya readily spring to mind.

Countries to which the British could once travel without too much trouble, either on business or tourism and in spite of our so-called shameful and colonial past, are becoming off-limits as extreme Islamic militants and their surrogate allies widen their campaign against the West.

Looking to the past
Anyone who was in the near and Middle East during the 1980s saw a marked increase in Islamic fundamentalism. Originating from Iran, it's now spreading – as was the case in the Middle Ages – across North Africa, the near East and into Europe. Christianity is not the enemy. Rather, it's modern Western cultures, US global ambitions and interference... not to mention Israel fighting for survival in the very cockpit of Islam and Christianity, namely the Middle East.

Back in the mid-1980s, an excellent TV documentary entitled 'The Sword of Islam' predicted that if Western nations continued to assume that their politics, lifestyles, traditions and cultures were the finest examples of democracy and freedom, then Islamic fundamentalists would react. They have done so, and are quite prepared to die for their beliefs... and take some of their opponents with them. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Militancy and the liberal culture
We are now facing up to that most dangerous of mixtures. The complex mix of strict, fanatical religious militancy against Western ideology and a liberal culture. In the UK, a recent poll would seem to suggest that the well-organised Muslim minority rejects the belief that Al-Qaida was to blame for much of the recent terrorist activity around the world. If a war is called against Iraq, there is a definite potential for civil disorder.

Symptomatic of the issue is the rejection of Turkey's entry into the European Union (EU) – allegedly because of its Human Rights record, but on the back of a former French President's notion that entry by a Muslim country might affect the development of the [Christian] EU.

On the other hand, Turkey was a brave ally on the United Nations' side in Korea, and has acted as a valued defender of NATO's 'right flank'. Which way will Turkey turn now?

In Great Britain, and indeed in other Western nations, when we want to ignore strong beliefs that oppose our history, culture and traditions we call it terrorism, and subsequently deploy ill-equipped and dysfunctional police forces to deal with the threat. Somehow those forces have succeeded, often by way of sheer good luck thanks to a 'breakthrough', deposited evidence and/or a painstaking assembly of information and intelligence. All of them so necessary in any investigation, of course.

Now, though, the threat is much more dangerous because of the lack of intelligence information, insufficient defenders and Islamic militants' methods of operation.

Alas, our law enforcement agencies do not enjoy a history of co-operation. During the Second World War, MI6 and MI5 didn't exactly co-operate with the Special Operations Executive.

The 43 constabularies are headed by chief constables, each with their own social and political agenda – not necessarily for the overall good and benefit of the nation. Otherwise, we should have a national police force.

Several forces have successfully alienated community crime prevention schemes because of the inability of the police to be flexible and appreciate the value of 'the community' as an ally. Crime doesn't follow police service operational boundaries. Result? The voluntary crime prevention schemes folded.

Other forces are wasting time investigating alleged military intelligence activities that took place in the so-called 'Shoot to Kill' campaign in Northern Ireland back in the early 1980s (an era when the security forces were engaged in a shooting war with Irish terrorists).

Now more than ever there appears to be a real need for Homeland security. Thus, Homeland defence must be led by an independent person. Tackling terrorism and militancy is arguably a modern version of counter-revolutionary warfare, except that there are no rules as there are in conventional warfare. Any rules that are set originate from the attacker, and it's then up to the defending security forces to respond.

Declaring terrorism to be a crime is not always the answer. Inevitably, this sort of warfare is dirty with the absolute necessity of 'black operations'. It's not the sort that can be fought by the media making mountains out of molehills, or in law courts or by police officers investigating dirty tricks (as increasingly seems to be the case with events in Northern Ireland). There again, the IRA has always been good at shouting 'foul play'. Key to managing terrorism in the local community is the 'Hearts and Minds' strategy.

