Attack on Trump, Lessons to Learn

Towards the end of 2010, while leading the Federal Police, I had the opportunity to study the phenomenon of domestic and international terrorism directly in the field, in what war jargon refers to as the theater of operations.

During my stay in the Middle East, some colleagues from the delegation who traveled to that region asked our host for recommendations to face the challenges we would encounter upon our return to Mexico. The response was, "I don't give recommendations because not everything is written on these topics, and many areas have not been explored, but I can share my notebook of mistakes, from which much can be learned."

This is relevant because, following the assassination attempt on Donald Trump on the afternoon of Saturday, July 13, in Butler, Pennsylvania, countless "experts" in Mexico attacked the Secret Service, highlighting their errors, even where there were none.

Others speculated about a staged event or self-attack without substantial evidence or the necessary knowledge to analyze such an event.

It's not wrong to make such comments to prevent future repetitions by those of us dedicated to the difficult task of protecting the life of a candidate, dignitary, or executive, and not just studying it from the comfort of a desk. However, I haven't seen anyone highlight any positive aspect that enabled the presidential candidate of the United States to survive.

Undoubtedly, several mistakes were made, and those in charge of Trump's security detail will have to face administrative and possibly penal consequences, mainly for omissions. However, we shouldn't burn the Secret Service at the stake; we must remember that it is individuals who fail, not institutions.

In executive protection, if something goes well, it’s your duty and doesn't merit a reward, but if something fails, it shouldn't be demonized but corrected to continue providing service because it never ends.

We cannot overlook the neglected outer perimeter, the failed protocols for inspecting surrounding buildings and individuals in all spaces, the slow evacuation of the principal, leaving him exposed to another potential attack, and the decision-making flaws when the Secret Service sniper informed his superior minutes before the attacker fired at Trump but wasn't authorized to neutralize him. In this field, every passing second is a fleeing opportunity, and in the end, it was the aggressor who fired first.

This unfortunate event, where a family man lost his life protecting his wife and children, should make us retrospectively review what happened in Mexico in terms of candidate protection during the last elections. A single attack stripped us of the moral authority to point out others' mistakes. I refer to the incident on May 29 in Coyuca de Benítez, Guerrero, where the attacker could approach his target, the mayoral candidate, to within centimeters without the escorts reacting to prevent the assassination.

In summary, although the attack on Donald Trump will be investigated as domestic terrorism (possibly by a lone shooter), it remains an opportunity to learn from mistakes and reminds us that regardless of a candidate's level, no one is safe from a similar event, even if they claim not to have enemies, especially if they incite political violence. We must remember that those who sow winds reap storms. The only way to ensure nothing happens and swim in calm waters is by doing nothing, as happens in our country.

BY FACUNDO ROSAS R.
FORMER GENERAL COMMISSIONER OF THE FEDERAL POLICE
@FACROSAS