Despair in the air
Air marshals program is in serious need of reform
Since 9/11, Americans have been led to believe that undercover U.S. air marshals sit inconspicuously among everyday passengers, ready to leap into action with guns drawn should terrorists once again target commercial airliners. Now, we’re told, not so much.
The program is a shambles, The New York Times reported Wednesday, citing alcohol abuse, low morale, burnout and ineffectiveness among the program’s 3,000 or so marshals. Some marshals stay awake on long flights by drinking, a violation of policy. Some have questioned the agency’s decision to staff as many flights as possible instead of focusing on those considered the biggest targets for terrorists, with one describing the work as window dressing.
The story followed two other alarming assessments of the program. In a September report, the Government Accountability Office said the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees the air marshals, had no data evaluating the program’s effectiveness or justifying the $800 million annual expense. A month later, in a ludicrously brief and vague abstract of a classified report, the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general acknowledged “limitations” in the program’s “contributions to aviation security” and recommended other uses for the agency’s money if officials were to decide to scale back the agency’s work.
It all raises the question of what happened to a vaunted program that existed on a small scale since the 1960s but expanded quickly after the 2001 terrorist attacks. By late September 2001, the program had a new recruiting website and 150,000 job applicants, many of them veterans of other law enforcement agencies who wanted to be on the front lines of the war against terror.
As Americans debate border security, travel bans and other means to keep the country safe, it’s shameful that the government quietly allowed the air marshal program to become a chink in the nation’s armor. It was once, and still could be, one of the best hopes for preventing another terror attack. Instead of scaling back or reconsidering the need for the program, as some critics have suggested, the government should immediately take steps to fix it.