NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Since Katrina, there has been an ongoing debate about what went wrong and what is to be done about it. State governors are sensitive about the federal government being involved. FEMA, as presently constituted, doesn't work. The proposal is to put DOD in charge of any future "catastrophic event," at least during the initial stages of any response. I tend to favor this, since the military seems to be the only organization capable of responding quickly and decisively. Your thoughts on the matter?


Expanding the Military's Role (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,82767,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


Christian Science Monitor | December 13, 2005
WASHINGTON - The lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina appear to be putting the Pentagon on a collision course with governors and lawmakers worried about the expanding role of the military in disaster response.

Gaining currency at the highest levels of the Pentagon is the idea that during a catastrophic event - either natural or terrorist - the Department of Defense should replace the Department of Homeland Security as the agency in charge of the federal response.

In many ways, the notion is limited, affecting only how the federal government deploys its own resources. Yet in a nation founded on a distrust of military control, any suggestion of giving the armed forces greater authority on American soil faces centuries-old skepticism. Moreover, it comes at a time when governors are already feeling besieged by an administration that, they feel, is too eager to wrest power from them.

"Most members of Congress and nearly all governors have expressed the belief that in the context of a catastrophic event, the Department of Defense should be on tap but not on top," says Paul McHale, assistant secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense. "The question is: How well can you do that?"

The emerging opinion at the Pentagon is that Katrina laid bare the limitations of the nation's current disaster-response plan. Officials are quick to note that the system works well for the 50-odd natural disasters that occur routinely every year: Governors make a request for assistance to the president, and the president then asks the Department of Homeland Security - which includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - to organize federal resources to help local officials.

The Pentagon's concern is with a disaster the magnitude of hurricane Katrina or greater, such as the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a major American city. Katrina showed that when local first responders are overwhelmed or incapacitated, the Job of filling that gap falls to the military - not only states' National Guards, controlled by their governors, but also federal troops called in for rescue and humanitarian relief.

Yet during Katrina, the federal military remained under FEMA's control. It meant that the Defense Department, which had the resources to appraise the situation and prioritize its missions more quickly than could FEMA, actually drafted its own requests for assistance and sent them to FEMA, which copied them and sent them back to the Department of Defense for action, says Mr. McHale. [ Anyone besides me think that this borders on insanity?? ]

The bureaucratic contortions allowed the Pentagon to move more quickly, but they suggested what now seems obvious to defense officials: In catastrophic disasters, where the Defense Department will bring the most resources to bear, it should marshal the federal response - at least at first.

Yet the mere mention of the Defense Department taking a leading role in disaster response is enough to send governors and civil libertarians scurrying for tar and feathers. "We've had it up to our ears with the federal government telling us, 'We can do a better job than you,' " says Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D). [ Unfortunately, this seems to be true, depending upon the competence of local and state officials. ]

Like most governors, he has not heard of the new ideas circulating through the Pentagon. Indeed, Secretary McHale says the Pentagon itself has not finished its "due diligence" review of how to apply the lessons learned from Katrina. Yet Governor Schweitzer and others are wary of any attempt by the federal government to meddle in local affairs - especially with armed forces. The perception of an overbearing Bush administration has only added to fears that this is a veiled power grab.

"They take the Guard and its equipment away from us [to send to Iraq], and they say, 'See, you weren't ready to respond,' " Governor Schweitzer says. "If [the federal military] want to come and help us in an emergency, that's fine. But in no way is it a good idea to decrease the authority or the effectiveness of the National Guard."

As a witness in congressional hearings, McHale tried to disabuse lawmakers of the notion that the Pentagon is seeking to come in, take over, and declare martial law after catastrophic events. At this early stage, it is true that many questions are unanswered, he says. Among them: How long would the military remain the lead federal agency? What would be the trigger for declaring a disaster "catastrophic"? Who would make that declaration and how?

But moving the Defense Department to the top of the federal food chain in responding to catastrophic events would not necessarily "federalize" the disaster response, overriding state authority and putting the federal government in control of the relief effort. Nor would it require diverting Soldiers to disaster relief or changing Posse Comitatus, the law that prohibits active-duty troops from engaging in law enforcement.

Instead, McHale says, it is a shift in responsibility that would allow the Pentagon to move quickly and more decisively after a massive disaster: "The Department of Defense will be expected to have ... at least some enhanced authority to control and speed the deployment of [its] capabilities through some carefully defined assignment of leadership responsibility."

Hello??? :confused:

Hello??? :confused:

Interesting idea, although while it may solve some of the issues of bureaucratic bungling that FEMA displayed, it still raises the questions on how they manage to be the lead agency in the face of Posse Comitatus and how this manages to cut through the federal-state-municipal power struggles.


The term "on tap but not on top" mentioned in the article still leaves the leadership vaccuum and buck-passing that seems to kick into high gear every time this sort of thing happens.

So I'm not sure as to the extent of the value unless the chain of command gets far more clearly defined than it is right now.