Very few security companies have experienced security practitioners with the capability to analyse reports and trends at Board level. The security services have been turning away experienced intelligence officers, while the police have only recently reali

Security in the new world order
Bearing this in mind, is there a role for security in this new world order of fanatical terrorism? The answer has to be 'yes'. The security industry is a major employer in this country and has tentacles in virtually every sector – ranging from international corporate security and risk management to aviation, marine and retail security to technology.

That said, to a great extent this huge resource of experience in law enforcement, Customs and Excise and naval and military intelligence – not to mention the accumulated skills in information collection and intelligence collation – lies largely sidelined by the defenders.

The lessons of the Home Guard – and more recently the Home Service Force – lie untapped, but there might be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. The police believe, but have yet to prove, that they can detect and prevent modern day crime on their own. It's of interest that, under the Police Reform Act of 2002, for the purposes of investigation, detention and escort work the police can use non-police officers... which tends to suggest the police are realising that there are exploitable skills outside of their ranks and available to them.

Police powers have yet to be extended to manned security, but it's security officers who form the bulk of our industry and are the ones who could make a major contribution to Homeland security if given the opportunity. However, if the prevailing opinion among chief constables is that security officers 'guard', there's a massive learning curve to be surmounted by the law enforcement agencies. A better way of describing the security officer would be to say that they 'protect' (vis-à-vis 'protective security'). The police should bear in mind the security officer's role as Cash-in-Transit collector, prisoner escort, CCTV operator and public servant dealing with crime, disturbances and anxious patients in hospitals.

Security officers are a huge intelligence resource, but who will collect the mass of information needed to combat terrorism? Very few security companies have experienced security practitioners with the capability to analyse reports and trends at Board level. The security services have been turning away experienced intelligence officers, while the police have only recently realised the value of co-ordinated, intelligence-led operations. Indeed, at the lower levels they're not really staffed to handle raw information.

In the event of a catastrophe, security officers are quite likely to be directly involved – as several were in the World Trade Centre disaster. They could play a vital role in securing cordons around an affected area, although they'd need legal powers to ensure its integrity. The absence of civil defence is a major issue, but does this mean a wider role for security companies? Only lateral thinking, but who else has a reasonably disciplined force that could help with rescue work?

Making sure our homework's done
There is every reason why the manned security sector must play a full role in Homeland security, but the sector also has some homework of its own to do. The big problem is that, historically, we have never really had to deal with some of the problems encountered in Europe. Thus the esteem of many manned security companies is low.

However, many security officers have been in post a long time, and have an intimate knowledge of the customs and culture of their bailiwicks. It is the security officer patrolling on foot and talking to people who will see the unusual – not the police officer in the patrol car. It's in this role that security officers can be a valuable intelligence asset.

If the UK's manned security industry wants to be seen as a valuable player in Homeland defence, indeed in any contract, it should look to Europe and the successful interfacing of police and security operations. However, the lack of a career path, too many non-security practitioners, low pay and ineffective management has led to manned security being demeaned as opposed to being seen in its true light – as an untapped and valuable asset.

Training is disparate and, to be frank, generally ineffective because standards differ so markedly.

So what do we need? We need a residential security college run by the industry to develop and standardise training and education. Any notion that it should be modelled on police and prison service training colleges must be challenged. There is enough experience in the industry as a whole to develop a successful scheme.

In addition, each security company should employ – at a senior level – a trained security practitioner able to analyse information. Too many manned security executives hardly know what the word 'security' means and, as opposed to developing their staff and company into an effective security organisation, are more concerned about the bottom line. This is particularly true among the smaller companies.

We should also be looking to reduce the number of associations and organisations in the security sector such that the time-wasting political struggle aimed at vying for power to see who deals with Government is reduced.

And, in a year when the Home Office licensing of individuals employed in the security sector begins to take shape, the Security Industry Authority needs to develop a security culture based not on police, prison service or military models but on a unique brand.

We have embarked upon a long and drawn out war. Extremist militancy and terrorism is insipid, ruthless and dangerous to ignore. Our national security and law enforcement agencies will not be able to defend the country on their own. Sooner or later, they'll need to enlist the services of others.