Bush, Chertoff, Brown all failed the Gulf Coast. However so did governors and mayors. Since the New Deal we are used to the Federal Government having a bigger role on national problems than was once the case, but we are still a Federal system.

A year ago one was struck by General Honre marchinng his troops into New Orleans and bringing order and direction. However, do we really want the military operating domestically?

American government was designed to be inefficient and messy. Perhaps when Roosevelt or Kennedy or Clinton are president we want this defficency wiped away. Do we want similar national power when Reagan or Bush are president?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Well, the rich didn't suffer too much in Katrina did they? So everything's really OK.

The failure of Katrina (and Baghdad) is a failure of ideology, not execution. The current political ideology in this country is absolutely opposed to anything that could be considered wealth redistribution (unless it involves a transfer from future generations and wage earners to the upper 1% in the form of increased share of productivity gains/GDP and tax cuts). However, collection and redistribution is and always has been a central task of government (Genesis 41). Until we realize that the failure of Katrina is due to the core principles of the Republican revolution and not (directly) to the incompetence of the people on the ground, nothing will change.

So Blanco and Nagin didn't do so well. So what? As I argued here, piling on Blanco and Nagin is just an attempt to deflect attention. They could have done twice as well and New Orleans still would have been screwed. And why do you care so much about the quality of the Louisiana politicians? I can't see how that is of any great interest, unless you think it somehow mitigates the horrendous federal response. Which it doesn't.

Even card carrying libertarians recognize that the reason you want limited government is precisely so it can d these kinds of things well.

"Mercenary paratroops"? Given that parachuting onto an objective is a specialist functions in large first world militaries, could you cite, please, one mercenary unit that is jump-qualified, with, of course, a drop-qualified air transport unit? Are you, perhaps, confusing "paratroop" with "paramilitary" in the effort to be snarky?

As a matter of historical record, US Army paratroopers were brought into a civil disorder once, Detroit in 1967. I regret that I can't find a full online copy of the Kerner Commission report, with the findings of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. The excerpt to which I've linked does mention the 82nd Airborne troopers having better community relations than the Michigan National Guard and Detroit police. In point of fact, the Guard had extremely poor weapons discipline and were using such things as quad .50 machine guns to wreck buildings from which there were unconfirmed reports of shooting.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Oh? So you consider the US Army's 82nd Airborne Division to be mercenaries? No, Ellen. I named no mercenaries by any real-world definition.

You still made an allegation you haven't substantiated. The 82nd are not mercenaries. Who else did you have in mind? The UK Parachute Regiment? Or is it your contention that there is no difference between the regular militaries of countries and mercenaries?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Shall we lament a little more?

I know the Kerner Report well, having worked on one of the taskforces that organized material for the final report.

The Michigan National Guard was at that time, all white, and mostly from Suburban former Detroit residents who had "white flighted" themselves out of the city. They were very poorly trained, not equipted for the requirements, and their leadership was mostly drawn from local politically connected retired military -- in 67 that would have meant from the pre-integration army. A Kerner Report recommendation was for proper professionalization of leadership and proper equiptment and training and above all, re-organization so as to integrate Guard Units. In 1967, one characteristic of the Guard all over the country was it was being used as a ticket out of Vietnam. Just like George Bush used the Guard. Just like Dan Quayle did. African Americans did not get many of those out of Nam tickets into the Guard.

The Detroit Police were similar. It was a virtually all white force, most of whom had moved (Fled) out of the city. Remember, in 1967 Affirmative Action was only a two year old requirement, and it would take a string of law suits to force Detroit Police and Fire to open up and recruit African Americans.

I don't think there is any comparison between the urban riots of the 60's and what happened in New Orleans. The cause of the problems in New Orleans was a deadly flood that wiped out about 80% of the housing. It was about race only to the extent that the means to evacuate were ownership of assets (have car, have gas money, have credit card for motel) and those without those assets had no one planning for their lives and safety, and the most afflicted were poor and black. Detroit was about Race and New Orleans was about class and economics reflected in endemic Racism.

