« New battle lines in the fog of ObamaCare | Is Washington Post coverage of Israel crossing the line into anti-Semitism? »
PrintNovember 19, 2010
A modest airport security proposal
Perhaps we will begin to get serious about homeland security. The phrase was coined with the best of intentions when many of the functions of the agencies tasked with providing our national security were combined under the new, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security http in 2003.
Five minutes of listening to our current Secretary of Homeland Security is enough to convince any serious person that, as usual, bigger government is not the answer. The headlines grabbed by the latest Transportation Administration miscues provides solid proof that hiring a scrum of bureaucrats and throwing money at the problem doesn't work.
That high-pitched whirring noise you might be able to detect is the result of our Founding Fathers spinning in their graves over the combination of high-mindedness and obtuseness demonstrated by Barack Obama and his administrative minions in the Islamist Admiration society that passes for our current national security apparatus. The Founding Fathers had a clearly defined agency designed to deal with those agents, both foreign and domestic, who wished America harm: it was called the Department of War. This agency served us well from 1789-1947, with a 1.000% winning percentage in the Wars of 1812, the Spanish-American War, World Wars I & II and a number of lesser skirmishes no less vital to the republic. Since 1947, with the euphemistically re-named "Department of Defense," the winning percentage is not so good.
Despite the fact that Iran, Al-Qaeda and a few handfuls of Jihadist organizations have declared war against us, Americans have demonstrated our unseriousness by electing a total foreign-policy lightweight as President. We have allowed our representatives to approve nominees to important positions in our federal security network who have no business being in charge of our national security.
What could the good people of Arizona have been thinking when they elected Janet Napolitano governor? Have you ever listened to her speak? Beyond the politically correct gibberish she spouts, her tone is monotonous with nary an inflection. How did she ever get elected to any position? Of course, when it came time to select a stout defender to set the tone and image for the Department of Homeland Security, it would have been logical to consider someone like Arnold Schwarznegger for the position. His actual positions are obviously too wimpy, but at least he looks the part.
What with Vladimir Putin providing serial macho poses for the western media to bolster Russia's image, the selection of a bold and imposing leader as head of our Homeland Security apparatus might have been a media relations coup for B.O. Instead the twittering world is treated with perhaps the only public woman in America dumpier than Hillary Clinton, shuffling around in her Birkenstocks as she drones on about the latest Homeland Security euphemism designed to downplay our focus on those who actually commit terrorist acts. Come to think of it, the image of Hillary Clinton probably instills fear in B.O.
The American people are clearly fed up with the Homeland Security Kabuki theater we are treated to instead of genuine security at our airports. The minimally qualified mopes hired by management at TSA are clearly incapable of protecting anything beyond their own personal paychecks. Of course, if we leave it up to the current administration and the liberal judges with whom they collude, America's worst-dressed and poorly groomed federal agency will soon have union representation. Before long, we will be able to add "over-paid" to the litany of their short-comings.
The solution is abundantly clear: If we are going to ever get serious about airport security in America, we need to leave it fully in the hands of our military forces. It wouldn't take long to devise a national security regimen for our trusted men and women in uniform to install military discipline in our airports.
Modeled along the lines of Israeli air security, our soldiers could provide vigilance and re-focus our attention on those travelers who seem most likely to be disruptive or violent. Engagement by intensive interview seems likely to be more fruitful than random feel-ups. We could call it our "Do Ask-Do Tell" Airport Security Program.
Ralph Alter is a regular contributor to American Thinker.
