Results 1 to 30 of 48

Thread: No shame The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default No shame The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed

    Jack Kelly: No shame
    The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed
    Sunday, September 11, 2005

    It is settled wisdom among journalists that the federal response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina was unconscionably slow.


    Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476).

    "Mr. Bush's performance last week will rank as one of the worst ever during a dire national emergency," wrote New York Times columnist Bob Herbert in a somewhat more strident expression of the conventional wisdom.

    But the conventional wisdom is the opposite of the truth.

    Jason van Steenwyk is a Florida Army National Guardsman who has been mobilized six times for hurricane relief. He notes that:

    "The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

    For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three.

    Journalists who are long on opinions and short on knowledge have no idea what is involved in moving hundreds of tons of relief supplies into an area the size of England in which power lines are down, telecommunications are out, no gasoline is available, bridges are damaged, roads and airports are covered with debris, and apparently have little interest in finding out.

    So they libel as a "national disgrace" the most monumental and successful disaster relief operation in world history.

    I write this column a week and a day after the main levee protecting New Orleans breached. In the course of that week:

    More than 32,000 people have been rescued, many plucked from rooftops by Coast Guard helicopters.

    The Army Corps of Engineers has all but repaired the breaches and begun pumping water out of New Orleans.

    Shelter, food and medical care have been provided to more than 180,000 refugees.

    Journalists complain that it took a whole week to do this. A former Air Force logistics officer had some words of advice for us in the Fourth Estate on his blog, Moltenthought:

    "We do not yet have teleporter or replicator technology like you saw on 'Star Trek' in college between hookah hits and waiting to pick up your worthless communications degree while the grown-ups actually engaged in the recovery effort were studying engineering.

    "The United States military can wipe out the Taliban and the Iraqi Republican Guard far more swiftly than they can bring 3 million Swanson dinners to an underwater city through an area the size of Great Britain which has no power, no working ports or airports, and a devastated and impassable road network.

    "You cannot speed recovery and relief efforts up by prepositioning assets (in the affected areas) since the assets are endangered by the very storm which destroyed the region.

    "No amount of yelling, crying and mustering of moral indignation will change any of the facts above."

    "You cannot just snap your fingers and make the military appear somewhere," van Steenwyk said.

    Guardsmen need to receive mobilization orders; report to their armories; draw equipment; receive orders and convoy to the disaster area. Guardsmen driving down from Pennsylvania or Navy ships sailing from Norfolk can't be on the scene immediately.

    Relief efforts must be planned. Other than prepositioning supplies near the area likely to be afflicted (which was done quite efficiently), this cannot be done until the hurricane has struck and a damage assessment can be made. There must be a route reconnaissance to determine if roads are open, and bridges along the way can bear the weight of heavily laden trucks.

    And federal troops and Guardsmen from other states cannot be sent to a disaster area until their presence has been requested by the governors of the afflicted states.

    Exhibit A on the bill of indictment of federal sluggishness is that it took four days before most people were evacuated from the Louisiana Superdome.

    The levee broke Tuesday morning. Buses had to be rounded up and driven from Houston to New Orleans across debris-strewn roads. The first ones arrived Wednesday evening. That seems pretty fast to me.

    A better question -- which few journalists ask -- is why weren't the roughly 2,000 municipal and school buses in New Orleans utilized to take people out of the city before Katrina struck?



    LINK

    So just like the talk of thousands of deaths it seems alot more than just the hurricane was blowing wind here.

    Now that Brown has stepped down isint it time for the mayor and the Govenor to follow suit?
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  2. #2
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: No shame The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed

    What no replies? I guess the truth isnt as much fun as what the press tells you.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  3. #3
    Come to daddy Member Geoffrey S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach
    Posts
    4,028

    Default Re: No shame The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed

    I dunno, maybe it's because of the ton of similar topics around here already?
    "The facts of history cannot be purely objective, since they become facts of history only in virtue of the significance attached to them by the historian." E.H. Carr

  4. #4
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: No shame The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed

    Theres none saying that the feds did their job just the opposite.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  5. #5
    Come to daddy Member Geoffrey S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach
    Posts
    4,028

    Default Re: No shame The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed

    I can see your point, I'm just getting fed up of every other topic being about Katrina, particularly with worthwhile discussions going on in a number of them; it's not the opinion posted here I object to, but the fact that it could just as easily have been put in one of the existing topics rather than drawing attention to it in a new one. The fact that other posters have started similar topics advocating the opposite view to yours (which to me is just as annoying) doesn't mean you should post some kind of counter-topic.
    "The facts of history cannot be purely objective, since they become facts of history only in virtue of the significance attached to them by the historian." E.H. Carr

  6. #6
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: No shame The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed

    Not much beef in there Gawain, it omits the truth in many instances. No kidding it will be the biggest, DUH! It is the biggest natural disaster the country has ever had. Also note that the Andrew response was considered poor and resulted in reworking of disaster response, so comparing to it is dishonest. There was another wake up call with 9/11, but if anything the result has been a weakened Federal response.

    No matter how you try to spin it, there was not a Federal presence in a reasonable amount of time. There still is not a Federal system for handling the aftermath. It is a very spotty patchwork, no centralization. Things that the Feds said they would provide during the "Pam" scenario they did not provide. They also staged much of the response material (water, MRE's) for Alabama...rather than for the Louisiana side during the prep for land fall. The Corps thought it could repair any breaches quickly immediately after the storm passed. That was their planning...yet they lacked materials on hand to do it. The Guard didn't have communication gear in country to deal with the damaged infrastructure (it's in Iraq.)

    This sort of disaster requires a strong response within a short time. If major activity (water/shelter/food/evacuation depending on situation) does not arrive within the critical 48 to 72 hour window (after the strike) then the initial response is a failure. That's what the *professionals* have had to say about it.

    This sort of response will not cut it against biological or radioligical attack. In fact, with the difficulty of decontamination, and protecting those going into the zones, I suspect the response might take a month or more, after watching the Federal Katrina response. This is unacceptable in light of 9/11 and the charge given our government as a result.

    The system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. It simply doesn't work.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO