reportfurther
16th Jan 2002, 07:34
Doubts are being expressed, with one view being that marshals are more effective on the ground
Even before the project has taken off, a debate is raging on the use of thousands of air marshals on flights given the high costs involved, with many asserting that marshals on ground make more sense than in the air.
At the same time, the US military is exploring ways to stop the around-the-clock anti-terrorism patrols that fighter jets have been flying over American cities since Sept 11, defence officials said.
President George W. Bush turned to air marshals to combat 'the menace of air piracy,' after the September terrorist attacks, deploying specially trained and armed federal agents on airliners.
Even though the programme has been rapidly expanded to perhaps 2,000 or more marshals, odds remain low that any given flight will have plainclothes marshals aboard.
'What the government is doing is promoting a programme to make people feel good,' said Mr Douglas Laird, a former security director for Northwest Airlines, who thinks Mr Bush should find a better way to spend taxpayers' money.
'Security is best ensured before the plane departs. I'd rather have marshals help on the ground than have them on the plane to shoot it out with someone - at that point, it's too late.'
Others are concerned that the marshals again will face budget cutbacks as soon as the perception of a threat recedes.
Advocates of the programme say air marshals can be an effective part of a many-layered security strategy.
'I always maintained, and still do, that it has a deterrent effect,' said Mr O.K. Steele, a retired Marine Corps general who headed the Federal Aviation Administration's security branch in the early 1990s.
'Terrorists would never know whether they would have to confront marshals. To be able to overcome them, they would have to put more people on a flight. And when they put more people on, they're exposing themselves to detection by other means.'
The FAA, which runs the marshals programme, has little to say about it, citing a security need to keep its operations secret.
Meanwhile, officials said any decision on ending the combat air patrols by fighter jets may come down to largely a political calculation of how safe Americans would feel without them.
Officials have been looking to cut back on the programme, knowing from the outset that the high-tempo use of manpower, equipment and money could not be kept up for long with the existing people and budget, one defence official said.
The operation uses 11,000 people and 250 aircraft, another official said.
From Sept 11 to Dec 10, the operation flew 13,000 missions. The cost was US$324 million (S$600 million).
Even before the project has taken off, a debate is raging on the use of thousands of air marshals on flights given the high costs involved, with many asserting that marshals on ground make more sense than in the air.
At the same time, the US military is exploring ways to stop the around-the-clock anti-terrorism patrols that fighter jets have been flying over American cities since Sept 11, defence officials said.
President George W. Bush turned to air marshals to combat 'the menace of air piracy,' after the September terrorist attacks, deploying specially trained and armed federal agents on airliners.
Even though the programme has been rapidly expanded to perhaps 2,000 or more marshals, odds remain low that any given flight will have plainclothes marshals aboard.
'What the government is doing is promoting a programme to make people feel good,' said Mr Douglas Laird, a former security director for Northwest Airlines, who thinks Mr Bush should find a better way to spend taxpayers' money.
'Security is best ensured before the plane departs. I'd rather have marshals help on the ground than have them on the plane to shoot it out with someone - at that point, it's too late.'
Others are concerned that the marshals again will face budget cutbacks as soon as the perception of a threat recedes.
Advocates of the programme say air marshals can be an effective part of a many-layered security strategy.
'I always maintained, and still do, that it has a deterrent effect,' said Mr O.K. Steele, a retired Marine Corps general who headed the Federal Aviation Administration's security branch in the early 1990s.
'Terrorists would never know whether they would have to confront marshals. To be able to overcome them, they would have to put more people on a flight. And when they put more people on, they're exposing themselves to detection by other means.'
The FAA, which runs the marshals programme, has little to say about it, citing a security need to keep its operations secret.
Meanwhile, officials said any decision on ending the combat air patrols by fighter jets may come down to largely a political calculation of how safe Americans would feel without them.
Officials have been looking to cut back on the programme, knowing from the outset that the high-tempo use of manpower, equipment and money could not be kept up for long with the existing people and budget, one defence official said.
The operation uses 11,000 people and 250 aircraft, another official said.
From Sept 11 to Dec 10, the operation flew 13,000 missions. The cost was US$324 million (S$600 million).