Military Takeover As Disaster Response?

It is no surprise that President Bush is pushing for the military to be the first responders in the event of a disaster. In my opinion, this is a very bad idea. The move would require the Congress to write new legislation. That legislation must first remove the posse comitatus act that bans the US military from operations within the United States. However, I agree with Major Trebilcock (U.S. Army Reserve) that there have been so many infringements of the act that it is largely in tatters. Secondly, the legislation would have to lay out the parameters of under what conditions and in what way the military would take over.

The military is trained to war and a disaster is not a war. When disaster strikes, we need people with skills and equipment to extricate people from threatening environments, maintain communications, deal with hazardous conditions (such as toxic leaks), and help get a minimal infrastructure restored. The military would not be my first choice for such activities. In part, this is a role that is filled by the National Guard. The National Guard largely provides specialized technical support - communications, emergency rescues, medical teams, bridge and road building, equipment repairs, etc. Oh! that sounds like what might be needed. Unlike the U.S. military, the National Guard (in times of peace) are directly under the command of state government - not the federal government and the DoD.

One of the issues of critical importance in a disaster is familiarity with local and state plans and processes. For those that are responding, fairly intimate knowledge of the area impacted can dramatically increase effectiveness and save lives. Local first responders have central knowledge in these areas. The military does not.

A lot was made in the aftermath of Katrina of the collapse of "social order." The assumption has been that only an armed force can maintain social order. I significantly disagree with both assumptions. Yes, when given the opportunity - whether a natural disaster or a simple power failure - some people will engage in looting. But I do not see the protection of property as the central ingredient in social order. Social order has to do with people following the customary norms and expectations of the society. Overwhelmingly, people do this. They assist others; they interact civilly; they follow the orders of those with authority who are coordinating response. By and large they do not go on a rampage.

In New Orleans in particular, most of the "looting" was people trying to survive. There was no response by authorities to provide people with the basic things they needed for survival - food, water, emergency medical care, warm clothes, etc. People placed survival above property rights. Further, it wasn't just "people" who engaged in "looting." Police themselves, "commandeered" supplies, and even entire stores, to provision themselves - not the citizens. There is a tremendous irony when police chase "looters" out of a Wal-Mart and then set up their headquarters there because of access to necessary supplies and equipment. The irony is extended, when those safe police go out on patrol to keep civilians - equally distressed and without supplies - from "looting."

It also seems clear to me that racism played a heavy role in the portrayal of the "collapse of social order." The reports of people going "wild" both on the streets, and in the "shelters of last resort" are now being shown to have largely been overblown rumors. Officials showed up with two hundred body bags at the convention center where it had been reported that numerous murders had taken place. Only four bodies were found.

The hype of lawlessness has been used as one of the primary reasons to get "men with guns" on the ground in disasters. While I would agree that a police presence may be useful in a number of ways, the military is not the police. The military is trained to kill enemies, not to avert hostility and defuse situations. But then that has been one of the problems of the erosion of the line between the military in the "war on crime," the "war on drugs", and now the "war on terrorism." Military technology and tactics have slowly come to be main components with the police "arsenal." The perception of the population as "enemies" has also followed that course. Even with that police have local knowledge and training that the military does not.

There is of course the question of just how far do you trust government? How much power, and how much force against the U.S. population are you willing to hand over to our government? What would we have in place to protect the population from abuses of rights?

One might ask why this should be an issue, but there is good reason to be concerned. Some might wonder why Bush decided to "ride out" Hurricane Rita at NORAD, rather than in Washington, D.C. where the center of civilian response is. Or even in Louisiana or Texas with the Governors of those states. Well, it might have something to do with Operation Granite Shadow. "Granite Shadow" (and the name certainly evokes what might be going on) is a top secret operation related to the "extra-legal" powers of the U.S. military, and for "emergency military operations in the United States without civilian supervision or control."

A new military homeland security force called Northcom is stationed at the NORAD facility outside of Colorado Springs. That is where President Bush and Director of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff spent Hurricane Rita. There is some evidence, that the purpose of the visit was a gaming of military takeover of the U.S. In other words a drill of "Granite Shadow" from the military's homeland security operation Northcom.

Now if everything was above board, and the Bush administration thought they had support for removing barriers to domestic military control, why not just announce what was going on. No, what we get is that he went there to essentially stay out of the way of local officials. But the government, nor the military, talks about projects like "Granite Shadow" nor the purpose and reach of Northcom. There was very little talk, and virtually no public debate, about the emergency operation of the U.S. Congress in the even of disaster.

The word "shadow" has a conspiratorial ring to it. It could mean that there is a "backup" plan, but it doesn't seem to mean that when it comes to government operations. "Shadow" seems to mean "covert," and generally in violation of the U.S. Constitution and laws.

All of this points to what may be at risk if there is success in making the U.S. military the first responder of choice, and the controlling agency in the event of disaster. In the moments of starving to death because of the lack of response of the federal agency tasked with helping, then the military looks pretty good. However, that is a manufactured choice. It is a choice manufactured by the shifting of budgets and priorities to military purposes. It is manufactured by stripping the states of the National Guard (and their best equipment) for a manufactured war in Iraq and elsewhere. It is a focus on "war" and on "intelligence" geared towards a constructed, nurtured, and hyped, invisible enemy who may strike anywhere at anytime.

Putting forward the military as the only organization that has the resources and response capability in the event of a disaster, has nothing to do with what that might be the case, nor why the didn't respond to start out with. Hospital ships and supplies that had been staged for Katrina were actually returned to port. They certainly could have been there days earlier. Were they delayed, and FEMA response deliberately slowed, to create a tragedy? Then you can have them "ride to the rescue" to "prove" that military control is the best? I doubt that the plan was that organized, but there are those in the halls of power who are adroit at turning disaster to larger ends.

Even without those considerations and speculations, I do not believe that the military is the best to respond or to be in control in an emergency.