You're kidding, right? Posse comitatus has been a major underpinning of liberty in this country since the mid 1800s. Using the military for law enforcement (which is very different from using the national guard) should be repugnant as a concept when you think about the ramifications. You cannot look at an issue like this and say "yeah, I can think of situations when it might be a good idea." You must consider the worst case scenario. Are you comfortable with a different president of a different party having the ability to use the military [I]against[I] US citizens on US soil because a "major catastrophy" has been declared? In the wake of a terrorist attack, would you be comfortable with special forces teams carrying out search warrants? With military commanders who are trained to expect two reactions, obediance and hostility, giving orders to civilians? I know I'm not.

Beyond that, this simply isn't the military's job. The US military is an organization of brave men and women who are well trained and well equipped to wage war. They play a vital role, but it is not one that is generally played at home. We do not train many peace keepers, we train soldiers. It is neither fair to expect them to do a job radically different from the one they are paid to do nor acceptable for them to perform the tasks they are trained to perfrom in civilian arenas. The US military is simply not a law enforcement organization. Soldiers are trained to survive, to kill, to win, to carry out their orders, they are not trained in police protocol and the ways to safeguard the constitutional rights of others.

We ask so much of our armed forces these days. Asking them to point guins at their fellow citizens, asking them to step in and be first responders to natural disasters because local governments have failed, that is too much to ask.

Hello??? :confused:

Hi **waves**:p

[ Anyone besides me think that this borders on insanity?? ]

Yes, but that's red tape for you.

I'll admit that I don't understand completely the relationships between American Federal and State level government, the National Guard and the Army etc, but as far as I can tell all this would do is cut out FEMA, which doesn't seem to have done a very good job anyway.

Interesting idea, although while it may solve some of the issues of bureaucratic bungling that FEMA displayed, it still raises the questions on how they manage to be the lead agency in the face of Posse Comitatus and how this manages to cut through the federal-state-municipal power struggles.

The term "on tap but not on top" mentioned in the article still leaves the leadership vaccuum and buck-passing that seems to kick into high gear every time this sort of thing happens.

So I'm not sure as to the extent of the value unless the chain of command gets far more clearly defined than it is right now.
Much my thinking as well. The military has the most clearly defined chain of command of any organization, plus they're trained and equipped to respond on a time-urgent basis. Depending upon how "catastrophic event" is defined, I think it's almost imperative they be the first to respond, with FEMA or State agencies taking over after the situation stabalizes.

military numbers should be kept as low as possible in a disaster an old lady does not need to have a tank smash through the wall while she is sleeping

I think one police officer should be put in charge of one squad or less because military troops are not trained to deal with policing in there own country it also lowers the chances of panic if a policeman is leading them though using the military should only be a last resort

We ask so much of our armed forces these days. Asking them to point guins at their fellow citizens, asking them to step in and be first responders to natural disasters because local governments have failed, that is too much to ask.
I obviously disagree. If you don't like the idea of the military being first response to a "catastrophic event," what do you propose as an alternative? How will we deal with the detonation of a nuclear device in a major metropolitan area? What about the possibility of a tsunami along the entire Eastern seaboard ( something which is a real possiblity, given the instability of one of the ... I believe ... Canary Islands. )?

military numbers should be kept as low as possible in a disaster an old lady does not need to have a tank smash through the wall while she is sleeping.
Totally inaccurate depiction of what the military is/does. :p

military numbers should be kept as low as possible in a disaster an old lady does not need to have a tank smash through the wall while she is sleeping


You actually think that would happen?:confused: :(

Yep. The military is extremely effective in disaster management. Establishing order is an important step, and nobody can do that better than the guys with tanks and automatic weapons.

Look at the San Francisco earthquake of the early 20th century. The military was there within a few hours and laid down the law. There were looters. They stopped looting pretty damn quick after the shoot-to-kill order went out. On top of that, the military's medical and supply assets were among the first to assist the unfortunate citizens.

im of the opinion that the hurricane katrina/rita disasters demonstrate clearly that emergency response should be run on a local/state level with the feds in a strong support role.

the huge bureaucracy of the federal governement is just not conducive to quick decisive response. they are STILL fucking up the katrina response 3 months later.

the huge bureaucracy of the federal governement is just not conducive to quick decisive response. they are STILL fucking up the katrina response 3 months later.

That's because politicians are idiots. When your job is based on how much people like you, you tend to be ineffective at doing the right thing when you'll look unpopular doing so. Put a general in charge of everything after a disaster and you'll see progress. It'll probably look nicer than before they came by the time they leave.

Totally inaccurate depiction of what the military is/does. :p

ah but you haven’t seen what happens when you accuse the police of taking drugs and/or state that occupying forces are an incentive to build up infrastructure :p

That's because politicians are idiots. When your job is based on how much people like you, you tend to be ineffective at doing the right thing when you'll look unpopular doing so. Put a general in charge of everything after a disaster and you'll see progress. It'll probably look nicer than before they came by the time they leave.

there will also be allot more body bags and allot less money considering a person will pay off the affects of all there looting after a few years.

