National Guard At Airports - Just Window Dressing?

Great Debates
1

We have the National Guard at airports.

Yeah, so? :slight_smile:

To me, they appear to be window dressing. Appease public fears about safety, but if/when crunchtime comes, what are they authorized to do? From my personal observations at several airports, not much. In light of recent disclosures about bad security breaches ( http://www.msnbc.com/news/729223.asp?cp1=1 ) by security staff, just what good is the Guard, in the real sense of the word?

To wit, …

At one major airport, time and time again I’ve seen them with their hands full, carrying the big plastic tubs from the exit end of the carryon screening machines back to the front. The “security” staff could/should well do that. And no, the “security” staff are not that busy they couldn’t/shouldn’t be doing it.

I’ve witnessed other Guard members talking/joking among themselves, with at least more than one with their backs to passengers. I guess the idle chit chat is more important than watching passengers.

The Guard use straps to keep their M16s at the ready. Or they are supposed to do that? Well, the several I’ve seen have then slung across their backs, not an efficient way to bring the weapon to bear if needed.

And what about an incident? Are their weapons loaded? If someone plows through security and does not stop, what is the Guard supposed to do? Just give chase? Stay put and call for assistance, meaning until assistance arrives that concourse is now contaminated, must be evacuated and later searched?

What is someone brandishes a weapon? Does the Guard have authority to stop them with deadly force, if necessary?

With all due respect to the men in women in uniform at airports, I get the distinct impression, when push comes to shove, Guard members will be as effective as airport security prior to September 11 - a joke.

Will this country require a critical (catastrophic?) incident at an airport before we all take airport/terrorism seriously? (You know, when they finally put up a STOP sign at a bad intersection only after people are killed, despite month/years of pleadings from the citizenry?). In the case of airport security, I don’t see travellers demanding tigher security, but just the opposite. For me it appears freedom is too hard to protect when raised with a couch potato attitude.

2

So what would you like to see? Armed SWAT teams and Delta Force soldiers in full body armor full-body-cavity searching every single person in the airport while Apache helicopters and HMMWVs patrol outside of terminals guarded by sandbagged machine gun emplacements? There is a balance between security and having the airports actually function.

3

Hi. I was in the Guard. I think right now they are just window dressing. Just IMHO, of course.

4

No, but I would expect them to be ready for anything. Shouldn’t it be the job of “security” staff to retrieve those plastic tubs from the exit of the carryon screening machine and take them back to the beginning? The police officers and sheriff’s deputies don’t do it. Yes, I know it’s one thing to help a bit and be courteous, but it compromises their alleged primary directive.

Besides, how do you really perform security when you have your back to the very people who may cause you and others harm?

Your suggestion is over the top for me. I am merely asking if the Guard really serve as an effective security purpose. Or, are they just window dressing, appeasing an American public who never seem to give a damn beyond their individual noses?

I just think we are being set up for a bigger fall the next time we have another terrorist attack.

5

What scares me a little is that many of the National Guardspeople I’ve seen at airports thus far carry their AR-15’s/M-16’s with the ammunition magazine already clipped into place. I didn’t get a good enough look to see if they were wandering around with their safeties switched off (I hope not!), but loaded carry still gives me the willies. Couldn’t they just carry their magazines in a belt pouch and slap them into place if/when the need arose?

6

Do police officers carry thier weapons unloaded? No. This type of issue has been worked over repeatedly in many threads.

In a gunfight 2 seconds is an eternity. IF your life is depending on that soldier being able to use his weapon quickly you will be thankful for those loaded M-16’s. A uniformed soldier is already a bullet magnet to a would be terrorist/hijacker. Don’t take away the tools they need to do their jobs.

7

Tracer, there’s a difference between loaded and chambered - until they pull that cocking lever, they can play with the safety (and the trigger) as much as they want, because nothing’s going to happen (probably: the M-16 has the occasional tendancy to chamber itself if dropped). And as far as I know, “magazine loaded - chamber empty” is the usual procedure for guard duty in most modern militaries.

That aside - I wasn’t really impressed by the troops I’ve seen at airports. Their uniforms and gear were much too clean.

8

Anyone want to speculate what would result from an ill-trained (uh,… the target is THAT way) guardsman opening fire with a M-16 in a terminal? Those are NOT sniper weapons - they just throw enough lead to ensure that any (and/or all) thing in the general direction dies.

Not to worry - they would not know there was a problem until after they were dead… models of alertness, aren’t they?

Now, if someone could explain why they (and chippies) are ‘guarding’ the golden gate bridge (you blow up that truck you’re driving, and we’re goin’ to be REALLY pissed)

9

For apparently the same reason we have Guard troops in our airports - window dressing. The political media spin is more important than the substance. I have a feeling Lincoln’s comment about fooling people is appropo with Americans these days. So is the comment attributed to P.T. Barnum about suckers, too.

BTW, what is the going price for a bridge these days? :smiley:

10

[nitpick] Sniper weapons would be inappropriate for the task not to mention a standard off the shelf m-16 is most likely more accurate than the guy shooting it even if he is some kind of super ranger-seal-sniper-commando-green beret ubersoldier. They will also be most likely set to the semi auto mode firing 1 shot per pull of the trigger. Stop being scared of the good guys and stirring up paranoia over the people who are trying to help protect you. Shheeeesh get a grip.

