1
1
0
From: Army Times
U.S. military bases in Europe will heighten their security precautions in response to recent terrorist attacks and plots in France, Belgium and Germany.
Stars and Stripes reports U.S. European Command spokesman Navy Capt. Greg Hicks on Wednesday said installations will implement "additional force-protection measures and random security enhancements at facilities across the EUCOM area of responsibility."
"We continually assess threats to our forces with and alongside our host-nation counterparts and take appropriate measures based on those assessments," Hicks told Stars and Stripes.
Hicks did not say what these new protocols would be, or offer a threat assessment in the European area of responsibility, Stars and Stripes said.
Additional security protocols at military installations were not immediately carried out after three masked men armed with automatic rifles killed 12 people and wounded 11 others in an attack Jan. 7 on the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hedbo.
At the time, Hicks told Military Times that European Command had already taken a number of steps meant to protect troops and their families.
In November, EUCOM told troops not to wear their uniforms off base unless commuting to or from work.
"In addition, all personnel should review individual social media account security and geo-location functions/settings to ensure their profiles are not overly revealing," according to a Nov. 10 EUCOM directive.
Hicks said earlier this month the security measures implemented in November were not related to Islamic State threats, but did not specify why the threat the security precautions increased.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/01/22/military-bases-in-europe-to-increase-security-protocols/22150029/
U.S. military bases in Europe will heighten their security precautions in response to recent terrorist attacks and plots in France, Belgium and Germany.
Stars and Stripes reports U.S. European Command spokesman Navy Capt. Greg Hicks on Wednesday said installations will implement "additional force-protection measures and random security enhancements at facilities across the EUCOM area of responsibility."
"We continually assess threats to our forces with and alongside our host-nation counterparts and take appropriate measures based on those assessments," Hicks told Stars and Stripes.
Hicks did not say what these new protocols would be, or offer a threat assessment in the European area of responsibility, Stars and Stripes said.
Additional security protocols at military installations were not immediately carried out after three masked men armed with automatic rifles killed 12 people and wounded 11 others in an attack Jan. 7 on the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hedbo.
At the time, Hicks told Military Times that European Command had already taken a number of steps meant to protect troops and their families.
In November, EUCOM told troops not to wear their uniforms off base unless commuting to or from work.
"In addition, all personnel should review individual social media account security and geo-location functions/settings to ensure their profiles are not overly revealing," according to a Nov. 10 EUCOM directive.
Hicks said earlier this month the security measures implemented in November were not related to Islamic State threats, but did not specify why the threat the security precautions increased.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/01/22/military-bases-in-europe-to-increase-security-protocols/22150029/
Security
Military Installations
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 5
5
5
0
Aaand the photo to illustrate increased security on base? Empty mag wells.
(5)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Which is actually a beautiful illustration of the nonsensical policy that was probably implemented truly: telling service-member to 'be more alert' and 'keep a low profile' and asking whichever civilian police agency or limited military police or security element is actually authorized to carry live rounds to be more aware.
I know I'm a broken record, but there's a reason:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces
I know I'm a broken record, but there's a reason:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces
Arm the Armed Forces! | RallyPoint
The outcome of the discussion "Concealed carry for CAC holders?" by [~222148:SGT Bernard Boyer III]. Below follows my skeleton letter to congress, based on the edits RP members have suggested to the 10 points. Anyone and everyone is welcome to edit and personalize the letter for their own use in writing to their congressional representatives. We sent a mass email on 3 January, the swearing in of the new congress, now it's a free for all. You...
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
CPT Zachary Brooks
So you are going to tell me that 70 years is too early? We are still in Germany and Japan...
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
And the reason there is a photo of the 1st Cav is what???? Last time i checked they were on rotations.....So are they the added security there? So every rotation there is security or what???
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Mixed emotions about this...
Having been responsible for security of military installations in three theaters (Europe, Korea/Pacific and USCENTCOM AOR), I would tell you that there is a need for adequate security at all times, not just times of "increased risk". What to do and how to do it are the questions.
The best increase in security is constantly changing the way your security is viewed/perceived by anybody watching. Most terrorist attacks are planned and are based on surveillance of security forces, etc. Constant changing of guards posts, weapons, patrol routes, etc. get into the terrorists' planning cycle and keeps them off-guard. As such, the outward changes that people can see are important, but so are the ones that should not be made public.
