Okay, take off your shoes and jacket. Simultaneously, take your laptops and cameras out of their bags and place them in separate plastic bins. *Beep* Okay, take off your belt. *Beep* Alright, we’re going to pat you down. Alright, you can go ahead. But take no more than a few seconds to repack your carry-on bags, put your belt and jacket back on, retie your shoes, and collect your loose items.

Next!

****

Sound familiar? If so, you know that the above is only a fraction of the hassle you’re put through for a simple domestic flight. International flights are even worse. Other aspects include document checks, passport scans at check-in, long lines, and, pretty soon, full-body scanners.

And that’s just for your average traveler. Some are put through even more complex loops, getting strip searches and other unpleasant invasions of privacy. (Incidentally, the strip search will soon be virtually universal, thanks to the aforementioned full-body scanner.)

Then God forbid someone tries to attack another American airliner. Woe be unto future travelers, as the TSA seems almost obligated to overreact and, more importantly, implement the wrong changes. Grandma ends up getting a cavity search while Little Timmy has his Play Doh confiscated.

Now, if these were the best procedures available in modern airline security, it would all be understandable. You do what you’ve got to do to keep the country, and your family, safe. Surely people would complain, but at the end of the day most would accept the procedures as inevitable and necessary.

But therein lies the problem: Most of these procedures aren’t necessary. They’re all carried out in the name of being politically correct. They’re all carried out in place of the procedure other countries realized was necessary long ago: Profiling.

Now, I’m not talking about racial or religious profiling. Questioning every Arab or Muslim to pass through the United States is pointless, casting too wide a net for our security apparatus to analyze to the extent necessary. In fact, the former security director of Israeli airline El Al opposes such approaches.

The type of profiling we require is behavioral profiling: Assessing the risk someone poses by their past record of actions, travels, and visa approvals or denials. Such a procedure would surely have stopped the flight 253 attacker from ever boarding the plane.

Let’s take an example: Let’s say you have an individual known for his sympathy for 9/11 plotters and Islamist insurgents. Let’s say this individual also recently visited a country that serves as a base for al-Qaeda. Just for fun, let’s throw in his father warning American officials that his son poses a threat to national security. And what the hell, throw in a recent visa denial by the British government.

Would you let this man board a U.S.-bound place carrying nearly 300 people? Of course not. Regardless of his skin color or religious affiliation, you’d stop him. And you’d do so based on his past behavior and known actions, never mind his father’s warning. (By the way, the individual I just described was Abdulmuttalab, the Christmas day attacker.)

If we truly want to improve our airline security apparatus, it’s time to begin profiling. It would serve the nation well if Secretary Napolitano and her advisers spent a few days in consultation with El Al security officials. It’s time to pull our heads out of the sand and wake up to reality: Our current security procedures aren’t effective.