11

don’t know - but I did see an article on the cost of having gun-toting (characterzations deleted) drinking coffee on the approach ramps 7/24 since 09/11/01 - can imagine better uses of the money.

indicia of usefulness of said ‘guards’:

on 9/11 there were 4-5 folks with pro-grade video cameras trained on the GGB from the old artillery emplacement on Mt. Tam - THEY’VE decided it’s not worth their time to be there, but the guys-with-guns are still there (and now we’re going to raise tolls to pay for them :rolleyes:)

drachillix -

I agree - the M-16 is superior to the troops carrying it - and THAT’S scary!

12

I don’t want to picture anyone cutting loose with an AR16 in a crowded airport terminal. But hey, Rumsfeld is groovy and GW has an 80% approval rating so it must be OK. OK?

13

Okay… But just WHAT are they supposed to be protecting us from? Just what is the threat here? That terrorists will pull up, storm the airport, grab a plane, and fly it away? I don’t think so.

So what then? That they’ll drive up and start shooting? Or drive up with a bomb? I assume that’s the threat, because they’ve also banned vehicles from driving up to the terminal building.

So… Why just airports? If the terrorists just want to blow up something with lots of people in it, should there be National Guardsmen at shopping malls and movie theaters?

I’m afraid that ‘Homeland Defense’ so far is completely incoherent. And Tom Ridge refuses to testify about it? Get that guy in front of Congress and make him answer some damned questions. Of course, they’ll just be softball questions anyway, because it seems like all of Washington is willing to ignore reality over all this.

By the way, I heard that those weapons are unloaded. The REAL purpose of those National Guardsmen is pure appearance, aimed at making travellers feel somehow safer and more willing to put up with the crap at check-in.

14

I would like to see some of the armchair homland defenders on this board come up with some alternatives other than simply being critical: “they’re guns are loaded with live ammo! they don’t even have ammo in their guns! they shouldn’t help people carry stuff! I was struggling to carry this baby carriage and those guardsmen didn’t lift a finger to help!” So come up with a better plan.

-People who guard airports are not the cream of the intellectual crop. And even if they were, they wouldn’t be for long after standing and watching 10,000 people move around every day.

-Part of all security is “window dressing”. Even the best alarm, guard, gate or camera can be circumvented somehow. The idea is that something is better than nothing and that someone seeing the the alarm or guardsman with the M16 will think twice (regardless of how sleepy he is).

-If someone really wants to blow something up badly enough, they will probably be able to do it.
So come up with some ideas for security that won’t bankrupt the country.

15

No they don’t. The M16A2 only fires single and three-round bursts, to prevent them from “throwing enough lead, etc.” The AR15 only fires single shot (Which is also the prefered selection on the M16A2, anyway). Soldiers of all branches are trained to hit a target with semi-auto fire, usually single shots.

And to top it off, a good soldier can hit a man-sized target at 500 meters with about 90% accuracy. Within 100 meters, it’d be a rare soldier that couldn’t, assuming they’re not being shot at (And if they are, I think you have much more to worry about than one or two stray rounds). And in an airport, the ranges don’t tend to be that big. I seriously doubt they’ll be putting someone who couldn’t pass the boot-camp marksmanship drills on security duty, seeing as they wouldn’t even make it in…

Again, contrary to what hollywood and alarmists say, the average soldier doesn’t go “rock-and-roll” every time they want to shoot someone.

16

Yes, “window dressing” is an accurate description.

The National Guard could actually do some good if they were patrolling airport perimeters.

On the road into the Tokyo airport (11 years ago) there was an armored vehicle with what looked to be a heavy-duty flamethrower in its turret, with some very serious-looking uniformed Japanese men observing passing traffic.

17

I believe it’s a decent idea.

See, we know(?) that before striking, Osama’s group surveilles the target very carefully for a while and plans very carefully. So adding a bunch of national guardsmen may very well force them to shelve some of their plans until they can assess the new security measures. Meanwhile, you can bet that plainclothesmen (and uniformed police and security guards) are looking very carefully for anyone who seems to be observing/watching/videotaping a potential target.

18

I take it their orders are kept quiet - do we know if they actually do patrol perimeters a well as passenger areas ? If I was in charge of a unit of part-time soldiers (I was a few years back) and given the order to increase airport security against small-but-motivated enemy forces, I’d do both.

The size of the area (airports are big!) makes it impossible to keep the perimeter under constant surveillance, so you patrol, patrol, patrol - not to fight, but simply to make it unattractive for an enemy to use the patrolled area to organize or even observe. You make smaller teams to cover more ground.

Somewhere behind the scenes is your well-rested, motivated and ready weapons team, and they’ll come running to enforce your patrol teams in whatever fighting is necessary, hopefully none. Two riflemen will never be a serious threat against a determined enemy. A radio, on the other hand…

Do National Guardsmen have law enforcement training, btw ?

19

Well, all Military Police units get a little law-enforcement training. :slight_smile:

Besides that, sometimes . . .

When I was in a Illinois Army National Guard infantry unit, we received some extremely basic law-enforcement training–riot control, briefings on the law, classes on how to take down a bad guy without hurting them, searching a suspect, etc. Some of it was valuable, most of it wasn’t, almost all of it was treated as a joke.

Not all units receive such training–it all depends on their mission.

I would imagine all the Weekend Warriors tapped for Operation Security Blanket have been briefed on their job, and I would guess that at least some of them have received some extra hip-pocket training.

20

Here is another vote for window dressing. I suppose they could provide muscle to back up the regular airport security in the event of a squabble at the X-ray machine. What frightens me as a former soldier is the chance that one of these guys is actually looking for an excuse to exercise their meager authority. I can’t imagine a much more boring job than sentry duty at a commercial airport.