1906 San Francisco Quake

[Red Harvest]

Saw an interesting bit on CNN earlier by an author discussing the 1906 San Francisco quake response. His conclusion: at all levels the government responded with alacrity due to leaders who took initiative. This was in the time of Teddy Roosevelt. People didn't worry about covering their asses, and instead did what needed to be done.

I don't have a link but I'll try to paraphrase:
1. Local military commander, actually 2nd in command since the commander was in D.C., felt the A.M. quake and immediate called up his troops, with arms and in uniform. They marched downtown and reported to the mayor 2 hours after the quake.
2. The mayor of San Francisco was "hopelessly corrupt" but responded well. Taking measures to combat fires, and use the troops to prevent looting--"looters to be shot" signs posted.
3. The first train of state supplies arrived the same night.
4. The mayor dispatched messages by boat to Oakland to call for national help from undamaged telegraph office there immediately.
5. Congress convened a special session in the very early morning (nite) after the quake (or perhaps one or two later, I'm not certain on this) to provide funding. Relief train left D.C. shortly thereafter.
6. All available military tents were rounded up and sent to San Francisco in short order.
7. 10% of the standing U.S. army arrived within a week or so.

Remember this was in a time of horse and carriage, trains, and telegraph.

Contrast this with the Katrina response, Leadership Vacuum Stymied Relief Efforts

In times of great crisis a 1906 level of response is what I expect. I'm not at all impressed by Blanco, I think she was part of the problem. Unfortunately, no one seems to have been able to take the initiative and get the job done. If Blanco was truly the source of the problem, she could be dealt with the same as other problem Southern governors were handled during integration.

The current system makes no sense for a major disaster. Yes, it is designed for local, then state resources to be exhausted. That is not an appropriate response, that is how you make a disaster worse. Even Brown seems to have caught on, I heard a quote from him today that part of the problem is that the Federal system relies on the States to help themselves, but the State and local resources were hard hit and not able to do so. Well, DUH! That was obvious to anyone who watched the storm. It seemed rather obvious in at least the 24 to 48 hours before the storm that this would be the case.

Whatever, the case. I think we need to look back at history and figure out why nobody now has the initiative to get anything done. If there are legal hurdles, let's fix them, and make sure that those in charge of disaster response know that all that matters is performance and fast response. It's friggin' ridiculous that at all levels folks were delaying their actions for legal review. Fail to act, and you will be the goat.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Best anti-government argument you've put forward in the Katrina discussion. Good comparison too, since only the Chicago fire and the SFO quake have the same kind of "sweep" to them.

Seamus

[Red Harvest]

Found a written summary of the author's (Simon Winchester) points. Link

My summary was pretty close, only the arrival time of 10% of the U.S. army was substantially off (it took almost 3 weeks--pretty darned good considering the time.)

[Del Arroyo]

Well, here's my take. Beauracracy is great. Like a phalangite pike formation, it's probably the most efficient way to deal with any problem which is hitting it head on in a predictable fashion.

However, it's not too good at neutralizing problems that pop off way out on the flank, far outside of expected parameters.

Katrina blind-sided our disaster-response beauracracy. When that happens, people have to take initiative. What it takes is SOMEONE who is willing to stick their neck out and supercede the beauracracy, someone with a little bit of common sense and courage.

There were a great many people who COULD have been that someone for New Orleans. The mayor and the Governor are definitely two, and they failed. Brown and Chertoff are two more, and they also failed. The President of the United States, George W. Bush, is perhaps the most obvious and conspicuous possible leader-- he failed.

Not that any of these people DID anything wrong-- they didn't kill those people, Katrina did-- they simply hid within the complacent routine of day-to-day, and hoped that when the dust cleared there'd be no fingers pointing at them.

In the coming months we'll see who survives and who doesn't-- we have one down already.

..

We must never be lulled into acceptance of incompetence. Katrina has showed a clear lack of common sense and courage on many levels of government.

DA

[GoreBag]

Any half-decent commander keeps a reserve force for dealing with those pesky flankers. Not sending in the reserve would make you a bad commander.

I think that failing in this instance can be considered "bad" - it is the responsibility of those who failed, after all, not to fail.