Coverage and Deterrence: questioning the US Federal Air Marshal Programme

14 Jun 2010

Robert Raffel questions the efficacy of the US Federal Air Marshal Service and the return on the investment, before suggesting an alternative model for the programme.

On Christmas Day 2009 a young man from Nigeria, travelling from Amsterdam to Detroit, attempted to ignite a bomb sewn into his underwear.  The attempt, mimicking that of Richard Reid, who attempted to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight with explosives in his shoes, on 22 December 2001, was also a failure.  The latest would-be bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was subdued by passengers on the aircraft – there were no Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) on board.  Shortly thereafter, an alarmed general public began calling for better security at airport screening checkpoints.  By the first week of January 2010, President Obama had opined on the matter.  Embracing the time-tested model of action-reaction that has characterised aviation security over the past four decades, he stated that “…human and systemic failures” were responsible for the attempt, having contributed to a “potentially catastrophic breakdown in security.”[1] The President went on to call for a “surge” of Federal Air Marshals to be completed by the beginning of February.  Administration officials characterised the action as “a race against time.”[2]

The Threat Response

The Christmas Day threat response is indicative of the United States’ reaction to attacks against its citizens, especially where civil aviation assets are concerned.  Attention is immediately drawn to the specific event; appropriate technology is identified (in this case the full-body scanning machines, controversial due to their ability to “see” beyond one’s clothing). Millions of dollars are spent, taken from some agency’s budget or through emergency appropriations[3], and the latest machine – accompanied by appropriate fanfare – is deployed.   A public official – in this case the President – makes the desired mea culpa (“A failure of imagination”; “unacceptable system failure”); more money is thrown at the immediate problem and the public is cowed by prophesies of impending doom through the possibility of further and imminent attacks (hence, the “race against time”)[4]. (More online)

[1] Telegraph Media Group, 29 December 2009.  Retrieved from www.telegraph.colus/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6908709 3/24/2010.

[2] ABC News, “Obama Orders Air Marshal Surge by Feb. 1: ‘Race Against Time’. 6/1/10.

[3] In the aftermath of the bombing attempt, President Obama proposed a 1% increase in spending from 2010 in the Homeland Security Agency’s budget.  The funds are requested to pay for 1,000 technologically advanced machines for airports, and money to hire more federal air marshals (the exact figure is classified).  Seattle Times, Politics and Government, Associated Press, 2/2/2010.

[4] It should be noted that, in his 28 December 2009 speech concerning the event, the President also noted that the US will “…do more than simply strengthen our defences.  We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us.”  Washington Post, 28/12/2009.

Leave a Reply