![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I generally do not post news articles, but in this case I make an exception, because it's not generally available...
Federal troops should be first responders to natural disasters, experts say
September 14, 2005
John Yaukey
Navy Times
Hurricane Katrina invaded the Gulf Coast region like an enemy, cutting communications, isolating security forces and severing supply lines.
It's no surprise then that disaster coordinators, Pentagon officials and military experts are war-gaming future domestic catastrophes with the full-time military playing an integral first-responder role - possibly as a police force - which is now illegal.
"I think that's one of the interesting issues that Congress needs to take a look at," President Bush said while making his third tour of the battered Gulf Coast region this week.
Some homeland security experts now believe there should be federal troops - that don't need 72 hours for call-up as some National Guard units require - capable of dropping into a disaster zone as the damage is being done, rather than afterward.
"More of our military capability should be on alert in this kind of situation to move within hours instead of days," said Michael O'Hanlon, who studies both homeland security and military issues at the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution."This includes both people and equipment like low-draft boats capable of cutting through shallow water."
This new thinking about a federal military presence in natural disasters was made abundantly clear last Friday when Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen replaced civilian Michael Brown, the embattled former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as the head of all federal Katrina recovery efforts.
But this debate is not without considerable historical baggage. The reluctance to use federal troops on U.S. soil is rooted in the perennial American struggle between states' rights and federal authority.
Here are some questions and answers that explore a sensitive policy issue that could change the way Americans save lives when disaster strikes.
Question: How much faster can full-time troops respond to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina than the National Guard?
Answer: A good example is the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division. This unit, headquartered at Fort Bragg, N.C., is capable of dropping troops into action anywhere in the world in less than 20 hours.
It can take National Guard units several days to respond in strength to hurricanes.
The 82nd Airborne is now helping with humanitarian aid in the Gulf Coast region, steering clear of any police activity.
There are about 20,000 active duty troops in the Gulf Coast region now, serving alongside 50,000 National Guard forces.
Q: As New Orleans flooded and slipped into anarchy, Katrina victims were pleading for more security. Why couldn't federal troops come to their rescue?
A: Federal troops are legally constrained in what they can do domestically by the Posse Comitatus Act. Passed in 1878 to limit the use of federal troops to control Southern polling places, Posse Comitatus makes it a crime to employ"any part of the Army ...to execute the laws." It does not apply to the Coast Guard.
Q: Can the restrictions against using federal troops for domestic enforcement be suspended in time of emergency?
A: Two laws allow this.
The president can invoke the Insurrection Act dating back to 1795, which permits the military use of federal troops on U.S. soil to put down violence that local authorities are incapable of handling.
Under the National Defense Act of 1916, the president can federalize a state's National Guard troops in an effort to centralize control over a chaotic situation. Bush suggested"federalizing" Louisiana's Guard forces when the chaos in New Orleans began escalating, but Gov. Kathleen Blanco objected.
Q: Have these measures been used before?
A: Yes. The elder President George H.W. Bush federalized the National Guard in California to quell the 1992 riots in Los Angeles.
In 1963, President Kennedy used the Alabama's Guard to force desegregation at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.
In 1957, President Eisenhower used federal troops and the Arkansas National Guard to force the desegregation of Little Rock's public schools.
Q: Why change the laws restricting federal troops if there are fairly direct ways of circumventing them when the need arises?
A: Invoking rarely used measures can be difficult, time-consuming and potentially controversial.
In the case of Louisiana, a Republican president would be taking control from a Democratic governor. The Bush administration debated this and decided against it, according to reports about the dialogue between Washington and Baton Rouge.
Automatic mechanisms that permit, or even obligate, a powerful federal military response to a major disaster could save time by eliminating politics and indecision.
Federal troops should be first responders to natural disasters, experts say
September 14, 2005
John Yaukey
Navy Times
Hurricane Katrina invaded the Gulf Coast region like an enemy, cutting communications, isolating security forces and severing supply lines.
It's no surprise then that disaster coordinators, Pentagon officials and military experts are war-gaming future domestic catastrophes with the full-time military playing an integral first-responder role - possibly as a police force - which is now illegal.
"I think that's one of the interesting issues that Congress needs to take a look at," President Bush said while making his third tour of the battered Gulf Coast region this week.
Some homeland security experts now believe there should be federal troops - that don't need 72 hours for call-up as some National Guard units require - capable of dropping into a disaster zone as the damage is being done, rather than afterward.
"More of our military capability should be on alert in this kind of situation to move within hours instead of days," said Michael O'Hanlon, who studies both homeland security and military issues at the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution."This includes both people and equipment like low-draft boats capable of cutting through shallow water."
This new thinking about a federal military presence in natural disasters was made abundantly clear last Friday when Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen replaced civilian Michael Brown, the embattled former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as the head of all federal Katrina recovery efforts.
But this debate is not without considerable historical baggage. The reluctance to use federal troops on U.S. soil is rooted in the perennial American struggle between states' rights and federal authority.
Here are some questions and answers that explore a sensitive policy issue that could change the way Americans save lives when disaster strikes.
Question: How much faster can full-time troops respond to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina than the National Guard?
Answer: A good example is the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division. This unit, headquartered at Fort Bragg, N.C., is capable of dropping troops into action anywhere in the world in less than 20 hours.
It can take National Guard units several days to respond in strength to hurricanes.
The 82nd Airborne is now helping with humanitarian aid in the Gulf Coast region, steering clear of any police activity.
There are about 20,000 active duty troops in the Gulf Coast region now, serving alongside 50,000 National Guard forces.
Q: As New Orleans flooded and slipped into anarchy, Katrina victims were pleading for more security. Why couldn't federal troops come to their rescue?
A: Federal troops are legally constrained in what they can do domestically by the Posse Comitatus Act. Passed in 1878 to limit the use of federal troops to control Southern polling places, Posse Comitatus makes it a crime to employ"any part of the Army ...to execute the laws." It does not apply to the Coast Guard.
Q: Can the restrictions against using federal troops for domestic enforcement be suspended in time of emergency?
A: Two laws allow this.
The president can invoke the Insurrection Act dating back to 1795, which permits the military use of federal troops on U.S. soil to put down violence that local authorities are incapable of handling.
Under the National Defense Act of 1916, the president can federalize a state's National Guard troops in an effort to centralize control over a chaotic situation. Bush suggested"federalizing" Louisiana's Guard forces when the chaos in New Orleans began escalating, but Gov. Kathleen Blanco objected.
Q: Have these measures been used before?
A: Yes. The elder President George H.W. Bush federalized the National Guard in California to quell the 1992 riots in Los Angeles.
In 1963, President Kennedy used the Alabama's Guard to force desegregation at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.
In 1957, President Eisenhower used federal troops and the Arkansas National Guard to force the desegregation of Little Rock's public schools.
Q: Why change the laws restricting federal troops if there are fairly direct ways of circumventing them when the need arises?
A: Invoking rarely used measures can be difficult, time-consuming and potentially controversial.
In the case of Louisiana, a Republican president would be taking control from a Democratic governor. The Bush administration debated this and decided against it, according to reports about the dialogue between Washington and Baton Rouge.
Automatic mechanisms that permit, or even obligate, a powerful federal military response to a major disaster could save time by eliminating politics and indecision.
no subject
I think the big thing this would do, is give an administration the legal/political cover they need to take unpopular action. Although, in the case of Katrina - I think the press and country would have rallied around the administration for taking decisive action. Just as happened immediately after 9/11.
FEMA is a joke and has been for some time. When the tornado ripped through here a few years ago, we found out they only give money to people who own property and who didn't have insurance.
Which Hurricane was this? FEMA was a boondoggle in the 80s, but it generally had a pretty good rep in the late 90s.