The Police Force in New Orleans has been problematic for years. In many cities the FBI has ripped into mob influence in local politics and police -- this has not really happened to the point of causing reform in New Orleans. Indeed some important Politicians have gone to jail for buying and selling influence, but it hasn't cut deep enough to cause the rise of a real reform movement. The Police Force reflects this -- it overlooks much in the interests of a very complex structure. During the Katrina flood some members stuck to their jobs and did what they could, even though they had no cars and no radio, others were off duty when their homes were flooded, and they could not respond because they were in the attic with their family chopping holes so as to get a coast guard ride out, and others crossed the line and became looters. Had there been a plan -- families would have had a clear evacuation plan, and all of the force would have been in the station houses for the duration. The NO Police would not have been refused funding from Homeland Security for boats. They would have had designated high parking places for squad cars. They would have done tabletop exercises regarding the contingencies of such an emergency. And one might add -- the 911 commission recommendation regarding police/fire/EMS communications would have been acted on before last year -- and it is still not acted on actually. Someone would have had a plan to evacuate the local jail -- and move the court and criminal records along with the inmates -- better yet, have them on a secure server someplace safe and dry. When you inventory everything that went wrong you comprehend much. Too Much.

Why don't you care about the quality of the local politicians? Bush, Chertoff and Brown obviously failled. However, not all of the tasks that involved in the loss of life and the hardship for people, something that does not always concern everyone, were the result of local officials. I realize this site is dedicated to beating up on Bush and ignoring facts just as Bush does.

I presume your ideological bent is that the Federal government should have prevented all that went wrong due to Katrina. Do you really want a powerful central government regardless of who is president? This president seems unable to appoint a competent person for any job.

Exactly why isn't it possible for the Left to be any more honest than the Right? Katrina was a massive failure of government at all levels. Bush's failures does not mitigate the need to think about what went wrong.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I'm with you on uses of the military.

In situations like hurricanes and floods it has typically been state-controlled national guard soldiers helping out. Everyone understands these are temporary deployments. More troubling is the border deployment.

Clearly disasters which incapacitate local governments necessarily require action by the federal government. When the phone system is down in Baton Rouge it still works fine inside the Beltway. Etc.

That's so obvious that it's equally clear that most of the discussion of the (inadequate) local response is just copied from Karl Rove's talking points .

No, no, no, NO!

American soldiers take an oath to uphold the laws of the land. The take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." A grateful nation renumerates them for their efforts. A GOD DAMN MERCENARY takes an oath to make a god damn buck!

Sorry for the language and the typos but since a) I have family in the military, and b) I BELIEVE in a liberal democracy with a citizen defense, this shit pisses me off!

It's actually illegal for the US military to be used to patrol American cities. This is a straw man argument. The national guard is supposed to be used in these instances. Unfortunately the bulk of our guard is elsewhere. I wish I knew where they were ... Hmmm ...

Back to the point of the post which was about how we, the United States, looked like a bunch of fools to the rest of the world for our miserable response. Yes, local government deserves a healthy dose of the blame, but make no damn bones about it, an active, engaged White House could have moved men and dollars unlike anyone else. Apparently they thought it was some one else's problem and chose not to.

Is there any doubt that Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, or Carter would not have been on the damn phone all day and night kicking people's asses? Of course not. This clown turned in early and got a good night's sleep, then found time to eat some cake and yuck it up with a musician. Clean up? I'll let my chief political officer, Rove, handle it. That is why we look like bozos.

Is 'paratroops,' in this case, a shortening of paramilitary troops?

I think you just told me the most important thing you could, Ellen. Apparently, you consider anything military to be evil; it wasn't just lack of knowledge that caused you to ridicule a minor a point as a standard abbreviation for military rank.

