# Bush says response is "unacceptable"



## Armymedic (3 Sep 2005)

We have a saying. I am sure its not only a military saying as it does ring true:

*Piss poor planning and preparation results in piss poor performance.*

Otherwise known as doing a good recce, doing battle procedure, etc, etc....

So where has the US Gov't, the La Gov't and the City of New Orleans go wrong on this?



For the military responce, I think they are doing it as good as it can be done;
from warning order to arrival on scene was 2-3 days, about the same as it was for our troops from Petawawa to get into area east of Ottawa during the Ice Storm.

edit to add a link...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4211528.stm
Anyway your thoughts...


----------



## bravo2 (3 Sep 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> :
> For the military responce, I think they are doing it as good as it can be done;
> from warning order to arrival on scene was 2-3 days, about the same as it was for our troops from Petawawa to get into area east of Ottawa during the Ice Storm.
> 
> ...






Since Lt. Gen. Russel Honore took charge, things seems to be moving faster now !?


----------



## Black Watch (3 Sep 2005)

I wonder what would have happened if Katrina hitted Texas instead of Louisiana


----------



## 48Highlander (3 Sep 2005)

Black Watch said:
			
		

> I wonder what would have happened if Katrina hitted Texas instead of Louisiana



Well, for one thing, there'd be no flooding.


----------



## Acorn (3 Sep 2005)

One possible explanation is that FEMA was made subordinate to Homeland Security, and the bulk of the latter's budget goes to anti-terrorist stuff. FEMA has seen a reduction in resources.


----------



## muskrat89 (3 Sep 2005)

Speaking strictly of New Orleans - it was the Mayor's responsibility to get that City evacuated before the storm. For him to cry foul now is silly.

I read somewhere that in all of the disaster scenarios planned for, and rehearsed for - one scenario that was never thought of was the levees actually breaching. All the scenarios had them over-flowing, but not breaching.

Too much reliance on cell phones, which failed due to towers being N/S

People not evacuating when being told to

There's plenty of blame to go around.....


----------



## Strike (3 Sep 2005)

People weren't evacuated because the means weren't made available to them.  Anyone who had a car was able to drive out.  However, in a state where the poverty is anything but invisible, there were no buses to take these people out.

There was also no curfew put into place BEFORE the storm hit.  This would have helped in the government and other agencies in having an organized evacuation.

When the "shoot to kill" policy came out wrt the looting, one cop stated that if he caught someone looting food and water he would look the other way.  Well done.


----------



## Springroll (3 Sep 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Speaking strictly of New Orleans - it was the Mayor's responsibility to get that City evacuated before the storm. For him to cry foul now is silly.



If I recall correctly, he was on the news begging people to get the hell out of dodge. I feel he has full rights to complain because the rescue response has been pathetic. If we can gather teams, equipment and money as fast as we did for the tsunami victims, which was a half world away, then why can't we(North American Citizens) get this moving faster for people residing on our own continent?? Virginia is not that far away and there is a full Naval base there. What about the base in Florida??

Things could have(and should have) been moving faster than what they are right now. 

JMO


----------



## muskrat89 (3 Sep 2005)

In the flood pictures are lots full of school buses and other buses - all parked in enclosures and flooded. If he didn't have the means, it was up to him to do a better job in finding transportation. I'm not saying it is all his fault, just that part of the responsibility is his.

Springroll - let me rephrase - he has every right to complain, sure. As I said above, he needs to bear some of the responsibility himself. I do some of this stuff here in Arizona on a municipal, County, and State level - I do have some degree of understanding regarding how it is supposed to work, at least here in the US...


----------



## Springroll (3 Sep 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Springroll - let me rephrase - he has every right to complain, sure. As I said above, he needs to bear some of the responsibility himself. I do some of this stuff here in Arizona on a municipal, County, and State level - I do have some degree of understanding regarding how it is supposed to work, at least here in the US...



I agree that he should bear some of the responsibility for those that were unable to leave. The closest I ever got to any US stuff when i was living down south was volunteering with the American Red Cross. Clostest level i got to was County...lol

Edited to add: About three years ago, the New York Times and the local papers in New Orleans did feature articles warning about this exact scenario - a levee break following a major storm. What does El Presidente do in reaction? CUT funding for the three-plus million in annual levee repairs and maintenence.


----------



## Strike (3 Sep 2005)

I know that I will get blasted for this comment, so let me add the caveat that I do feel horrible for what these people are going through.

But what do people expect, living on a flood plain or below sea level?   Especially in an area that is known for tropical storms and hurricanes?   But, of course, everything will be rebuilt in the exact same areas, making them susceptible to these same occurrences in the future.


----------



## Sheerin (3 Sep 2005)

I wonder how much power the office of the mayor has.


----------



## muskrat89 (3 Sep 2005)

The Mayor of a municipality, especially one the size of New Orleans has a lot more power than you might imagine, including direct lines of communication to the Governor's office, and Federal resources also.

Look it is a cascading sytem of responsibilty. As I said, there is lots of blame to go around. President Bush needs to accept responsibility for resources under Federal jurisdiction, the Governor for things under State jurisdiction, the County Supervisors for County jurisdiction, and the Mayor, for the City. Don't confuse "fault" with responsibility. There will no doubt be things discovered in the AARs that no one could ever have anticipated - other things, the Agencies responsible should have anticipated, or fell short on, in their response.


----------



## 48Highlander (3 Sep 2005)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I wonder how much power the office of the mayor has.



Not enough.   Evacuating an entire city is not a municipal matter.   The Mayor should have been responsible for sending out emergency broadcasts and coordinating the city's police, fire, and ambulance services.   He could also have chartered busses and trucks to assist those who could not provide their own transportation.   Beyond that, at the state level, the governor should have been coordinating with other cities to make preparations for the arrival of refugees in order to provide temporary shelter, food, and medical services.   She should have mobilized the National Guard immediately to assist wherver neccesary, including at the very least with providing transport in the 24 hours they had before the storm hit (airlift?   naval resources?   many could have been moving in time to help).   While the advance elements helped transport civilians, and provided limited security, the rest would have been going into battle procedure.   State police could have been used at strategic points to keep refugees moving and spread them out over several cities, instead of cramming them all into a giant stadium.   At the federal level, there was very little to do.   Biggest failiures as far as I can see were at the state level.


----------



## -rb (3 Sep 2005)

This is a good read so far that many of you may be interested in, detailing among other things Agency Coordination, Roles and Responsibilities, Federal Law Enforcement Assistance etc. etc.... quite long at 400+ pages and i haven't gone through the bulk of it yet, of particular interest to me though was the Public Safety and Security Annex to the document (ESF #13 for those who download the pdf)...

KATRINA:   AN INCIDENT OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

The wreckage produced by Hurricane Katrina constitutes an
"incident of national significance."

This bit of bureaucratic understatement is actually a
technical term used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to
activate emergency procedures known as the National Response
Plan (NRP).

It was invoked this week for the first time by DHS Secretary
Michael Chertoff.

The NRP, formulated in December 2004, is intended "to align
Federal coordination structures, capabilities, and resources
into a unified, all-discipline, and all-hazards approach to
domestic incident management."

A copy of the National Response Plan is available here (426
pages, 4.0 MB PDF file): http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dhs/nrp.pdf

Obviously many lessons to be learned from New Orleans that could be applied to a Canadian incident of similar magnitude (god forbid).

cheers.


----------



## muskrat89 (3 Sep 2005)

48 - You are correct in naming the logistics, but the Mayor is ultimately responsible for their City. Emergency Management as you indicated is a state function, for the most part - but the Municipalities have people sitting on the EMO Committees, teams, etc...

Remember Giuliani after 9/11 ?  Granted his City is the largest in the US (i.e more, but proportionate resources) BUT - the jurisdictional structures are still the same regarding Emergency Management


----------



## SemperFidelis (3 Sep 2005)

I love that the most powerful and most technologically advanced military in the world...took 4 days to get their bums into New Orleans...Bush was probably choking on a pretzel or learning to tie his shoes...i guess thats a good enough excuse


----------



## -rb (4 Sep 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> 48 - You are correct in naming the logistics, but the Mayor is ultimately responsible for their City. Emergency Management as you indicated is a state function, for the most part - but the Municipalities have people sitting on the EMO Committees, teams, etc...
> 
> Remember Giuliani after 9/11 ?   Granted his City is the largest in the US (i.e more, but proportionate resources) BUT - the jurisdictional structures are still the same regarding Emergency Management



Muskrat89,
although in 911 it may have been that way it appears that that it is has been declared a Federal responsibility (quote from previsouly posted pdf)...


*Incidents of National Significance*
Pursuant to HSPD-5, as the principal Federal official for domestic incident management, the Secretary of
Homeland Security declares Incidents of National Significance (in consultation with other departments and
agencies as appropriate) and provides coordination for Federal operations and/or resources, establishes
reporting requirements, and conducts ongoing communications with Federal, State, local, tribal, privatesector,
and nongovernmental organizations to maintain situational awareness, analyze threats, assess national
implications of threat and operational response activities, and coordinate threat or incident response activities.

cheers.

(edit) OK, so from what I can gather after reading in to this some more the Emergeny Response coordination as a whole is a Federal Responsibility in this case, *but, the Mayor of New Orleans has a clear role in this (as alluded to by you originally muskrat )...

A mayor or city or county manager, as a jurisdiction's
chief executive, is responsible for the public safety and
welfare of the people of that jurisdiction. The Local
Chief Executive Officer:
â-Â  Is responsible for coordinating local resources to
address the full spectrum of actions to prevent,
prepare for, respond to, and recover from incidents
involving all hazards including terrorism, natural
disasters, accidents, and other contingencies;
â-Â  Dependent upon State and local law, has
extraordinary powers to suspend local laws and
ordinances, such as to establish a curfew, direct
evacuations, and, in coordination with the local
health authority, to order a quarantine;
â-Â  Provides leadership and plays a key role in communicating
to the public, and in helping people, businesses,
and organizations cope with the consequences of
any type of domestic incident within the jurisdiction;
â-Â  Negotiates and enters into mutual aid agreements with
other jurisdictions to facilitate resource-sharing; and
â-Â  Requests State and, if necessary, Federal assistance
through the Governor of the State when the jurisdiction's
capabilities have been exceeded or exhausted.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Sep 2005)

48, Yukon, etc... I think you are missing my point. I am not saying who assumes control, once the disaster has passed. I am not saying some entities don't superced others in a jurisdictional hierarchy. I am not saying that every level of Government doesn't share the blame.

I am saying that a Mayor is responsible for their City. They may require assistance and/or coordination from higher levels of Government, but they have the responsibility. Same with the heads of County Government - they are responsible for the unicorporated areas of the County, and for certain things, the incorporated areas as well. And up it goes...

Let's say there's an infantry section going out on patrol. They may require certain forms of support from higher, but the Sect Comd is responsible for the Mission. The FAC is responsible for air support. The Wing Commander is responsible to have the birds in the air at the appropriate timing. If Rifleman Jones forgot the smoke grenades to mark targets, it is not the Combat Team Commander's fault, nor the Wing Commander's, nor the Company Comd, etc. The Soldier bears some responsibility, as does the Sect Comd. As does the Platoon Comd. Depending on the importance/scope of the patrol, the Bn Comd may have to bear some of the responsibility.

The lines of responsibility are clear in some cases, and not so clear in others. The whole system works (or not) however, based on projections, requests, and demands - passed up and down...


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Sep 2005)

SemperFidelis said:
			
		

> I love that the most powerful and most technologically advanced military in the world...took 4 days to get their bums into New Orleans...Bush was probably choking on a pretzel or learning to tie his shoes...i guess thats a good enough excuse



I'm about ready to choke YOU with a ton of pretzels.   Bush not only didn't have the responsibility to deploy the military, but his ability to do so if he chose would have been handicapped by other factors.   For one thing, US law prohibits federal soldiers from acting in any policing capacity - they would have been limited to providing transport and distributing supplies.   For another thing, National Guard units are mobilized for domestic response at the descretion of the STATE government, NOT the president of the USA.   I know that bashing Bush is popular these days, but please, get a clue.


----------



## -rb (4 Sep 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> 48, Yukon, etc... I think you are missing my point. I am not saying who assumes control, once the disaster has passed. I am not saying some entities don't superced others in a jurisdictional hierarchy. I am not saying that every level of Government doesn't share the blame.
> 
> I am saying that a Mayor is responsible for their City. They may require assistance and/or coordination from higher levels of Government, but they have the responsibility. Same with the heads of County Government - they are responsible for the unicorporated areas of the County, and for certain things, the incorporated areas as well. And up it goes...
> 
> ...



Muskrat, coming through loud and clear now and agree 100%, as stated thought it was in a slightly different vein.

cheers.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Sep 2005)

> as alluded to by you originally muskrat



Thank you - every once in awhile you guys talk about something that I actually know something about...


----------



## Gunner (4 Sep 2005)

I see the armchair commentators are all out in full force today.   :

Most of you should reread Muskrat's posts as he is closest to the truth.


----------



## SemperFidelis (4 Sep 2005)

Ive got so much mixed opinion on this topic, that I hardly know where to begin...So I'm not even going to throw crap at the fan anymore, it just might end up splattering all over my face.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Sep 2005)

Needed another option : poor execution of the disaster plan by city officials. The disaster covers a three state area with the worst of it at New Orleans. When preparing to deploy help you have to keep them far enough away from ground zero so as to keep them from becoming casualties. The situation in New Orleans was complicated by the levee breaches which flooded the city. The city was essentially cut off. Helicopters could not fly until the winds died down Tues. As soon as they could fly the Coasties were up doing their thing. The city lost control [many police stopped working]. State officials failed to respond in a timely matter. Local and state officials have to be able to hold their own for 48 hours to allow the Federal government to marshall its resources.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Sep 2005)

Some other poll options that are missing:

Individuals ignoring warnings and staying in the disaster area; and 

Idiotic decisions by local officials before the storm.

My absolute favorite image from the disaster now is the almost 400 city busses of New Orlean's transit service which are quietly underwater in the city parking lot, when they could have been pressed into service just prior to the hurricane in evacuating the who did not have cars. 

Oh, right, President Bush should have been driving these busses....... :


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Sep 2005)

Thanks Gunner - and I am FAR from a SME. I've just happened to work with several levels of Governement, on separate projects, on things that relate to Emergency Management in some capacity. Basically, I have a "working familiarity", I would say. 

Tomahawk's comments reiterated mine, for the most part...


----------



## IcEPiCk (4 Sep 2005)

I agree...  How could all those buses not be an option?

They shouldve been used to transfer the people in the worst sitations (example: cannot afford transportation to begin with)...



However, let's not forget some of the people who stayed PROBABLY wouldve declined the free ticket to another state...


----------



## LF(CMO) (4 Sep 2005)

"I love that the most powerful and most technologically advanced military in the world...took 4 days to get their bums into New Orleans...Bush was probably choking on a pretzel or learning to tie his shoes...i guess thats a good enough excuse" 

 When you've spent some time in the real world, particularly in leadership postions, you will be less likely to make statements similar to the above.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Sep 2005)

Further to what I said before, and a_majoor repeated - from www.drudgereport.com:



> Louisiana disaster plan, pg 13, para 5 , dated 01/00
> 
> 'The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may be used to provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating'...


----------



## SemperFidelis (4 Sep 2005)

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> "I love that the most powerful and most technologically advanced military in the world...took 4 days to get their bums into New Orleans...Bush was probably choking on a pretzel or learning to tie his shoes...i guess thats a good enough excuse"
> 
> When you've spent some time in the real world, particularly in leadership postions, you will be less likely to make statements similar to the above.



I concur, that was an immature thing to say...Ive spent way too much time in the real world though (for a 20 year old) , not in leadership positions however.  But I will def. admit...that was uncalled for.


----------



## squealiox (4 Sep 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Speaking strictly of New Orleans - it was the Mayor's responsibility to get that City evacuated before the storm. For him to cry foul now is silly.



not that silly.
here is the mission statement of the dept of homeland security:


> In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. *This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis * and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort.  The new Department will also prioritize the important issue of citizen preparedness. Educating America's families on how best to prepare their homes for a disaster and tips for citizens on how to respond in a crisis will be given special attention at DHS.
> http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/theme_home2.jsp


----------



## Springroll (4 Sep 2005)

This would be a very good link for those interested in finding out exactly what the governments are doing to help those affected by Katrina: Hurricane Katrina: What Government Is Doing 


edited for spelling


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Sep 2005)

squeeliox - nice to see you arguing with people somewhere other than the political forum   :

If you have read this thread at all, I have said, acknowledged, and agreed with the Federal shortcomings in this disaster. I was merely pointing out that the Mayor has been very vocal in criticising the response, when he bears at least some of the responsibility.



> A mayor or city or county manager, as a jurisdiction's
> chief executive, is responsible for the public safety and
> welfare of the people of that jurisdiction. The Local
> Chief Executive Officer:
> ...



Kind of like me knowingly letting my 7-year old play with matches, and then complaining that the Fire Department took too long to get here....

Further, from the source that squeeliox cited:



> Emphasis on Local Response
> 
> *All incidents* are handled at the lowest possible organizational and jurisdictional level. Police, fire, public health and medical, emergency management, and other personnel are responsible for incident management at the local level. For those events that rise to the level of an Incident of National Significance, the Department of Homeland Security provides operational and/or resource *coordination* for Federal support to on-scene incident command structures.


----------



## Armymedic (4 Sep 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Needed another option : poor execution of the disaster plan by city officials.



Done. good point.


----------



## LF(CMO) (4 Sep 2005)

SemperFidelis said:
			
		

> I concur, that was an immature thing to say...Ive spent way too much time in the real world though (for a 20 year old) , not in leadership positions however.   But I will def. admit...that was uncalled for.



 My statement was a bit harsh.   So I admire your willingness to accept that fact that things could have been phrased differently.   The up side of this is that the Americans (Canadians as well) will be better prepared to deal with a similar situation in the future.

 BTW: We were no better prepared to deal with the Ice Storm of a few years ago.   It wasn't quite so life threatening as this thing is for a number of reasons.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2005)

As a general rule planning is always imperfect (and remember, please, that all generalizations are wrong, including this one) and the more detailed the plan the greater the number of things wrong with it â â€œ which ought to be intuitively obvious.

Planning for a disaster is inordinately complex.   In Canada and the USA there are _competing_ jurisdictions â â€œ some, at any given time, in empire building mode.   (Anyone dealt with PSEPC lately?)   Command and control will be a problem â â€œ no amount of planning and prior coordination will solve that because the troublemakers (and they always exist) will not participate in the planning â â€œ they will pop up, with their special authority and special requirements, at just the worst moment â â€œ bureaucratic _whack-a-mole_ will be the best course open, but it's hard to play when the 'mole' reports to the Deputy Prime Minister and has her thumb firmly on the chequebook.   

Many of the 'normal' planning principles and tools/techniques most familiar to soldiers are unavailable or of dubious value when dealing with disasters and politicians.

The insatiable demands of 24/7 live news creates new problems.   Having Wolf Blitzer and _tout le gang_ interrupting (and being able to demand attention) and second-guessing (because they may have better comms than you do) cannot help. (I have no doubt that CNN etc did save lives â â€œ they brought people in distress to the attention of the Search & Rescue people; I am equally sure that they cost lives â â€œ by causing the SAR resources to be diverted from some other urgent task, one which did not, unfortunately, make it on to world-wide TV.)

Governments, including the military, tend towards narrow-mindedness or blinkered thinking: they are often ignorant of the capabilities of the private sector in areas like logistics.   When, for example, did FEMA call WalMart?   Why hasn't the private sector (big and small) been contracted to build â â€œ right now - refugee camps (dozens, even hundreds of H huts in each) in many of the lower 48 states?

Anyone involved with planning for the aftermath of the Vancouver earthquake or the terrorist bombings in downtown Ottawa?


----------



## Armymedic (4 Sep 2005)

Mr. Edward Campbell,
Eloquent and accurate. 
Lessons learned should be a intresting read.



How much of a problem was the weekend? Warnings were given on Fri, storm hit Monday am, most people at Federal and State level would work Mon-Fri.

So did this have an effect as well?


----------



## Gunner (4 Sep 2005)

The Edmonton Journal ran an article by Marc Caputo who writes for the Knight Ridder chain of newspapers.   I can't seem to find an electronic version but here are some of the highlights of his article "Genesis of a demon": No sense of panic, little preparation as warnings issued by weather service.

25 Aug 05

- KATRINA unexpectedly hits Florida much harder than anticipated and moves into the Gulf of Mexico.
-National Hurricane Centre notes it moves west across warm Gulf water growing stronger (CAT 1 over Florida and now increasing in strength).

27 Aug 05

- KATRINA winds reach 185 km/hr sustained
- In Mississippi - Walmarts/Kmarts inundated with shoppers preparing themselves for KATRINA.   Emergency officials in Mississippi expressed urgency but they were slow to get people out.   They refrained from ordering mandatory evacuation until 6 am Sunday (28 Aug 05). 
- In New Orleans, on the other hand, there were no sense of panic and little preparation.   Few homes were shuttered, fuel was abundant and whatever fear existed was tinged with bravado and ignorance.   Mayor Nagin encouraged people to leave but NO evacuation order was issued and many people stayed.
-   The director of the National Hurricane Centre personally phones Mayor Nagin and urged him to evacuate the city.

28 Aug 05

- Mayor Nagin realizes that KATRINA, now on the horizon of New Orleans, is going to be a problem. KATRINA has now grown to a CAT 5 storm with sustained winds of 281 km/h.   Residents realize that a "perfect storm" is coming and begin to flee the city.
-Mayor Nagin, lets entire morning slip away, and finally issues a mandatory evacuation notice (capping his speech with a "God Bless Us").
- Late afternoon rains begin, then winds, then much more wind...

29 Aug 05

- KATRINA touches down at 0400 hrs.
- In New Orleans, Mayor Nagin and his police command abandon city hall (no power and starting to sway) and move into Hyatt Regency hotel.   
- Relentless pounding of coast by KATRINA
- Hurricane passes, many believe they have survived.
- Worst yet to come with the breaching of the earthen levee system.   One broke early Monday morning but no one realized in the midst of the raging storm.

I'm not a Bush apologist but I hope all the armchair commentators can see all of the failures by the CITY Administration.   Was the State and Federal response slow?   Sure was but considering the magnitude of the devastation and the absolute failure by the front liine emergency management personnel (Mayor, city hall, police, etc) its not surprising. The hysterical comments by the Mayor in newsprint and radio interviews is indictive of:

a. someone who has lost control of the situation; and 

b. someone looking for a scapegoat (unfortunately using race and poverty as a club).

Mayor Nagin was probably elected based on a racial popularity contest and the population of New Orleans is paying the price for not demanding excellence from their leader.   Canadian cities are no different, very few Mayors are able to rise to a challenge as it is against their political nature to "led" during a crisis after been accustomed to sending decisions to committee to build some form of consensus that is half baked vice what is required.   


FEMA was handed a shyte sandwich and told to take a bite...


----------



## visitor (4 Sep 2005)

This is a failing on many levels, beginning with the underfunding of intra-structure. But it is also a human failure.

 Last year New Orleans was evacuated for a hurricane that never came and did not damage.   After "crying wolf", many  people simply did not take the evac order seriously this year. 

Secondly, the woman governor tried to get the director of FEMA to understand the seriousness of the situation. Woman are traditionally not listened to and thought to be hysterical, etc.  (They do not get proper medical care b/c their concerns are not taken seriously).

We are all prone to relive these failures over and over again in future disasters,  unless they are addressed.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Sep 2005)

> Woman are traditionally not listened to and thought to be hysterical, etc.  (They do not get proper medical care b/c their concerns are not taken seriously).



Yeah, like Condoleeza Rice   :

The US has had a number of lady Governors. I live in a State with a lady Governor. She has never complained that she wasn't listened to, because she was female. I think your statement is off, in this context.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (4 Sep 2005)

Gunner has hit the nail on the head.

The US has a _very_ complex domestic operations and disaster response system.   Under it, the initial responsibility for disaster response is firmly in the hands of the states and local governments.   A state will typically request assistance from neighbouring states before it requests Federal help and there is a system of agreements in place to facilitate that.   For example, you saw Guardsmen from the Texas ANG on the scene quite quickly and Texas is sheltering a large number of evacuees.   The Governor of each state is a very powerful person under these circumstances.

However, that being said, the entire US military (Federal) structure, including NORTHCOM and other formations, cannot - legally - get involved until a formal request is received.   Moreover, once Federal troops are deployed they cannot - again legally - get involved with domestic law enforcement.   It will always be the National Guard conducting police-type operations.

Believe it or not, IMHO the Canadian system is much simpler and robust than the US maze of local, state and Federal agencies, PSEPC politics not withstanding.   After only two days of disaster response planning with NORTHCOM in Colorado Springs a couple of years ago, my head was spinning...


----------



## SpruceTree (4 Sep 2005)

I've been following the hurricane and it's aftermath in the news and on a number of US blogs and message boards, and this is by far the most reasoned, intelligent discussion I've encountered so far. It seems to me that when the water retreats, there will be a lot questions about responses and resource allocation from the local to the national level.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Sep 2005)

Here us the emergency response plan for New Orleans.

www.cityofno.com/portal.a...6&tabid=26

DoD site.

http://www.defenselink.mil/


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2005)

A couple of things stand out in my mind:

First - the use of the word MAY as in the paragraph below.   That to me represents a failure to "grasp the nettle" and accept that hard decisions might have to be made - such as telling low wage civic employees that when a problem shows up on the doorstep they are going to be pressed into service to assist their community and that their families and homes are going to come second.   Fair? No. Required? Yes.



> Louisiana disaster plan, pg 13, para 5 , dated 01/00
> 
> 'The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. *School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may  be used to provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating'*...




Second - timing

The threat appeared on Thursday the 25th.
The hurricane appeared on Sunday the 28th.

The mayor announces evacuation less than 6 hours before the storm hits.

All of those buses in the compound are school buses.   Is school in? Or is it not summer holidays down there?    They may not even have a full complement of drivers on hand.


The most telling statement I have heard so far is that after a dry run of an equivalent scenario some two or three years earlier somebody asked what would be done about all those people that didn't have cars.   Apparently there was silence in the room.   If, as presented, that was a meeting of all levels of government, whose responsibility was it to force the question and demand a solution before moving on to the next order of business?

Jurisdictional disputes, responsibilities for budgets, political credit.....and then at the end of everything the same matter of operational logistic support that military forces constantly struggle with - to push or to pull.   Should unneeded supplies be pushed forward, burdening the local commander and/or denying other commanders, or should they be pulled forward based on the commander's request, resulting in delays or even shortages if command, communications and transportation aren't available or up to speed.

In a Canadian context: Is it reasonable, in the event that Vancouver disappears under mud and water, with road and rail cut off, power out and the homes and families of everyone from the mayor on down damaged, destroyed or inaccessible, to rely on a "pull" response with local commanders and assets responding.

With warning, as happened in this case, then movements to high ground, shutting off the gas and the power, etc, all of that should be local.   But once the incident has occurred perhaps the responsibility needs to be removed from the local to higher (or perhaps more remote would be better) agencies.

Final point - our kids have been told at school for years, as have parents that choose to listen, to prepare to be on your own for at least 72 hours after a disaster.   In our case this is critical because almost all the options we are likely to encounter will have little or no warning.


----------



## Gunner (4 Sep 2005)

> However, that being said, the entire US military (Federal) structure, including NORTHCOM and other formations, cannot - legally - get involved until a formal request is received.   Moreover, once Federal troops are deployed they cannot - again legally - get involved with domestic law enforcement.   It will always be the National Guard conducting police-type operations.



You refer of course to the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act).   A very powerful piece of legislation in the US that restricts Federal involvement in "State or domestic" law enforcement. 

Canada did not evolve/develop along US lines and the requirement for a provincial run "national guard or militia" was negated by the ability of provinces to request forces directly from the CDS (no Federal veto ability) to quell civil disturbances.   The CDS also retains the authority to decide what and how much of a response is made in assisting the provincial authority.   This has been done several times in our past (FLQ crisis and OKA crisis to name but two).


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2005)

Gunner:

That raises an interesting point about the nature of governance in Canada and the roles of the Federal and Provincial governments. 

Moderators - off topic alert.

There is the constant debate about equality of provinces and whether the provinces are masters of, the equals of or subservient to the Federal government.

It seems to me that while the Colonial First Ministers were finagling the roles and responsibilities based on them allowing the Fed's certain powers that the actual Colonial Administration, which was based on a hierarchy of Governors and that they didn't disavow, put the provinces in a distinctly subordinate position.   Gunner's comment about the provinces appealing to the CDS directly for assistance, with no federal input can only be seen in that light.

The army is not a creature of the government.  It is a tool of its Commander-In-Chief, the Governor General.  The Federal Government may advise the GG on various issues but the army follows the GG's instructions.  The CDS then ultimately advises and obeys the GG.

How does this relate? 

When a provincial Premier had a problem in the past it was also a problem for the Lieutenant-Governor.  The Lt-Gov would then likely have appealed to their boss, the GG, for assistance, and the GG would have directed the equivalent of a CDS to respond to the request.

Interestingly to me that suggests that while our politics are not hierarchical our governance is.  A source of further and continuing confusion.  The GG owns the only military force in Canada, not the government although the GG has become a creature of the government.

The US has 50 "traditional" armies in the form of the National Guards - armies that can swing between public order or policing duties and conventional warfare roles, conceivably in defence of the State against other States or the Federal Government.  The Federal Government in the meantime is restricted to having an army that can "destroy" any "traditional" army but has little ability to impose its will on the citzens of the States.  A workable balance for the US but an imbalanced Federal Army for the types of "imperial duties" necessary in Iraq and Afghanistan etc.  Thus the need for employing National Guards Infantry.

As I said, a divergence, and sorry for it.  If this prompts comment perhaps it should be sent to another thread.  This was the equivalent of me thinking out loud.

Cheers.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Sep 2005)

Tomahawk6 - it seems someone at Loyola University in NOLA (in this version of their disaster plan cached on 28 Aug 05):

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:kbVWujvWpX8J:www.loyno.edu/studentaffairs/hurricane.emer.plan.html+%22City+of+New+Orleans%22+bus+contract&hl=en

was told/thought the City was going to contract busses for evacuations of vulnerable populations:

"Limited bus transportation is available to evacuate those resident students who are unable to evacuate on their own. Loyola can only evacuate approximately 150 remaining residents. *The City of New Orleans and other agencies contract commercial bus carriers to evacuate hospitals, nursing homes, retirement communities, etc.,  * and those providers will not normally reserve busses for the university to transport college students. "

Wonder how many others thought the same?


----------



## SpruceTree (5 Sep 2005)

Kirkhill, you mentioned one instance where the  problem of transporting the poor was highlighted, but were these disaster plan excercises  a regular occurance? Or was what you mentioned just a meeting and not an excercise? I've googled a bit, but nothing anwering my question came up.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Sep 2005)

Spruce Tree:

Honestly I can't remember the exact reference myself.  There has been a ton of comments seen and heard recently and I can't remember if I saw it in hard copy, on-line or on TV.  Pretty sure it wasn't the latter.  I am inclined to think it might have been a National Post article.

As I recall it the meeting was associated with the dry run that they did 2-3 years ago?

Too much info.  Too little brain. :-\


----------



## SpruceTree (5 Sep 2005)

No worries Kirkhill! I have bouts of the big info/small brain syndrome at time as well!


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2005)

This is from a sometimes army.ca contributor, in today's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050906/COGRANAT06/TPComment/TopStories
My emphasis added.



> Katrina: a black eye for America, a lesson for Canada
> By JACK GRANATSTEIN
> 
> Tuesday, September 6, 2005
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Sep 2005)

While the article is interesting I dont agree that the US went from a first world country to a third world. Maybe New Orleans went from a first world city to a third world city almost overnight but not the entire country.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2005)

A lot of hyperbole floating around the airwaves these days Tomahawk 6.    And you are correct to point out that the 500,000 people in New Orleans (10,000 to 100,000 hard cases) are not indicative of either the personality nor the current condition of the other 250,000,000.  In fact judging from NOAA's aerial imagery currently available the situation west of the levees, on the river and 4 Blocks inland of the Gulf Coast isn't the same as shown in the Disaster clips.

On the other hand, up here midst my compatriots, our people need a hard shaking to realize that bad things happen to good people.  The act of declaring yourself to be good will not protect you from much.  

They need to see that what happened down south can happen up here.  They need to be able to look after themselves (not just nationally but personally).  They need to spend money to be able to do that.  Not other people's money.  Their own money.

In a nation where large parts of the population are already besotted with the notion of moral superiority over the Great Satan and those poor benighted individual trapped within its belly, Jack's article may actually serve to make the case.

Up here you have about 30% of the population that is supportive of the US and its administration and anything up to 60% of the population for whom, no matter what you and your government do, you will always be wrong.  Those numbers don't change on the basis of a few articles.  Much like your red/blue numbers don't change much regardless of the issue.   We have a degree of tribalism settling in internationally.

From where I sit it is as important, if not moreso, to get our people out of their torpor and start facing up to realities, as it is to reduce the ill-will towards America.  I believe that America is strong enough to survive a few external critics, no matter what their intentions.  I am not convinced that our people yet understand just how vulnerable they are and how much work is required.

Cheers, Sir.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2005)

The rhetorical flourishes are interesting once you deconstruct them. Apparently, President Bush should have God like powers to stop or divert the storm, as well as being able to micromanage everything. Perhaps he should have phoned the Mayor of new Orleans to ask why no evacuation order had been posted (the mayor got around to it about six hours before the storm struck). Maybe he should have led a convoy of city busses out of the city, rather than, like the mayor, park them so they now form an artificial reef. The real position of those writers and posters is the American Federal government should have unlimited powers unfettered by any sort of legal or constitutional restraint. (There goes the Republic).

As for "beleted response", the Military was prepositioning men and equipment around the area for days ahead of time, but perhaps some commentators forgot that helicopters and airplanes don't fly in hurricane or gale force winds, and when ALL the roads are washed out, it is exceedingly difficult to drive in your supplies (how many really good MLVW drivers are out there?).

I was in Kemptville during the ice storm, and we had a heck of a time in the cold weather without power, even though we had road access, food and fuel, plus a cooperative population who were proactively helping themselves (where do you think all those trees went to?). Factor all that stuff out of the equation, and the ice storm could have been a very different picture indeed.

Here is why the response was unacceptable:



> *Ghost Plan for a Ghost Town*
> Ghastly oversight in New Orleans.
> 
> By Chris Regan & Bryan Preston
> ...


----------



## Armymedic (6 Sep 2005)

So after reading the article, once again we see:

*Piss poor planning and preparation results in piss poor performance.*

rings true once again....


----------



## hayterowensound (6 Sep 2005)

I have cnn on in the background, and they just said 5 people have died from cholera. And E-coli is everywhere. They are warning people to stay out of the water, and stay out of New Orleans. Also they want everybody from New Orleans to get a Hepatitis "A" How the hell are they going to find everybody they have already evacuated. 

This could get even more out of control.


----------



## hayterowensound (6 Sep 2005)

Sorry. Hepatitis "A" Shot.


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Sep 2005)

I think the planning was right, just poor execution and throw in state/local vs federal power. Evidently Bush met with the mayor and governor the friday before the hurricane struck, to get them to sign off on emergency plans. The governor was confused and wanted 24 hours to think the plan over. Both the governor and mayor are democrats so politics has a factor in this. One can plan for any eventuality but to act decisively at the proper time is what may be the weakness of any emergency plan. I really hope that one positive change will be to streamline the bureaucracy to enable it to respond quickly in times of crisis.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2005)

I wonder if the politicians wouldn't prefer an "automatic" trigger, one that is negotiated ahead of time and called by bureaucrats or better yet one that is objective (ie Category 4 hurricane 48 hours out - go to mandatory evacuation plan).  Politicians generally seem to loathe making a decision.  More particularly they hate to be seen to be wrong.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Sep 2005)

I belong to another forum, one comprised of Outdoor Writers. One of the writers, Tom Gresham, lives in Louisiana. This is part of what he posted today (we were worried about he and some other members that we hadn't heard of since the hurricane):



> I live in Louisiana.
> 
> First. Do not believe a word of anything you read in the New York Times.  Period.  Parade rest.
> 
> ...


----------



## Armymedic (7 Sep 2005)

Your friend speaks of scale, I was talking to my wife about the scale of numbers and why they couldn't evacuate those people faster...

first buses: There were 50 000 (roughly people) in the Super Dome. An average city bus carries 50 pax, a cruiser (Greyhound) carries 40 pax, so you need roughly 1000 buses/bus trips just to evac the Dome. Then the round trip drive for the buses...how long? 

Helicopters: The CG copters and Blackhawks you seen on tv can only carry 3-7 evacuees, depending on what medical pers and equipment the have on board. Also they are flying them to the evac area (which thankfully is close) so lets say 1 hour round trip. Every 4th trip a refuel and rest stop for roughly and hour...and flying only in daylight. So each copter may evac up to a max of 40 evacuees every day.

They were talking the other day about evacuating up to 100 000 people....huge scale in numbers.

Scale of this will be unfathomable to us who are not there to see.


----------



## Ubique RCA (7 Sep 2005)

To say that the city did enough before the incident would be less than true. The city had fueled city school busses sitting there doing nothing ...when a teenager of reportedly 15 years old comendeered a bus put his family on it and drove to texas (picking up other along the way). Now tell me that the city did enough before the incident. Which begs another question....when all of this is going on there are people who are complaining that they are stranded and couldn't leave the city, sure there are those that were but if a 15 year old can drive a bus 8 hours to Texas I'm sure that some could have left. 


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1763947,00.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Sep 2005)

http://epaper.ardemgaz.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=ArDemocrat/2005/09/07&ID=Ar00101

Problem's with the coordination of Guard units.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Sep 2005)

:blotto:


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Sep 2005)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?hp&ex=1126324800&en=905e7a862e1c0023&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Politics complicates the flow of relief forces. No big surprise I suppose.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Sep 2005)

More food for thought....


Interesting note on FOXNews.com:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,168846,00.html

Excerpts:
The Sierra Club and other groups sued the Army Corps of Engineers to stop a 1996 plan to raise and fortify Mississippi River levees because the plan would jeopardize Louisiana forests.
And the New Orleans Times-Picayune has reported that "Save our Wetlands" successfully sued the corps of engineers three decades ago to stop construction on floodgates to block storm surges from the Gulf of Mexico into Lake Pontchatrain, saying they were too damaging to the lake's eco-system.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Sep 2005)

More lunacy

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1479745/posts


The Red Cross Blocked

The Fox News Channel's Major Garrett was just on my show extending the story he had just reported on Brit Hume's show: The Red Cross is confirming to Garrett that it had prepositioned water, food, blankets and hygiene products for delivery to the Superdome and the Convention Center in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, but were blocked from delivering those supplies by orders of the Louisiana *state* government, which did not want to attract people to the Superdome and/or Convention Center. Garrett has no paper trail yet, but will follow up on his verbal confirmation from sources at the highest levels of the Red Cross.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Sep 2005)

Looks like the FEMA guy (who got fired from the horsy club) is taking the first fall.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2005)

Couple of brilliant articles in the Globe and Mail today from Margaret Wente and Rex Murphy

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050910/COREX10/TPColumnists/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050910/COWENT10/TPColumnists/

Couldn't help but link Wente's column (Bureaucracy Kills, Kills, Kills) to this article where Gomery seems to be planning to take on the politicization and corruption of the Civil Service.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050910.wxgomery10/BNStory/National/

Oh to have a Non-Partisan, NON VOTING, Civil Service and not a BUREAUCRACY.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Sep 2005)

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/002660.html

Follow these links on taking responsibility and the reason for the sudden urge for "bipartisanism" on the part of the Democratic leadership in Washington.

Seems like another politician forgot that microphones are ALWAYS live.


----------

