http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/polit ... ?th&emc=th
October 11, 2005
Military May Propose an Active-Duty Force for Relief Efforts
By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 - The military's Northern Command is developing a proposal to organize a specially trained and equipped active-duty force that could respond quickly to assist relief efforts in the event of overwhelming natural disasters, like major hurricanes, floods or earthquakes.
The proposal, one of the first results from the military's study of shortcomings in the relief effort after Hurricane Katrina, could resolve significant stumbling blocks to the deployment of active-duty forces into a disaster area on American soil.
President Bush has urged Congress to consider laws allowing a greater role for the active-duty armed forces in disaster relief.
The force under consideration would keep hundreds of soldiers standing by on short notice to assist National Guard soldiers. The new unit could include military communications technicians, logistics specialists, doctors and nurses, engineers and even infantry.
The active-duty forces could rapidly fill the gap if state and local police officers, firefighters and local medical personnel were overwhelmed and unable to serve as the first line of relief, as happened during Hurricane Katrina.
The idea has not yet been presented to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld or to the military's Joint Staff. It was described in an interview by Adm. Timothy J. Keating, the head of the Northern Command, which is in charge of the military's response to threats on American soil.
The force would be designed to move in quickly alongside National Guard forces, with whom it would train, rather than taking over the mission. The virtue of such an active-duty unit is that it could swiftly bring important capabilities to bear in a natural disaster on American soil. With all of the operating rules agreed upon in advance, the command of the mission would remain with the National Guard, answering to state governors, putting off any need to debate whether to federalize the operation.
In the first days after Hurricane Katrina passed and the levees broke in New Orleans, flooding the city, the Democratic governor of Louisiana and White House officials squabbled over whether the federal government should take command of the faltering relief effort.
Active-duty troops may conduct relief operations without the federal government being in charge, but the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits active-duty forces from conducting law enforcement missions on American soil.
Pentagon and military officials say that federal troops could not have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans without breaking the Posse Comitatus law.
That would not be a problem with the standby force as long as it was kept to logistical and relief operations and the mission, in particular law-enforcement duties, remained with the National Guard reporting to the state governors.
The federal, state and local authorities would first agree, in advance, on what kind of event would lead to the sending of active-duty forces into a state. The criteria might include predictions of hurricane severity, the level of damage from an earthquake or casualty figures. Admiral Keating said that could help eliminate politics from the calculation.
"The success or failure of our effort won't depend on the political dealings between the governors and the president," he said. "We'll just get a mission and we'll execute it."
Had such a plan been in place when Hurricane Katrina barreled through the Gulf Coast region, a potent active-duty force could have flowed in faster to join National Guard troops, which already have the legal authority to carry out law enforcement duties under state control.
But, while some in Congress have urged the Bush administration to reconsider the limits of the Posse Comitatus Act, Admiral Keating said he was wary of the military's role in law enforcement.
"I'm not at all convinced that we need to go back and revise Posse Comitatus," he said. "I don't think the American people writ large are anxious to have active-duty forces in a law enforcement role."
It is not yet clear how much such a plan would cost or whether the military could spare the money or the troops at a time when it is stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Admiral Keating said a contingency force would be loosely modeled on existing rapid-response forces like the ready brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C., which can deploy anywhere in the world in 18 hours, and others that stand ready to deal with domestic terrorist attacks.
But he said the new force could be drawn as required from existing units that would still train for and carry out their current combat duties. It would not require the military to create and finance a separate domestic defense force, he said.
Although Mr. Rumsfeld has acknowledged the inadequacies of the Hurricane Katrina relief mission and has said the active-duty military has a sweeping array of capabilities that could be brought to bear, he has taken no public stance on the way ahead.
~~~end article
my comments...
"Admiral Keating said that could help eliminate politics from the calculation."
Sounds good to me, I'm all for that. Rumsfeld is an idiot; but not so this admiral ... he has some very good ideas, this is just what our country needs; and what many who join the military are hoping to do … be there to help others. In addition; this admiral is very clear about NOT becoming another ‘police’ force. Rumfeld’s head is up his ass; but this admiral's head is on straight. And as for cost and staffing ~ simple; move our troops from Iraq & Afghanistan and put them here. Hope this passes. ~d
Military May Propose an Active-Duty Force for Relief Efforts
-
whimsicaldeb
- Posts: 882
- Joined: November 3rd, 2004, 4:53 pm
- Location: Northern California, USA
- Contact:
-
hester_prynne
Indeed, if warfare is to become more weatheristic and natural disaster induced, then a military response is certainly the next step.
I'd prefer response teams that were non-military myself. The military is getting too much power and this seems another insidious ploy to me, for them to add more military to our procedures. I'm wary of this. Very wary Deb.
H
I'd prefer response teams that were non-military myself. The military is getting too much power and this seems another insidious ploy to me, for them to add more military to our procedures. I'm wary of this. Very wary Deb.
H
I understand your trepidation, Hester. I also agree that the military is grossly missused. I wonder, WhimsyDebbie, if indeed that most combat ready guys want to serve in peacekeeping and disaster relief roles. Afterall, they've got firepower to unleash.
However gung-ho for combat those troops might be, they almost would be assuredly dissuaded away from reckless feckless combat in favor of missions of relief and humanitarian rescue. No doubt.
What is needed is motivation and the discipline that comes from that. In the process, a more humane military culture should evolve, along with the closing of the SOA, among other things, like an end to imperialist wars and the closure of the military empire.
However gung-ho for combat those troops might be, they almost would be assuredly dissuaded away from reckless feckless combat in favor of missions of relief and humanitarian rescue. No doubt.
What is needed is motivation and the discipline that comes from that. In the process, a more humane military culture should evolve, along with the closing of the SOA, among other things, like an end to imperialist wars and the closure of the military empire.
[color=darkcyan]i'm on a survival mission
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
canada is doing the same thing, a project in which i am involved
the facts are that to organize quickly and respond correctly to natural disasters, you need certain capabilties, including:
- command and control and communications (can't rely on telephones or cell/microwave)
- flexible transportation (small boats, tracked vehicles, people-carrying helicopters)
- manpower that follows orders and will show up when called upon
- warehousing and other infrastructure to support it
- training
to have these types of things sitting there and waiting for disasters and nothing else would be hugely expensive...this is why militaries are so effective in dealing with disaster relief and humanitarian aid (although many HA organizations would disagree with that)...militaries have the type of stuff one needs to be able to respond to hurricanes, ice storms, food shortages, and the like...and they can do it very quickly (in fact, the biggest cog in the wheel of response is governments making the decision to use them)
not saying another way is impossible, but it would be prohibitively expensive
the facts are that to organize quickly and respond correctly to natural disasters, you need certain capabilties, including:
- command and control and communications (can't rely on telephones or cell/microwave)
- flexible transportation (small boats, tracked vehicles, people-carrying helicopters)
- manpower that follows orders and will show up when called upon
- warehousing and other infrastructure to support it
- training
to have these types of things sitting there and waiting for disasters and nothing else would be hugely expensive...this is why militaries are so effective in dealing with disaster relief and humanitarian aid (although many HA organizations would disagree with that)...militaries have the type of stuff one needs to be able to respond to hurricanes, ice storms, food shortages, and the like...and they can do it very quickly (in fact, the biggest cog in the wheel of response is governments making the decision to use them)
not saying another way is impossible, but it would be prohibitively expensive
-
whimsicaldeb
- Posts: 882
- Joined: November 3rd, 2004, 4:53 pm
- Location: Northern California, USA
- Contact:
Hi JB
However gung-ho for combat those troops might be, they almost would be assuredly dissuaded away from reckless feckless combat in favor of missions of relief and humanitarian rescue. No doubt.
I agree.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hester... you wrote:
I'd prefer response teams that were non-military myself. The military is getting too much power and this seems another insidious ploy to me, for them to add more military to our procedures. I'm wary of this. Very wary Deb.
"Did you think I’d just accept you in blind faith? Oh sure baby, anything to please you … ” ~ Tina Turner, “What’s Love Got To Do With It”
Hi Hester; your wariness is actually well placed ...remember this ...
and here's an additional from World Bank on the same subject:
Some of these 'worse case forecasts' we've already seen/read of happening with Katrina.
So being wary of their reasons; asking more questions of what's really behind the creation of this new response team is necessary and justified.
Still, to get what we want, desire … need – it’s got to start someplace. At the same time, we can't become so jaded and distrustful that we're afraid to move or take a risk to get what we want.
We need a strong military ... but we don’t need an oppressive one.
There has been learning from past mistakes on so many, all levels/places - including in our miltary; from our past abuses (given & received) – Vietnam, Korea… Even now were seeing the militaries of Honduras, Guatemala, Pakistan, India responding to their own countries natural disasters - and facing the same problems we did in the process.
Something needs to be done; and this Admiral seems to have started something that is necessary. But what he's started is NOT the final outcome ~ it's a draft right now ... thus open to input ... that's why now is so important. Those that are in a position to bring in the changes we want/need have to step in - taking what we’ve learned and applying it with what the military has learned. This situation requires we work with our military.
I see this Natural Disaster Response team, if used wisely; to be a great opportunity for our nation to change the way it's been doing things, change the way our military has/is run (and it NEEDS changing) in the past, and begin again ~ only this time better. More humane. Maybe even more compassionate.
But not (or no longer) deaf, blind or dumb to the abuse (given or received).
However gung-ho for combat those troops might be, they almost would be assuredly dissuaded away from reckless feckless combat in favor of missions of relief and humanitarian rescue. No doubt.
I agree.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hester... you wrote:
I'd prefer response teams that were non-military myself. The military is getting too much power and this seems another insidious ploy to me, for them to add more military to our procedures. I'm wary of this. Very wary Deb.
"Did you think I’d just accept you in blind faith? Oh sure baby, anything to please you … ” ~ Tina Turner, “What’s Love Got To Do With It”
Hi Hester; your wariness is actually well placed ...remember this ...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1050857.htm
Leaked US report warns climate change may bring famine, war
Monday, February 23, 2004. 9:24am (AEDT)
A secret report prepared by the Pentagon warns that climate change may lead to global catastrophe costing millions of lives and is a far greater risk than terrorism, the British newspaper Observer said.
The report was ordered by an influential US Pentagon adviser but was covered up by "US defence chiefs" for four months, until it was "obtained" by the British weekly.
The leak promises to draw angry attention to US environmental and military policies, following Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and President George W Bush's scepticism about global warning - a stance that has stunned scientists worldwide.
The Pentagon report, commissioned by Andrew Marshall, predicts that "abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies," the newspaper reported.
The report, quoted in the paper, concluded, "disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life.... once again, warfare would define human life".
Its authors - Peter Schwartz, a US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) consultant and a former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Dough Randall of Global Business Network based in California, said climate change should be considered "immediately" as a top political and military issue.
It "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern", they were quoted as saying.
Experts familiar with the report told the newspaper the threat to global stability "vastly eclipses that of terrorism".
Coming from the Pentagon, normally a bastion of conservative politics and focused on military and political strategy, the report is expected to bring environmental issues to the fore in the US presidential race.
-- AFP
and here's an additional from World Bank on the same subject:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi ... ntagon.htm
Pentagon: "global warming requires immediate action"
The Pentagon's planning scenario says that global warming "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern." It declares that "future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than religion, ideology or national honour." It envisions the need to turn the US and other rich western countries into "fortresses," armed against an angry tide of people displaced by rising sea levels or unable to grow food, and running for their lives.
The report doesn't hem and haw the way the White House does. It doesn't speak in tortured sentences to suggest that the scientific community isn't convinced. It hasn't been proof-read and edited by Exxon/Mobil. It says it plain: "Rather than decades or even centuries of gradual warming, recent evidence suggests the possibility that a more dire climate scenario may actually be unfolding." The report was commissioned "to develop a plausible scenario for abrupt climate change that can be used to explore implications for food supply, health and disease, commerce and trade, and their consequences for national security."
Here's the "plausible scenario" that the Pentagon envisions:
"By 2005 the climatic impact of the shift is felt more intensely in certain regions around the world. More severe storms and typhoons bring about higher storm surges and floods in low-lying islands such as Tarawa and Tuvalu (near New Zealand). In 2007, a particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through levees in the Netherlands making a few key coastal cities such as The Hague unlivable. Failures of the delta island levees in the Sacramento River region in the Central Valley of California creates an inland sea and disrupts the aqueduct system transporting water from northern to southern California because salt water can no longer be kept out of the area during the dry season... As glacial ice melts, sea levels rise and as wintertime sea extent decreases, ocean waves increase in intensity, damaging coastal cities. Additionally millions of people are put at risk of flooding around the globe (roughly 4 times 2003 levels), and fisheries are disrupted as water temperature changes cause fish to migrate to new locations and habitats, increasing tensions over fishing rights."
The Pentagon foresees fishing wars between Spain and Portugal. Pakistan, India, and China - all armed with nuclear weapons - skirmish at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land. Bangladesh becomes uninhabitable. Drought hits the American breadbasket. Britain's weather begins to resemble Siberia. India, South Africa, and Indonesia are ripped apart by civil war. And ultimately, the report forecasts a decrease in the planet's human carrying capacity, leading to sharp reductions in the world's population due to starvation, disease, and war.
Some of these 'worse case forecasts' we've already seen/read of happening with Katrina.
So being wary of their reasons; asking more questions of what's really behind the creation of this new response team is necessary and justified.
Still, to get what we want, desire … need – it’s got to start someplace. At the same time, we can't become so jaded and distrustful that we're afraid to move or take a risk to get what we want.
We need a strong military ... but we don’t need an oppressive one.
There has been learning from past mistakes on so many, all levels/places - including in our miltary; from our past abuses (given & received) – Vietnam, Korea… Even now were seeing the militaries of Honduras, Guatemala, Pakistan, India responding to their own countries natural disasters - and facing the same problems we did in the process.
Something needs to be done; and this Admiral seems to have started something that is necessary. But what he's started is NOT the final outcome ~ it's a draft right now ... thus open to input ... that's why now is so important. Those that are in a position to bring in the changes we want/need have to step in - taking what we’ve learned and applying it with what the military has learned. This situation requires we work with our military.
I see this Natural Disaster Response team, if used wisely; to be a great opportunity for our nation to change the way it's been doing things, change the way our military has/is run (and it NEEDS changing) in the past, and begin again ~ only this time better. More humane. Maybe even more compassionate.
But not (or no longer) deaf, blind or dumb to the abuse (given or received).
-
hester_prynne
I guess i'm just questioning more and more how natural these "natural disasters" are. I mean, it explains Bushko's lack of concern about global warming....
And this Admiral, well, maybe he knows we are going to need more disaster relief as a part of warfare now that weather warfare is here?
Who knows anything anymore?????
Who trusts anything that comes out of Bushko and his military anymore?
Not me. I'm wary of it all. Very wary. Too many hidden agendas already out in the open for me to think that this kind of thing isn't just another scam on the naive.
H
And this Admiral, well, maybe he knows we are going to need more disaster relief as a part of warfare now that weather warfare is here?
Who knows anything anymore?????
Who trusts anything that comes out of Bushko and his military anymore?
Not me. I'm wary of it all. Very wary. Too many hidden agendas already out in the open for me to think that this kind of thing isn't just another scam on the naive.
H
-
hester_prynne
Naw, I don't feel paranoid myself.
But wary is the exact word. I guess i've just never felt this wary before....on such a large scale, or when there is so much at stake.
It's going to take me awhile to feel very positive about anything that is military, or of a military flavor. It's become so glaringly evident to me that combat and violence are the product of old, arrogantly blinded reason, due to conditioned behavior I suppose, those overgrown, overfed bellies, full of romantic unrealistic war dreams. They are totally removed from the nightmare of it. Perhaps they will be, from here to eternity! (heh) I dunno Knip.
I want a newly defined military here in the USA. With new priorities and missions that center on tending to our own country's standards and well being within our borders, and leaving others alone....
H
But wary is the exact word. I guess i've just never felt this wary before....on such a large scale, or when there is so much at stake.
It's going to take me awhile to feel very positive about anything that is military, or of a military flavor. It's become so glaringly evident to me that combat and violence are the product of old, arrogantly blinded reason, due to conditioned behavior I suppose, those overgrown, overfed bellies, full of romantic unrealistic war dreams. They are totally removed from the nightmare of it. Perhaps they will be, from here to eternity! (heh) I dunno Knip.
I want a newly defined military here in the USA. With new priorities and missions that center on tending to our own country's standards and well being within our borders, and leaving others alone....
H
-
whimsicaldeb
- Posts: 882
- Joined: November 3rd, 2004, 4:53 pm
- Location: Northern California, USA
- Contact:
...the overfed belly stuff is overused, by the way. -- knip
I agree
~~~~
Hester;
I want a newly defined military here in the USA. With new priorities and missions that center on tending to our own country's standards and well being within our borders, and leaving others alone....
That's what this national disaster team recommendation is all about ... creating just that ... a newly defined military; with new priorities and missions centered on tending to our own countries needs; as well as the needs of others; as we ALL ~ as a global community deal with our self created global warming weather disasters.
Bush is an idiot; and he may even be just a pawn in the game (to use Dylan's phrase); but Global Warming and it's effects to us all is real and is no joke.
That the Pentagon knows this; knew this … and has been listening to our scientist and other countries scientists all along even when Bush & Co hasn't been ... is a "thank god someone's listening!" experience. Someone with authority; and someone willing to do something about what scientist have been warning about for some time now.
To have what you want (for our military) which is what I want ... what is what so many other people (you can figure on at least 50% or better of those who didn't vote for Bush) ... it has to start somewhere … and be presented by someone or group that people will take seriously, will listen too.
And I really feel like this is it.