Goodbye, Ellen. If I have the occasional ability to point out how absurd your posts may be, and how you adore hypocritical snarkiness, I may take that. But please, please don't take such posts as being made respectfully. If this is your attitude, I hold you in total contempt, and hope more recognize your extremism and hypocrisy.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

And what "strict definition" did you have in mind? I quote the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (GC) of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. I note that while this has been widely adopted, the US has not ratified it, but there is other US law, or US ratified international law, that it is abundantly clear that a member of the regular armed forces of a nation, who swears (US-specific) to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United states, and follows the customary laws of war, is not a mercenary by the conventional concept of international law.

Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

There are annual UN Reports on he Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination.

The constant thread through all of these is that a lawful combatant, a citizen of a given country, is not a mercenary when fighting for that country. There are various special cases; it's generally accepted that an immigrant to acountry, and has declared an intent to become a citizen, can be a legitimate part of a recognized national military.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The legal authorities, before the current Administration, could be complex, but were usually well-defined. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, US soldiers cannot participate in civilian law enforcement; special rules apply under a proclamation of martial law. Regular and National Guard units may, as part of training and with a clear separation from direct enforcement, may support law enforcement operations. For example, military radar can pick up an aircraft flying a pattern characteristic of smuggling, and pass tracking information to DEA, Customs Service and Border Patrol (I forget what they've been renamed) or other appropriate forces. The actual intercept, however, is by a law enforcement aircraft. There have been situations where a federal or Air National Guard fighter trailed a suspicious aircraft, out of sight, until the LE aircraft could get there.

I don't have a problem with an Engineer unit on training building a fence or digging a ditch that happens to support border operations. I don't want those forces doing ground patrol, although I can live with them doing air surveillance if that's something they would practice anyway.

In the unique modern cases of Detroit and Los Angeles, the Governor declared an emergency beyond the abilities of State forces, and asked for riot control help. The decision to deploy is not automatic; it must be approved at least by the Secretary of the Army (the army is Executive Agent for civil assistance), Secretary of Defense, or President.

For unity of command, the National Guard units present at the riots were federalized, but the federal military commanders worked closely with the state governments involved.

Emergency relief, as with Katrina, gets more complex. I learned some details about this quite recently. Apparently, there can be state-to-state requests, governor-to-governor, requests to use the National Guard of the other states, under the operational control of the requesting states, to assist in disaster relief. I have friends in the California and Oregon National Guards that spent several weeks in the Gulf Coast, and their line of operational control was their own chain of command, and then to the Louisiana or other state Adjutant General. Incidentally, I am making various usages of "command" and "control" with very specific definitions in mind, which are interesting if you want to understand the details, but not all that essential for a general understanding.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Calling them conservatives gives them too much credit. Even conservatives don't like the current regime. Call them republicans.

LOL...touche.

But if the conservatives let these republicans tarnish their "good name" by allowing this stuff to happen at the hands of the republican neocons in their "good name", they should be tarred with the same brush. ;-)

What he failed at was making sure that the people in charge at FEMA and Homeland Security themselves were competent to do their jobs - obviously not.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Bushies?  You mean Republicans like Sen. Susan Collins, who hold Potemkin hearings to cover up White House mismanagement?

Howard, after you've read enough of Ellen's comments you tend to come to the conclusion that she doesn't always make a whole hell of a lot of sense, and that she is, in her own opinion, an expert on absolutely everything. I have taken the vow: I never respond to her comments. Your comments? Well, that's another thing entirely. THIS DOES NOT COUNT AS A REPLY TO ELLEN. ;o)

So what? So everything. We have a federal system designed to separate powers and responsibilities. What is notable about Katrina is the failure at ALL levels, a system-wide, systemic collapse. What is equally notable is the failure of government at ANY level to take responsibility for the failure. What is remarkable is the utter failure of BOTH major political parties. What is even more remarkable is the failure of citizens at ANY level to hold their government accountable.

D. G.: Do you really want a powerful central government regardless of who is president?

The current administration agrees completely with you. They were trying to shrink the federal government till it was small enough to drown in the 9th Ward. But, explain how a federal emergency response, rescuing and aiding victims of a natural disaster, equates to a Big Brother government? Of course, troops should not be used in a military capacity and the use of Blackwater mercenaries was probably illegal, but that is just a part of the incompetence or arrogance of this administration.

Exactly why isn't it possible for the Left to be any more honest than the Right?

Seriously, who is wearing blinders here?

Wasn't it Clinton and Gore who rightly took credit for reducing the size of the Federal Government?

There is something very strange about people who participate here. There seems to be no ability to look at facts. Bush clearly has combined cronyism, incompetence with an ideological adversion to government. Fema, except under Clinton was never a particularly strong agency and do you think putting it within Homeland Security was a good idea?

Given that I wouldn't count on Bush to predict which direction the sun rises and sets what does that say about local and state government? Do you think the people of the 9th Ward cared which level of government left them to suffer?

This insistence by partisans of one ideology or another to point fingers and accept no responsibility is one of the reasons our country is in the mess it is.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Since General Honre led troops into New Orleans and was the first person to bring a sense of order and intelligence I hardly would call it a strawman.

I agree with you that Bush is the most inept president perhaps in our history. The actual tasks of the job seems to be an annoyance to him.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I have not read one post assessing blame for Katrina that excused local government. It seemed to me that Nagin holed up in his luxury suite for the most part and I can’t believe he was re-elected (but that is their business). Local government failed to provide for evacuation of everyone. There was not much they could do after the levees broke.

Bush and FEMA’s failure to save the people left stranded was much more egregious. The federal government has long provided relief from natural catastrophes. If I’m not mistaken, FEMA got increased funding under Clinton and it definitely was staffed with more competent people (professional career experts, as federal agencies were organized pre-Bush). That is the point. Bush, Inc. has let federal agencies deteriorate because they do not believe in them.

You’re right, though, the utter arrogance and cold-blooded disregard for people starving and drowning by the POTUS and his minions (“Heckuva job, Brownie!”), does not merit “finger-pointing.” It warrants a trial for criminal negligence. And this country is in a mess. This is not America.

No snark or hostility here Howard, but weren't elements of the 101st brought into Little Rock in 1957 for the high school desegregation?

I always remember this because my father was in the Arkansas National Guard at the time and he always tells the story about how they were called up, "Federalized", and sent to sit at their armories so Gov. Faubus couldn't call them up to keep the black kids out of school.

Oh please I'm so fucking tired of this shit . . .

You are quite correct, but the difference is that they did not actually participate in operations. In many respects, they were there for show.

Your father is absolutely right about the strategy Eisenhower used. Federalization took the Arkansas Guard out of Faubus' control, and the Federal units sent down deliberately were headed by an officer senior to anyone in the Arkansas Guard.

US Marshals escorted the children into school, with the Guard and Airborne just standing there, pretty quietly, sort of like a well behaved elephant in the living room. Faubus had a few state troopers with him, who took a good look at an overwhelming force and decided it was a good idea to stand aside or be elsewhere. The 101st commander ordered the Guard back to their armories and told them to stay there.

Eisenhower probably stretched Posse Comitatus, but I think got away with it because the Airborne basically didn't do anything but order the Federalized Guard around, and look impressive. AFAIK, there were no military escorts to the Marshals...just the suggestion that they could be.

This was a very different legal situation from the emergency requests from the governors of Michigan and California. Again, Eisenhower pushed things, but he also knew the courts supported his position against Faubus.

Just as a side note, the designation 101st Airborne Division is historical. They no longer have parachute capability for the division; they were redesignated Airmobile in 1965 or so, and then Air Assault. This designates a division that still is light, as is paratroops, but makes movements by helicopter rather than parachuting. The only jump-qualified US division is the 82nd Airborne. The other jump-qualified units are all smaller and in Special Operations Command, the largest being the 75th Ranger Regiment. All Special Forces units, and I believe most SEALs, are jump-qualified, and also in the advanced high altitude methods, not the mass parachuting used by regiments or larger units.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Bev - I think your version is pretty close to the sorry truthy. Thanks, you told a friend and it worked!

If we don't fight to narrate the event in service to truth, rest assured that someone else will narrate it in service to power.

Lt. General Honroe directed National Guard units. National Guard Units were legally used to restore order as a state of emergency was requested by the gov.

I'll say it again - straw man. I'll credit you this though, your straw man managed to hijack a discussion about how our handling of the New Orelans hurricane makes us look like incompetent fools in the eyes of the world. So I guess you won that battle. Hooray for you.

Hmmm, something about the Governor’s last name?

When Honre told his soldiers to lower their weapons because they weren't in Iraq that ssem like such a strawman.

I guess as a leftwing Bush clone you don't like to let facts interfere with reality. So Hooray for you.

The United States was made to look inept in part because much of the world have unified governments in which the central government can controls everything. Though the Home land Security Act gave FEMA authority they did not have complete jurisdiction prior to the storm hitting.

Compare the situation to New York after 9/11. There were no Federal officials to be seen on the street just New York City cops and state troopers. There was no idea whether the City would be attacked again but City officials, not perfectly, gave some confidence that they were in charge.

Since the 1960s and the age of the bomb shelter the idea of evacuating either New York City or Long Island was seen as faniciful. Whether New Orleans could be evacuated, especially without local cooperation is an interesting question.

I realize you see yourself as morally superior to everyone else. Perhaps in the future instead of running your mouth you might try thinking.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Oh ... and the reason Honoroe HAD to ask the National Guard troops to lower their weapons is because he had to remind them that they were not in Iraq. How messed up is that? That's how much Bush has abused our National Guard.

Let's compare NYC on 9/11 to New Orleans. Several city blocks of damage to an entire region underwater. The NYC police could contain the area without additional help.

The difference is Bush's promises have little resale value. Studying the past is one of the ways we have to address the future.

Unpack Homlemand Security, return FEMA to independent status, hire people that are competent, etc. Plenty of suggestions out there (none of those are my idea, but they all sound good).

We lament because of the anniversary. Will you complain about similar lamentation on 9/11?

I don't recall a city the size of New Orleans getting devastated in Florida. You can't compare a cat 5 hurricane hitting a city the size of New Orleans with a few hurricanes hitting small towns in Florida. Besides think about all the flooding in New Orleans, you wouldn't have that in even a large city like Miami.

Maybe Bush didn't decide to play air-guitar the day those other hurricanes hit Florida. The fact is Team Bush screwed up with Katrina. How can anyone deny that? Why even try to deny it? I will never understand people who feel it's their duty to defend the actions of the government, even when the government so clearly screwed up. Why? Is it such a big deal to realize you voted for an incompetent boob? Considering the number of people that have died, or been killed by Bush and Co, I guess it might be.

Keep telling yourself, "Bush really is a good president. Bush really is a good president." Try clicking your heels together, it just might become true.

Tom

No question the study of history is critically important in this case.

But I raised the point that lamenting on the past does less than nothing and, in fact, works to exacerbate the problem.

Taken literally your rhetorical question

 "Shall we lament a little more ?"

clearly meant we should stop caring about the deaths, destruction and unhappiness caused by Katrina . I did you the favor of assuming you are not that callous and instead took it as your somewhat unfortunate way of saying that you want to stop dwelling on Katrina.

But why ?

lamenting on the past does less than nothing and, in fact, works to exacerbate the problem is so unconvincing (of course we can walk and chew gum.) as to indicate you just don't want to give your real reason.

Why not stop wasting your time and ours and just tell the truth ?