Also you might just run the risk of losing the public support and ending up with a military more hated and less filled with recruits than the police!

Although in that article, Governor Schweitzer does make a very valid point.

"They take the Guard and its equipment away from us [to send to Iraq], and they say, 'See, you weren't ready to respond,' " Governor Schweitzer says. "If [the federal military] want to come and help us in an emergency, that's fine. But in no way is it a good idea to decrease the authority or the effectiveness of the National Guard."

The fact that Katrina hit at the same time as a good chunk of the Louisiana NAtional Guard was deployed along with an even bigger chunk of their equipment severely hampered the State's abilities to manage the disaster. An unfortunate confluence of events. Under the assumption that such large-scale deployments of the guard are not going to continue indefinitely, redrawing federal policies using this instance as the entire guiding scenario seems to be a case of knee-jerk political reactionism.

The states will never allow the dropping of Posse Comitatus, and the failings pointed out in the article relate mostly to failures in a chain of command that this policy would largely fail to address. All that would change would be that the military would be writing memos for the State to forward back to them instead of writing them for FEMA unless the Governor ceded full control to the military which few would be willing to do because of the political perceptions of such an action.

Although in that article, Governor Schweitzer does make a very valid point.

"They take the Guard and its equipment away from us [to send to Iraq], and they say, 'See, you weren't ready to respond,' " Governor Schweitzer says. "If [the federal military] want to come and help us in an emergency, that's fine. But in no way is it a good idea to decrease the authority or the effectiveness of the National Guard."

The fact that Katrina hit at the same time as a good chunk of the Louisiana NAtional Guard was deployed along with an even bigger chunk of their equipment severely hampered the State's abilities to manage the disaster. An unfortunate confluence of events. Under the assumption that such large-scale deployments of the guard are not going to continue indefinitely, redrawing federal policies using this instance as the entire guiding scenario seems to be a case of knee-jerk political reactionism.

The states will never allow the dropping of Posse Comitatus, and the failings pointed out in the article relate mostly to failures in a chain of command that this policy would largely fail to address. All that would change would be that the military would be writing memos for the State to forward back to them instead of writing them for FEMA unless the Governor ceded full control to the military which few would be willing to do because of the political perceptions of such an action.


What bothers me, however, is that other states have National Guard units that were not doing anything at the time prior to the incident. As far as I know, they weren't even placed on standby. Is it not the Governor's job to understand what statewide capabilities they have? We've been in Iraq for 2 years. A reasonable person would've known that their units were not capable of large scale disaster management. The Governor was a fool.

What bothers me, however, is that other states have National Guard units that were not doing anything at the time prior to the incident. As far as I know, they weren't even placed on standby. Is it not the Governor's job to understand what statewide capabilities they have? We've been in Iraq for 2 years. A reasonable person would've known that their units were not capable of large scale disaster management. The Governor was a fool.


The governor cannot force other states to provide help - although you are incorrect in that several neighboring states offered troops, but once again this simply provides yet another tangent of chain of command to deal with as you would have a chain of command through another Governor's office on decisions relating to the use of these forces.

And the governor asked the Feds to "Send everything you've got" even before the hurricane came onshore - so clearly she was aware of the limitiations of her available manpower.



Besides, you are doing the same thing that I am talking about - focusing on this one specific cluster-fuck to make it the model for future responses.

Well, if every future response is to a hurricane that you get multi-day warning for - that's great! But I think that you have to expand the scope of your contingency planning by a few factors. Or a few hundred factors.

I don't even think Clusterfuck describes it thoroughly enough. I need a new word to describe the mass incompetence.

I obviously disagree. If you don't like the idea of the military being first response to a "catastrophic event," what do you propose as an alternative? How will we deal with the detonation of a nuclear device in a major metropolitan area? What about the possibility of a tsunami along the entire Eastern seaboard ( something which is a real possiblity, given the instability of one of the ... I believe ... Canary Islands. )?

I propose we fix FEMA and the National Guard. The military has some major advantages, mainly, a well-defined chain of command and training that puts a premium on reaction time. If we could import these skills to groups whose job it is to deal with disasters, that would be the best option. Calling the the military is asking for trouble. Do you really think its right to ask a soldier to do police work? I mean, unless that soldier is an MP, you're asking them to do something rather far outside of their job description. You're asking them to work by a VERY different set of rules against a very different target than they've ever been up against.

Sure, you could train them to know what to do, but even that is a bad option. The job of a soldier, first and foremost, should be waging war. Training our soldiers to be police will take valuable time away from training for the duty that they are more likely to be called upon to perform. I'd much rather our soldiers have their training focused on a narrow range of tasks so they have the best odds of living through the dangerous situations we ask them to deal with. They cannot be all things to all people for all eventualities, and it is unfair of us to expect that of them, especially when other people already have the job and are simply not trained and organized properly.