On 9/1/2005 President Bush made the following statement - source:


The Department of Homeland Security was created specifically to deal with times of national crisis after 9/11. From their Emergencies and Disasters page we have the following:


See also the National Response Plan which lists among its objectives (filtered for relevant objectives):


On the White House Budget page you can get more details including the budget since inception. Some interesting facts to note:
- Employees as of 2004: 183,000
- Close to a $40 Billion budget for 2005
- Approximately $147 billion spent since inception.

On Sunday, August 28th the National Weather Service sent out this alert (sorry for the caps):


There are of course numerous stories about what is going on in New Orleans right now but between the looting and this statement by Jack Cafferty on CNN today you can get a sense of the chaos there. You can find similar sentiments from virtually every other media personality:


There have been reports that food and water might not reach the area for another 4 or 5 days. The really heinous stuff like Cholera hasn't even begun.

Questions for debate:
1. During a moment of real and severe crisis has the Department of Homeland Security proved that it is ineffective and unprepared to deal with a national crisis? Why or why not?

2. Considering the National Weather Service stated the severity of the aftermath on Sunday before the hurricane hit, is the response 5 days later acceptable? Why or why not?

3. Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat?

4. If you believe there is a problem, what should be done to fix the problem?

I think we must look at this particular disaster as not simply a hurricane, not simply a flood.

It was a a hurricane followed the next day by a flood. The damage is not contained to one city, but is spread over three states. The damage is widespread and diverse.

The situation in New Orleans is particularly harsh. There is no communication there. There is no local dry ground in many areas. There is only one major roadway into New Orleans (at least that is my understanding) and it was washed out.

Some relief has arrived. Other supplies, although available simply cannot be delivered where it is needed because 1.) no one knows where to send it and 2.) the means of delivering it is limited.

1. During a moment of real and severe crisis has the Department of Homeland Security proved that it is ineffective and unprepared to deal with a national crisis? Why or why not?

This is the first major "event" for the DHS. Try not to laugh as I repeat the old joke that the most terrifying words someone can ever here are "Hello, maam. We're from the government and we're here to help you." Relying on the government for promptness or relief is like hoping the buses are running on time in Cleveland.

We need to keep our expectations realistic. The supplies were ready before the storm. But when an entire city floods, it becomes extremely difficult to either get supplies in or to get people out.

2. Considering the National Weather Service stated the severity of the aftermath on Sunday before the hurricane hit, is the response 5 days later acceptable? Why or why not?

I'm not sure I understand the question. When a hurricane is about to hit, even a non-meterorologist like myself can predict damage. The supplies were ready. FEMA was ready. The National Guard was ready. I think they were lulled into sleep by Katrina veering east and sparing New Orleans the worst. The flooding did not start until Monday. By my watch, it's been just over 3 days at this point.


3. Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat?

I don't think anyone should expect the impossible. If New York City is attacked AND it starts to sink into the Atlantic, I have no delusions about the government's ability to perform in such a situation.

4. If you believe there is a problem, what should be done to fix the problem?
There is a problem. The government cannot and will not save you. They simply cannot be expected to. Perhaps martial law should have been declared before the disaster. Perhaps martial law should have been declared right after the first levee broke.

All I know is that the supplies were ready last Friday. I simply can't imagine that the government sat on the supplies. The logistics and the increasing ramp of events that happened here may have surprised people. THis is the largest natural disaster in US history by some accounts. The scale of this disaster, the widespread areas, is unprecedented.

I don't recall any finger pointed after Hugo hit or Ivan hit. I think the expectations that some have are a bit steep.

I'd be asking why the money FEMA (or DHS) gave Louisiana to devise an emergency evacuation plan hasn't seemed to have been well spent. Where is the local plan? Even then, I cannot fault them to much because the scale of this is so large. They did begin evacuations and I haven't heard reports of the early evacuees being subject to hardships. Only the people who decided to ignore the evacuation order are in duress. You can lead a horse to water, I guess.

I'm not responding to anything quite yet but I wanted to add this article from the NY Times with statements from some local officials.

Make of that what you will.

Edited to add: This from WaPo


And this, also from WaPo

During a moment of real and severe crisis has the Department of Homeland
Security proved that it is ineffective and unprepared to deal with a national crisis?
Why or why not?

It depends on what one's expectations are. It seems as though some people
expected the impossible. Warnings were given far enough in advance. Those
who took the warnings seriously did what they had to do to find safety.

The argument has been made that many of the people left behind were those
from the projects and other poor areas, and they had no other choice but to wait
it out. Individuals who rely upon the government for their survival
may be greatly disappointed by the level of service they are given.
Perhaps that statement sounds cold, but that's reality.

Considering the National Weather Service stated the severity of the aftermath
on Sunday before the hurricane hit, is the response 5 days later acceptable?
Why or why not?

It's easy to be critical from our computers or our sofas. Unless I'm there,
really seeing what is going on, and understanding the obstacles ahead of
me, I will not pass judgment on whether or not the reaction time was appropriate.
I remember very well the weather reports urging citizens to take the storm
seriously. If they chose to take it seriously "after the fact" they bear responsibility as well.

Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the
Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat?

I believe that in the coming days and weeks the relief efforts will gain momentum
and the severity of the situation will lessen.

If you believe there is a problem, what should be done to fix the problem?

I will quote Amlord on this one: There is a problem. The government cannot
and will not save you. They simply cannot be expected to. That's the bottom
line. We come into this world alone and ultimately we are responsible for our
own survival. When we rely solely on the efforts of our government we may
be very very disappointed.

After reading through a few posts I think it is necessary to clarify my intent in posting these questions. I didn't want to include it in the opening post so as to leave the opening post as factual as possible. But here is where I'm coming from with this. I'll say right now this is NOT some partisan issue, it should be a concern everyone should share.

So almost 4 years ago exactly we were supposedly awakened by 9/11 and we learned some lessons (allegedly). The government responded by creating the Department of Homeland Security. I already stated what their objectives were in the opening post so there is no need to repeat them here, but they do include a supposedly coordinated response to disasters both man-made and natural. So one cannot say that emergency response is something they should be excelling at.

This department has existed for 4 years now, they have 183,000 employees and we've spent almost $147 billion in tax payer money on something. Part of that something is supposed to be emergency response plans.

Now I know people are going to get hung up on the fact that this was a natural disaster and a very severe one at that. I believe that is irrelevant, but let's change the scenario. Let's say that New Orleans was attacked by terrorists who decided they'd blow up the levees keeping the city above water - pretty much the same result. Does anyone really think their response would have been different because it was a terrorist attack instead of an act of God?

This was the DHS' first test and they have failed miserably. Every report coming in suggests there is no central leadership (even now), things are mass chaos, food and water still are not being taken in, etc. That doesn't speak very highly of whatever emergency response plans we have in place.

So we have this department we are spending BILLIONS of dollars on every year and increasing funding every year and I'm wondering what good it has done. If terrorists strike somewhere in the US are they going to be up to the challenge? Are we going to have something vaguely resembling leadership or will it be complete anarchy? Are they good for anything more than providing pretty color-coded terror alerts?

If we don't believe we can ever be protected (as Amlord suggested in his post) then lets spend our $40 Billion (and increasing) on something else each year that might matter.

So that is where I'm coming from.

Okay. I'm with you, now. That's a very valid question; one that deserves
some solid answers. I believe that the current administration has not had
its priorities in line. I believe that decisions they have made (i.e. Iraq)
have perhaps distracted and diverted attention away from the prime
objective HOMELAND SECURITY!

A disaster of this magnitude requires the maximum amount of resources,
man-power, energy, and attention. The money we've piled into Iraq could
have paid for levees that would sustain category 12 hurricanes.

This is very interesting. So, by compounded posts, noone is expected to loot or be criminal and shot to death, the government cannot save you even when you are half under putrid water and have had no food or clean water for 4 days, by today, in the richest country in the world? Talk about a rock and a hard place. Yes, Bill O'Reilly said today that many who stayed behind were just looking for this type of opportunity. Sick freak that he is.

So, we are big enough and powerful enough to go into Iraq and fight a raging insurgency for two years while supposedly restoring electricity, water and building schools but we dont have people inside the US brave enough to continue rescue operations after being shot at? We cannot air-drop food, water, First aid supplys and blankets in plastic bags or styrofoam packages for people who have been sleeping on the street for 3 nights? Instead we are focusing police forces on people stealing tv's and clothing. Give me a break.

There are SOME things you expect from your government, especiallyin a country you have been told since birth is the richest and most powerful in the world. You dont expect mass amounts of people to go thirsty for 4 days at least.
Then again, even if NOLA had had the prescribed batteries, visqueen and duct tape it would not have helped them in the least. Perhaps they should have just swam out and duct taped up those levies.

Where is 'survival' supposed to come from when there is nowhere to get the basics from? Perhaps they should just free-dive for foodstuffs or try to walk out of State.

In a way you are right. The government does not, or as you say cannot do anything for us, in times of crisis or on most days, so why do we even pay taxes at all? They obviously cannot protect us from terrorists or help us effectively during natural disasters, educate our children to any standard, give us affordable health care, keep activist judges from ruining our values, and keep gas affordable despite a $200 billion dollar war. I say fire them all at once and start over.

1. During a moment of real and severe crisis has the Department of Homeland Security proved that it is ineffective and unprepared to deal with a national crisis? Why or why not?

There seems to be a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on with this disaster. I am not exactly sure what kind of expectation exists to completely evacuate an entire city in a flood after an area has been ravaged by a hurricane. Evidently, Americans that have never experienced a hurricane thought supplies would start coming to New Orleans the day after the hurricane.

2. Considering the National Weather Service stated the severity of the aftermath on Sunday before the hurricane hit, is the response 5 days later acceptable?

I think part of the hysteria (outside of the disaster zone) going on is being caused by the idiotic news coverage. I am not sure who the woman is that was hosting for Abrams last night on MSNBC but she said “children are literally starving to death.” The woman deserves to lose her job after saying something like that. Have journalists lost perspective?

3. Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat?

This is a bit ambiguous. I am confident Americans are capable or rising to any challenged faced. The Department of Homeland Security is basically in its infancy and it do the job.

There's a fair amount of what I would call White suburbanite smugness here concerning the plight of those in the disaster zone.

It is widely conceded that those in New Orleans are, for the most part, those who had no reasonable means of getting out. Along the Mississippi Gulf Coast, there do seem to be a fair number of people who stayed on the false assumption that the storm could not possibly be worse than Hurricane Camille. In hindsight, that was foolish, but many at the time would have said it was reasonable.

I was in Biloxi for Camille, and it was one day, maybe two, before substantial outside help arrived. Down there right now, from what I hear, there is essentially nothing -- and it's been a week. I don't understand that, because the coast is not under water, and all you have to do is drive down Highway 49 to get there. There is a major air strip at Keesler AFB that has been fully functional since the storm. There are 10,000 airmen on Keesler, and they're doing calisthenics! The people of the Gulf Coast need water, food and medical attention, and help should have been provided days ago.

The situation in New Orleans is vastly worse, and it is absolutely, deeply appalling that there has been no substantial Federal response. The flooding of the city was easily forseen; the rupture of the levy; the breakdown of the telephone network; the lawlessness; all were easily forseen. Yet it all caught FEMA flat-footed.

One thing I hope we will all agree is that immediate and comprehensive disaster relief is the responsibility of the Federal government. Neither the localities nor the states have the resources necessary to deal with this. In any case, they are often paralized by a disaster's immediate effects. And it just beggars credulity to say that the Federal response so far has been adequate.

Parenthetically, whoever here said "government cannot help you" is a flaming fool who, obviously, has never had to live through a big, regional disaster.

Many americans have experienced hurricanes and earthquakes, and supplies should and did start arriving the day after. This was predicted as a worst case scenario before it hit. Of course there is armchair quarterbacking, because most of us are feeling frustrated and impotent by the lack of coordination and leadership a disaster of this porportion requires. It is painful to watch people suffer and not be able to do a damn thing (right now) about it.
Most of us private citizens if we had a few million dollars to spare would have DRINKING WATER on the ground in 48 hrs. Where are the heros? Where are the millionaires equivalent of Ross Perot for example who have the ability and funds to DO something? Where Is Congress? Oh yeah, on vacation.

Even farther...Where is Theresa Heinz Kerry and her politico husband? Strangely silent. They have enough 'extra cash' and connections to provide a half million people with water for a few days. Not a word from Americas top multi-millionaire 'caring for the poor party' .



There are infants. Infants cannot go 4 days without food without beginning starvation, crying all the time. There are pregnant mothers. Small children and the elderly do not have the systems to stand lack of food and especially water for 4 days. I have no idea what you are so bent on defending? You speak several times about denial, perhaps you are experiencing some.

This is a valid point: where did the money get spent?

It got spent on the local level. The DHS handed it out to states to create disaster plans. Can we seriously expect the federal government to know the nuances of local life so that they can adequately prepare for this type of thing for every city in America? I certainly don't think so.

It is the governor who is in charge of the National Guard, not the President. So if you say "Where's the National Guard" you should go ask the Governor of Louisiana.

Here's what the DHS said was happening on Wednesday: United States Government Response to the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina



Transcript

Lieutenant Kevin Cowan of the LA Guard says that he thinks operations are going fine.



The relief is being hampered by the refugees' impatience. Buses won't come to the Superdome because they are being swamped. Helicopters can't land because they are being mobbed. National Guard Troops Land in New Orleans


I find it hard to understand some of the people still trapped in New Orleans. Such as this man (from the Guardian article, I have heard similar stories on MSNBC and other cable networks):


Hello, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! I can't understand the mentality that it is someone else's job to take care of things, especially in such a time of crisis.

What is he supposed to DO about it Amlord, dig a few graves with his hands? Feed the children grass? I think the bodies will need to be identified. Maybe he should drag them to a mass grave? Pile them up somewhere? Where?

I dont understand the unrealistic expectations of people. They dont have a clue what is to be done and after 4 days without water must be in personal survival mode.

I saw a lot of people taking care of others. A man had taken 14 children from an apt complex in his boat and was taking care of them. The mothers were left behind because there was only room for the kids. Im sure we cannot judge what these people are doing or not doing when they are in total fear of dying, and feel abandonned.

1. During a moment of real and severe crisis has the Department of Homeland Security proved that it is ineffective and unprepared to deal with a national crisis? Why or why not?
Yes, at this stage it appears that the DHS is certainly unprepared and has so far been less effective than citizens could reasonably have hoped.

I don't think anyone's expectations are that a city the size of New Orleans, and a land somewhat larger in area than the mainland of Great Britain (which is heard on the radio this lunchtime, and which really gives me some sense of the scale of the disaster), could have been completely evacuated in a matter of two or three days.

Apart from the people who didn't have the means or the opportunity to leave - not least the elderly, sick and infirm - (and think of the trouble NO would be in if all the healthcare workers and the police department had decided to leave too!), some people would just be too stubborn to go anywhere and try to ride out the problem.

But it occurs to me that the relief efforts of an area this size - especially the NO and Biloxi metropolitan areas - could easily have been planned in advance. After all, there is an excellent precedent for the air supply of most of resources necessary to sustain life in America's relatively recent past - The Berlin Airlift.

Admittedly, Berlin was merely blockaded, rather than mostly flooded and partially destroyed; fresh water was not really a problem; and there were serviceable airfields within the city - but food, clothing, fuel and the like were required, and the US has at it's disposal large numbers of helicopters, which do not need to land on anything in the city to freight in supplies. The broad principle is something that could have been adatped and applied by someone with vision, I think.

The logistical challenge of organising relief supplies and delivery methods on the required scale are not something that could be organised from scratch at the drop of a hat - or at the breach of a levee - but then, one of the purposes of an entity like the DHS would, I am perhaps naive to believe, be planning for such contingencies, however unlikely they might seem.

This is especially true since, unlike most of Northen Europe, large parts of the USA are prey to natural disaster that might well include ones on this scale. Not just earthquakes, but hurricanes, earthquakes, mudslides, avalanches, and so on.

2. Considering the National Weather Service stated the severity of the aftermath on Sunday before the hurricane hit, is the response 5 days later acceptable? Why or why not?

I don't think it's acceptable, but I think maybe the DHS was created in and has acted within a particular context - prevention of terrorism being seen as the first and foremost responsibility. Even though events like Katrina and her consequent waves of chaos and tragedy (well, that's THAT reunion tour out the window - please forgive the gallows humour) are within their remit, it seems pretty clear that nearly everyone's expectation until now was this narrowly defined.

3. Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat?

I think part of the problem in the wake of Katrina is that rather more emphasis seems to have been placed on terrorism than on natural disasters, and even in this area, rather more emphasis on prevention than on mitigation of the aftermath of any attack.

Had the reverse been true, while the existence of the department would be much less politically acceptable, there would presumably have been transferable plans for evacuation and relief that would have been in place by now.

But, at it's formation, prevention of terrorism on US soil was the primary and paramount purpose (apologies for the alliteration) of the DHS - understandably so.

And - given the kind of secrecy necessary to avoid warning terror cells illustrated in this article - the DHS might well have been highly successful in this part of it's remit and we wouldn't be any the wiser.

Maybe the response to the 9-11 attacks in NYC and the wider nation gave a false sense of security that rescue and relief would largely take care of itself - the heroism evinced by the NYPD, NYFD, and many ordinary New Yorkers (and Washingtonians & Penssylvanians) was in every way commendable, but perhaps lend credence to this idea. While they were very large, only two buildings were destroyed, and less than fifty others were so much as shaken.

The sheer physcial scale was simply not comaparable to the damage following Katrina.

4. If you believe there is a problem, what should be done to fix the problem?

The first priority has to be getting on with the business of rescue and relief with a sense of purpose that seems to have been absent until now. Then the levees need to be repaired temporarily so the damage doesn't get any worse, while a more permanent solution is sought.

Then, once reconstruction is underway (which isn't, as far as I can tell, within the DHS remit), then people can concentrate on the political fall-out. No doubt those politicians perceived to be responsible will suffer at the ballot box, and rightly so, but the future form and direction of the DHS is also a political issue, if not necessarily a party political one.

Bearing in mind what I've said about the context of the creation of the DHS, I think maybe the handling of this crisis by the overall instiution is forgiveable. This time.

The context of its existence needs to be significantly broadened to focus as much on evacuation, rescue and relief as on prevention of terrorism, and they need to do a lot more thinking of the unthinkable about the possible scale of what it might be asked to cope with, up to and including - I don't know - the forced evacuation, rescue and relief of an entire state, rather than just one or a few cities.

The USA has the San Andreas fault, which could knock over some rickety buildings, but could also put most of California on the sea bed and give Sacramento a beachfront. It has Yellowstone, which could rumble enough to scare a few mountain lions, or could cover the entire midwest with red hot ash several feet deep. It has Mount St Helens, which could do what it did last time, or could turn the people of Seattle into the kind of pumice stone statues we've been digging out of the foothills of Vesuvius for two thousand years.

It has the possibility of a Canary Island volcanic eruption or landslip creating a tsunami that could wash away most Eastern Seaboard cities, not just get them a bit damp.

It also faces the unlikely but conceivable eventuality of a stolen nuclear or thermonuclear device being detonated in Central Park, Coit Tower, Fox Plaza, the Old Town Hall, or anywhere else, by some murderous lunatic in the name of their own twisted idea, which may (or may not) be inspired by Islam.

Now, such scenarios may be the stuff of nightmares. They might be the worst possible outcomes of already unlikely events. And any governmental effort to help the people affected in the aftermath of anything like these events may be the equivalent of putting a cold flannel on the forehead of a person with a fever - palliative more than curative.

Such things DO happen. We have known that forever, and are periodically reminded of it. And there ARE things that can be done, individually and collectively, so that at least some people survive them who otherwise would not have done. And, surely, if it is the job of any type of institution to consider how to optimise the survivability of such things, it is the job of governments. What else are they for?

As has been pointed out often by many of those on the political right, if government has any function at all, it is to at least attempt to ensure the safety and security of its citizenry.

So I have no sympathy at all with the view that we're all on our own and have to do as best we can without any expectation of help from governments in situations like those faced by the people left in New Orleans and other Katrina-d areas.

That attitude, far from preventing the chaos and anarchy and uncontrolled crime and roaming gangs and so on - all of which are supposedly happening inside NO (with little in the way of convincing evidence to support these assertions, I must say) - is what causes things like them to happen.

I'm going to preface my comments by making the following observations first, to set what I think is the proper framework to evaluate the response.

1. This is probably the largest natural disaster to ever hit this country. In terms of both scale and scope, I really can't think of anything that comes close.
2. This is the first disaster DHS has had to deal with, which is then compounded by #1 above.
3. There are several phases to disaster relief....immediate, near-term, and long-term. Currently, all we're seeing is the immediate phase.
4. This particular disaster has two aspects which make relief particularly difficult...there is no communication, and there is no access to the areas most affected, each of which compound the other.

That being said....

