That legislation was repealed in its entirety in 2008.

Having participated in a couple of "peacekeeping" missions, and humanitarian missions in the military, I have found that the majority of military members are not necessarily equipped to function as peacekeepers. I tend to agree with RB (gasp*) in that the majority of missions defined in the military are about finding new and ingenious ways of destroying people, things and structures, and if you can find a simple way to do all three at once, you usually have a SGM stripe on your sleeve. It is not that the people are bad, or that they don't care, it is that the training they receive and repeat (ad nauseum) is geared towards ending threats. Using the military in the airports would violate Posse Comitatus to start with, and would require a whole new set of training, theories and thought process just to get to a starting point - which would take years to design. The military is doing what it has been designed to do (more or less), which is destroy. Without a whole rewrite of many laws (at a constitutional level in some cases), the training and attitude of the military members involved, and a reconditioning of the American public to get used to soldiers interacting with them on a regular basis (and there are tons of folks here and in the blogosphere already screaming brown shirts this, nazi that - imagine what would happen if you had soldiers patting down folks that alarmed the system on the evening news!), I just don't see that this is viable. The drain on resources and imagery alone would be a non-starter.

*Sorry, had to go bang my head on the wall for agreeing with RB on something outright!

If TSA eliminated all of the BS in airports including:

• BDO Dragnet
• Gate Screenings
• 3 TSOs per NoS
• Parking Lot Wanderers
• Air Marshals

They could eliminate 50% of the workforce and dump all of the bad ones. I do believe that they could find 50% of the current TSA workforce that could do a good job - IF they had proper management, good rules, and working technology.

I would add a relatively new TSO job function to your list (don't know how much training is required) - the TSO who stands in front of or on the other side of the WTMD to block it.

Just stands there. If anyone accidentally approaches, he/she (only seen males performing this function) adds his/her loud voice to the chorus of shouts from other TSOs directing you to the NoS.

It isn't just the military that hates TSA. I don't know a single member of the civil service that has a good word to say about TSA. They are the butt of jokes at interagency meetings, and the NSS are sick to death of TSA management coming over to whine about how poorly their clerks are treated, and their predictable "bad things will happen if we don't do something NOW" mantra.

See, we're not that far apart. If we could just get you to move away from the Dark Side you might have a chance yet.

while accepting and agreeing with most comments above, if they were from the military at least they would not be morbidly obese.

Honestly, I don't get the obsession over the physical appearance of TSOs. Yes, members of the military are, universally, in much better physical shape. But that's directly related to their job function --- as pointed out upthread, the military's chief job is to kill people and break stuff, and you need to be fit to do that.

What does a TSO's weight have to do with their job function? Running an X-ray or an AIT machine, manning a TDC station or serving as an exit guard, performing patdowns ... none of these functions require an Adonis-like physique.

If the problem is presenting a professional appearance, there are other ways for TSA to achieve that, even with a few extra pounds.

I disagree, but I suppose it depends on your definition of "a good job."

We agree more often than either of us wants to admit. The basics are pretty much the same for us, with some differences on policy. I think it is a matter of working on policy between us that causes us friction. I can't leave here yet, my job is not done yet - until the major arguments between the gang here and TSA is about policy, and not unprofessional behavior, I can't leave yet.

^

In the interest of full disclosure, I am 6'2" and pretty thick.

For the benefit of our British readers, he didn't mean thick like that.

Or else it's a stunning piece of self-deprecation .

And just how does a FAM negatively affect you?

Well, they take a seat in first class, so it makes upgrades harder.

I'm not saying FAMs are a waste or we should eliminate them, but none of the plots in the past 9 years that have resulted in what we now go through at the airport had anything to do with the cockpit door. Putting FAMs up front is unnecessary.

FAM's are welcomed in my opinion. Met a few in the club lounge at the Sheraton club lounge at CDG. Overall good guys- as it appears many have a number of years in civil service. I personally feel a little safer knowing they are there on my trips into or out of the US.

FAM's are CLEARLY several notches above the rest of the TSA.