The traditional approach to close protection emphasizes evasion, discretion, and avoidance of threats. This method aims to minimize risk to the client by preventing confrontations. However, some security teams have considered shifting towards more aggressive tactics, including ground assaults and high firepower maneuvers, similar to military operations. While this might sound effective in theory, it often proves impractical and potentially hazardous in the context of close protection for several reasons. ### The Shift to Aggressive Tactics: Analysis and Examples In scenarios where a security team transitions from an evasive approach to employing tactics like fire and movement, the nature of operations changes fundamentally. For instance, while securing a door to keep an exit route open for the client ('off the X') is a standard practice in protective services, turning a situation into a firefight requires a significantly different setup and risk assessment. An example of this would be the deployment of a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) or a Counter Assault Team (CAT). While having enough firepower to support such teams suggests the ability to handle an escalated threat, it also implies having the resources to quickly move the client away from the area of operation. This is not only resource-intensive but also demands clearances and coordination that go beyond standard protective services. ### The Argument Against Ground Assault in Close Protection 1. **Visibility and Exposure**: Utilizing high firepower and ground assault tactics increases the visibility of the operation, potentially escalating situations that could have been defused quietly. It attracts unwanted attention and can make the protected individual a more obvious target. 2. **Resource and Asset Requirements**: Effective ground assault operations require significant assets, including personnel trained in advanced combat tactics, support for heavy weaponry, and logistical support to manage these operations. Most close protection details do not have access to such extensive resources. 3. **Legal and Ethical Constraints**: Engaging in aggressive military-style tactics can lead to complex legal issues, especially in foreign jurisdictions or urban areas where collateral damage and civilian safety become concerns. The legal ramifications of using such force can be profound, affecting not only the immediate operation but also the long-term reputation and operation of the protective service. 4. **Operational Practicality**: The primary objective of close protection is the safety and security of the client, which is typically best achieved through minimization of conflict and exposure. Ground assaults contradict this principle by potentially increasing the risk of harm. In conclusion, while the idea of incorporating ground assault and high firepower into close protection might seem to offer an added layer of security, the practicalities and risks associated with such tactics often make them unsuitable. The focus should remain on strategic planning, threat avoidance, and minimal force application, aligned with the core objectives of close protection.
Israel! Treine seus parceiros estratégicos do mais simples ao mais complexo setor e de pessoas. Ensinem a se defender com armas e forma sutis a completas situações. Aprendam e o resto cumprirá
These are very questionable tactics... that is not how you clear a room at all!! And what is going on with the peek a boo thing he is doing with his head? I am not going to say what i do for work on here but ill tell you one thing as a professional this is a good way to get urself killed. This isnt call of duty
Absolute most junk tactics ever! I'm sure this works against women and children and other unarmed civilians but chicken winging like that will get you shot every time. This weeble wobble israeli stuff is such nonsense. There's a reason no one else trains it. It's bc it's designed for a low skilled conscription army. If you're actually worried about shooting your hand than you might be slightly mentally handicapped.
what a joke...is this real Israeli tactics...is this school learn from IDF.....peek the position they fire....your delayed....maybe this is an airsoft technique of children's peek a boo tactics. This is a blatant abuse of usage of the word ISRAEL....they don't teach like this...maybe this company is based in USA and using the name ISRAEL to magnet ignorant students...for money sake.
IMPRESIONANTE!!!, con la agidilad, rapidés y técnicas, con las que cuentan estas fuerzas de élite de la seguridad israelí. 👍👏👏👏👏👏👏, mi esposo, es instructor de Krav Maga y mi hijo también lo practica, espero alguna vez estén por allá y puedan recibir clases con ustedes los expertos en la materia. FELICITACIONES al pueblo de Israel, son dignos hijos del Creador Todopoderoso!!!!👏👏👏👍🙏
Perhaps I’m not understanding the context here, on contact you immediately push the client over, potentially into the other shooter (hopefully is it not older and now you’re breaking bones potentially). You both run forward to engage the threat, leaving the client unprotected and you are assuming the client will not freak out and try to run somewhere. If you both get hit, then the client is essentially screwed/dead/kidnapped. I’m not sure why the bodyguard does not cover/grab the client and get off the x, because you’ve done your security risk assessment on the place and are sitting close to an exit, while the shooter engages the bad guys. Ideally a wouldn’t a fighting withdrawal to cover, then out the exit to the vehicle be better tactical drill than running headlong into a pack of shooters who essentially have the drop on you? These look more life infantry counter ambush tactics than close protection drills. Unless the noncombative is nobody, then it doesn’t matter.
Thanks for the questions: - The vip need to go down with the help or without the help of the bodyguard - We assume although the prevention effort we would be surprise as last line of defence. - since we will be surprised I need to focus resources on elimination of threat as priority ( always) and assisting team mates (always ) Only when situations is controlled (even for a brief moment ) I will consider evacuating with base of fire to give me cover Hopefully it helped You are more then welcome to call us for more information 202-674-7255 (Tomer Israeli - Head of school)
This bullshit. If you operate like this probably you're going to be shot. Where's"distance is your friend" Where's the"cut around the pie" This is pure bullshit. I'm glad that i was trained in US and not in israel. All guys that i knew that they have trained in Israel ALL of them had poor skills.
@@idkwhythisismyhandle you believe these guys are very skilled. They are far from it. IDF SOF do not train like this. The chief instructor doing a helo infil on top of a bus like he’s Rambo is more than a joke. All his videos are garbage. Guy’s like this are teaching you how to be deluded and therefore get killed. He’s selling adrenaline & that’s it. His CQB tactics, weapon drills, counter vehicle ambush drills are all a joke. Any former military can see this.