One problem of "increasing security" absent a specific threat is determining when to stand-down the increased security. If it was raised absent a threat, how do you gauge when that non-specific threat has gone away. In addition, installations/facilities are most vulnerable as security is being reduced. Case in point: I was in Korea as the Provost Marshal/Military Police Brigade Commander when the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing happened. There was an immediate cry to increase security across Korea. My question was "What is the threat to installations in Korea due to a bombing in Oklahoma?" and "If we increase security now, based on this non-threat to installations in Korea, what will trigger our decision to later reduce the increased security?" We added a few random security measures, but we did not over-react and double the guard force, conduct 100% detailed checks of all vehicles entering the various installations, etc. that are typical with this type of knee-jerk reaction. And, later, without fanfare or publicity, we reverted back to the normal security posture, which, in itself, was already pretty robust.
Don't get me wrong... I am a big proponent of effective and robust security. In today's world, it is absolutely essential. However, security managers must weigh realistic, sustainable security standards and practices with realistic threat scenarios and find that happy balance between unsustainable over-kill and providing effective and sustainable security for the installations/facilities/people they are protecting. Not an easy task and it is made harder by knee-jerk reactions to incidents worlds away that are not remotely related to your situation.
The security posture of each installation/facility is unique and must be based on the probable local threat. Adequate staffing, proper equipment, constant vigilance, and changing the way security looks to people observing are the best ways to ensure success.
Having been responsible for security of military installations in three theaters (Europe, Korea/Pacific and USCENTCOM AOR), I would tell you that there is a need for adequate security at all times, not just times of "increased risk". What to do and how to do it are the questions.
The best increase in security is constantly changing the way your security is viewed/perceived by anybody watching. Most terrorist attacks are planned and are based on surveillance of security forces, etc. Constant changing of guards posts, weapons, patrol routes, etc. get into the terrorists' planning cycle and keeps them off-guard. As such, the outward changes that people can see are important, but so are the ones that should not be made public.
One problem of "increasing security" absent a specific threat is determining when to stand-down the increased security. If it was raised absent a threat, how do you gauge when that non-specific threat has gone away. In addition, installations/facilities are most vulnerable as security is being reduced. Case in point: I was in Korea as the Provost Marshal/Military Police Brigade Commander when the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing happened. There was an immediate cry to increase security across Korea. My question was "What is the threat to installations in Korea due to a bombing in Oklahoma?" and "If we increase security now, based on this non-threat to installations in Korea, what will trigger our decision to later reduce the increased security?" We added a few random security measures, but we did not over-react and double the guard force, conduct 100% detailed checks of all vehicles entering the various installations, etc. that are typical with this type of knee-jerk reaction. And, later, without fanfare or publicity, we reverted back to the normal security posture, which, in itself, was already pretty robust.
Don't get me wrong... I am a big proponent of effective and robust security. In today's world, it is absolutely essential. However, security managers must weigh realistic, sustainable security standards and practices with realistic threat scenarios and find that happy balance between unsustainable over-kill and providing effective and sustainable security for the installations/facilities/people they are protecting. Not an easy task and it is made harder by knee-jerk reactions to incidents worlds away that are not remotely related to your situation.
The security posture of each installation/facility is unique and must be based on the probable local threat. Adequate staffing, proper equipment, constant vigilance, and changing the way security looks to people observing are the best ways to ensure success.
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SPC Scott Mayhew
Good question... I guess, in some folks minds, having a weapon without ammunition gives the appearance of enhanced security without the risk of accidental discharges, etc. Just for the record, I don't buy into that. If a soldier has a weapon, give him/her ammunition to go with it. Then the question is loaded/unloaded and round in the chamber or not.
Might as well give a guard a baseball bat or a broom as give him/her an unloaded weapon.
Good question... I guess, in some folks minds, having a weapon without ammunition gives the appearance of enhanced security without the risk of accidental discharges, etc. Just for the record, I don't buy into that. If a soldier has a weapon, give him/her ammunition to go with it. Then the question is loaded/unloaded and round in the chamber or not.
Might as well give a guard a baseball bat or a broom as give him/her an unloaded weapon.
(1)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
Agreed ... In my civilian career, following retirement from the Army, I have been in charge of several thousand security personnel, from basic guards to high-end para-military security police officers guarding sensitive national security assets. We have never issued our security personnel weapons without ammunition ... except for cleaning. :-) Just makes no damn sense... At least, Barney Fife (you might be too young to know who that is) had a bullet in his shirt pocket (see picture).
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google