I agree
~~~~
Hester;
I want a newly defined military here in the USA. With new priorities and missions that center on tending to our own country's standards and well being within our borders, and leaving others alone....
That's what this national disaster team recommendation is all about ... creating just that ... a newly defined military; with new priorities and missions centered on tending to our own countries needs; as well as the needs of others; as we ALL ~ as a global community deal with our self created global warming weather disasters.
Bush is an idiot; and he may even be just a pawn in the game (to use Dylan's phrase); but Global Warming and it's effects to us all is real and is no joke.
That the Pentagon knows this; knew this … and has been listening to our scientist and other countries scientists all along even when Bush & Co hasn't been ... is a "thank god someone's listening!" experience. Someone with authority; and someone willing to do something about what scientist have been warning about for some time now.
To have what you want (for our military) which is what I want ... what is what so many other people (you can figure on at least 50% or better of those who didn't vote for Bush) ... it has to start somewhere … and be presented by someone or group that people will take seriously, will listen too.
And I really feel like this is it.
Mercy are youse guys a goin at it, wow. First,
are you locked in some conundrum, some labyrinth of inebriation, that
send me a telegram. stop.
this is pure pudding, palz. what sweet nothing! meaningless dribble triflings. then...the overfed belly stuff is overused, by the way. -- knip
is so clear to me, what is the beef here?want a newly defined military here in the USA. With new priorities and missions that center on tending to our own country's standards and well being within our borders, and leaving others alone....
are you locked in some conundrum, some labyrinth of inebriation, that
is all you can come up with? what givez?i suspect that is what you want until the minute you want something else
send me a telegram. stop.
[color=darkcyan]i'm on a survival mission
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
-
whimsicaldeb
- Posts: 882
- Joined: November 3rd, 2004, 4:53 pm
- Location: Northern California, USA
- Contact:
Hi JB, I can't tell if your question is for me, or me & knip, or just knip alone. However, speaking for myself ... If your comments are for me ... no, I'm not going 'at' hester. Interesting that you should view the first comment as like "pudding" and "sweet nothings" ... made me think of
Puddin'head Wilson
by Sam Clemens
...
My agreeing with knip about the comment was not meant as anything against Hes personally; but saying 'no thanks' to the offering of such ... "Loaded" (old "way it was" and/or preconcieved) words/comments/ideas.
I hope I'm explaining this well, but I may not be. Anyway ... hope you and hester understand.
Puddin'head Wilson
by Sam Clemens
...
My agreeing with knip about the comment was not meant as anything against Hes personally; but saying 'no thanks' to the offering of such ... "Loaded" (old "way it was" and/or preconcieved) words/comments/ideas.
I hope I'm explaining this well, but I may not be. Anyway ... hope you and hester understand.
-
hester_prynne
Indeed, I think we are all tired. Heh.
No offense was intended on my "overfed belly...." deal to anyone here. I was speaking about a generation of people who don't seem to realize the gravity of war today as their experience of it was different, in a different world and time.
I think we all are on the same page somewhat about how we'd like to see our current military goals change to something more useful and productive.
I know I change my mind alot Knip. After all I am a woman! hee hee.
But I don't think I've changed my mind regarding how I feel about this war, and this government.
We all want what's best. It seems it's been a long downhill ride and it seems like uphill is still far far away, and many many try try agains away as well.
But try try again I will I will.
Until I get a decent job again. Pardon me if at times I seem very overwhelmed or angry or pessimistic. It's been a harder crueler world experience for me for couple a years now and I am getting tired of it, tired of getting nowhere on what feels like all sides.
Something will break.....hopefully before I do....
I wish I could write a poem.
I feel so empty of that these days......
smoochies,
H
No offense was intended on my "overfed belly...." deal to anyone here. I was speaking about a generation of people who don't seem to realize the gravity of war today as their experience of it was different, in a different world and time.
I think we all are on the same page somewhat about how we'd like to see our current military goals change to something more useful and productive.
I know I change my mind alot Knip. After all I am a woman! hee hee.
But I don't think I've changed my mind regarding how I feel about this war, and this government.
We all want what's best. It seems it's been a long downhill ride and it seems like uphill is still far far away, and many many try try agains away as well.
But try try again I will I will.
Until I get a decent job again. Pardon me if at times I seem very overwhelmed or angry or pessimistic. It's been a harder crueler world experience for me for couple a years now and I am getting tired of it, tired of getting nowhere on what feels like all sides.
Something will break.....hopefully before I do....
I wish I could write a poem.
I feel so empty of that these days......
smoochies,
H
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest