In
December 2004, President George W. Bush directed the National
Security Council (NSC) and Homeland Security Council (HSC) jointly
to prepare a National Strategy for Maritime Security. That made
sense. Maritime security is vital to the defense of the nation, and
no one federal agency bears all the responsibility for preventing,
responding to, and recovering from hostile acts that might threaten
America's security from the sea. However, the President should not
stop there. The nation's air security faces similar challenges. The
President should also direct the NSC and HSC jointly to develop a
national strategy for air security.
Keeping Friendly
Skies Friendly. The United States needs a national air
security strategy. Like the maritime domain, U.S. airspace is a
complex place that is vital to the national economy but vulnerable
to exploitation by terrorists. After the 2001 terrorist attacks on
New York and Washington, Congress created the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), which is part of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). The TSA is responsible for overseeing
commercial airline safety including inspecting boarding passengers.
Other DHS elements also have air security missions, including the
U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In
addition, the Departments of Defense, State, and Transportation
have significant responsibilities related to protecting U.S.
airspace.
Nor
is air security strictly a federal mission. State and local
governments play important roles, particularly in safeguarding the
airports and other aviation infrastructure. The private sector has
an enormous stake in airspace security, extending beyond commercial
passenger travel and airfreight. General aviation is the fastest
growing aviation sector. Finally, air security is an international
challenge that requires the cooperation and support of the many
nations that have a mutual interest in ensuring that the skies are
safe.
Air Security
Priorities. As America moves into the 21st century, the
demand for open skies that are safe and secure and that facilitate
efficiency and innovation will only increase. Such improvements in
air security are unlikely to happen without a national strategy
focused on meeting the mutually important goals of protecting
Americans, promoting economic growth, and safeguarding the
liberties of individual citizens. Such a strategy should address
the following priorities:
- The future of
passenger screening. The TSA budget is about $6 billion a
year, most of which is spent screening the millions of people who
fly on commercial airliners. In other words, most of the money is
spent looking at people who are not the problem. There must be a
better way. If 10 years from now the United States is still
physically screening airline passengers, something will have gone
terribly wrong. The United States should commit to becoming a
global leader in developing an alternative security screening
program that does not require 100 percent physical screening. This
program should respect individual liberties, only minimally affect
the cost of aviation operations, and keep terrorists off of
airplanes.
- Shoulder-fired
missile threats. Man-portable air defense systems were
developed to defend against military aircraft, but they are now
globally available, and terrorists have used them to target
passenger aircraft. It is only a matter of time until a terrorist
attempts to shoot down a commercial airliner in the United States
or in the country of a friend or ally. The response to such a
tragedy would likely be knee-jerk, ineffective, and costly--a cheap
win for the terrorist. The United States and other countries should
not wait until such an event to develop contingency plans and
mid-range and long-range plans to reduce the threat and deploy
cost-effective countermeasures, and these solutions and
technologies should be shared with U.S. friends and allies.
- Domestic air
security investment. Currently, the United States relies
heavily on the Department of Defense to protect U.S. airspace. This
is an expensive and inefficient use of high-performance aircraft
that are not optimized for domestic air security missions, such as
interdicting hijacked and stolen planes and guarding restricted
airspace. The long-term investment strategy should look to building
up appropriate civilian law enforcement capabilities in the Coast
Guard and the CBP and getting the Defense Department out of the
domestic air security business.
- Theater cruise
and missile defense. Attacking U.S. territory with cruise
missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, or unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) covertly launched from seaborne platforms disguised
as private or commercial craft is eminently achievable. Even
moderately well-funded terrorist groups might be able to mount such
an attack. The United States needs the capability to quickly
increase air defense, including theater missile defenses, over
portions of U.S. territory as warranted by security needs or
intelligence reports. Ground-based directed-energy weapons could be
part of the solution. The Department of Defense should be able to
secure American airspace against these kinds of attacks as
effectively as it would secure the airspace over U.S. forces
deployed overseas.
- A reasonable
role for the private sector. Security activities should be
dictated by a comprehensive assessment of risks. Washington, not
the private sector, is responsible for preventing terrorist acts
through intelligence gathering, early warning, and counterterrorism
efforts. The private sector is responsible for taking reasonable
anti-terrorism precautions in much the same way as society expects
it to take reasonable safety and environmental precautions. The
government has a role in defining what is "reasonable" and
facilitating information sharing. A model public-private regime for
the aviation industry would (1) define what is reasonable through
clear performance measures, (2) create transparency and the means
to measure performance, (3) establish ways for the market to reward
good behavior, and (4) ensure that any "fix" does not cripple the
economic viability of the aviation industry.
Conclusion. America is already a
half-decade into the 21st century. It is long past time to start
building an air security system for the long term. A national
strategy would be a good start.
James Jay Carafano,
Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow for National Security
and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for
Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom
Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage
Foundation.