1. During a moment of real and severe crisis has the Department of Homeland Security proved that it is ineffective and unprepared to deal with a national crisis? Why or why not? I think their immediate response was clearly lacking. Criminy...you see people on TV, gathered in specific areas, that desparately need some food, water, and medical attention. I could have gotten at least some water there myself...why can't the government. I think rethinking the immediate response phase is clearly needed. There seemed to be a definite lack of command and control down to the grass roots level. From what I've heard, much of the supplies were brought in...but nothing was done to tell people where they were. It's a terrible shame this happened, but this sounds very correctable.

2. Considering the National Weather Service stated the severity of the aftermath on Sunday before the hurricane hit, is the response 5 days later acceptable? Why or why not? No it is not. There isn't anything more that really needs to be said.

3. Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat? I don't know. I find it difficult to envision anything short of nuclear attack that would match this in terms of scale and scope. Let's just say they have a lot they need to work on, and they'd better get it figured out.

4. If you believe there is a problem, what should be done to fix the problem?

Chertoff needs to be more personally involved, as do the other national directors. I think part of the problem is that they were overseeing things at the macro level, directing supplies to go to the affected areas, but simply weren't aware of the logistical problems preventing these supplies from getting to the people who needed them. Had they been 'down in the trenches', I think they would have seen this. At the very least, they need to have direct communication with people who are down there...was anyone in charge at the places where supplies arrived, that had communication back up the line to discuss and correct issues? In short, it seems like we had generals and soldiers, without much middle management, and that caused the system to break down.

The national guard should have been released in large scale immediately. Their presence would have prevented the looting and lawlessness. If they weren't needed, they could always be called back...we shouldn't wait until its so dire before they are sent.

A much better communication and command-and-control system at the local level is clearly needed. I think this is the single biggest contributor to the problems we have been seeing. The people were gathered in a relatively few, known areas, the supplies seem to have been available, but they weren't getting to where they needed to be.

A plan for long-term sheltering of thousands of people clearly needs to be developed. given the scope of the problem, I actually think this was handled fairly welll...but it was still inadequate. In particular for hurricanes, a plan could be developed so that people had a place to go and a way to get their when evacuation was deemed necessary. Many of those who stayed did so because they simply couldn't afford to leave, and had no where to go if they did. I'm sure there were many who would have taken them in, if a plan were in place to arrange that. Hurricanes only allow a day or two to evacuate...that is not nearly enough time to make logistical arrangements. Such planning needs to already be in place.

Finally, we as a country need to put higher emphasis on such planning and preparedness. Sure, saying the war in Iraq draws all the funding away is easy. I won't even argue that it is partially true. However, if we are going to really solve this problem, it needs to be moved higher up on the governmental priority list. Taking funding away from our troops isn't really the best place to even start...that will not only impact them directly (remember all the unarmored HumVee's? what do you think would happen if they had LESS funding?), but also impact national security. So, let's remove that from debate by stating that SOME of the needed funding could be taken from that currently go to the war. What about the rest? What programs are you willing to have cut in order to get this done? Assuming military cuts are included, that leaves the rest of the funding to come from the other programs. Cutting programs you are against is easy...but will just lead to partisan bickering. So, if you want this solved...what programs that you support do you think need to be bumped lower on the priority list. If everyone isn't willing to compromise, this will never get done. As I said in the other threads discussing this...we have always been very bad at putting priority on preventative programs. That won't change unless we're willing to take cuts somewhere else to make it happen. Pointing fingers won't do it either...leaving it up to the 'other guys' to solve it won't get it done. As the levees in New Orleans demonstrated...we have a massive infrastructure problem here in the United States. To fix it, we're going to have to make it a national priority. That means other things are going to have to be cut...including some things that you might support. What things should those be?

Hobbes, I applaud your broad logic (not least because it seems to be rather similar to my own on this occasion ).

This illustrates a wider problem that just is not going to go away. America has a stark choice - whistle in the dark and pretend such things will never happen, or do something about it.

What I do find odd is your unspoken, but clearly expressed assumption that only the redirection of funds from other programs, with subsequent cuts, can provide the necessary resources to fund disaster relief and mitigation.

What about raising taxes?

I know it's not the done thing in America these days to think in such terms, and it's political suicide in the current mood to suggest it, but by international standards Americans are not over-taxed.

They may be taxed more than they would like to be - who isn't? I don't know anyone in high-tax, nanny-state Europe who enjoys paying tax. But the sky doesn't fall when we do so at higher rates than Americans.

Economic growth may suffer, granted, but as you've eloquently pointed out, the booming economic growth America has been able to be smug about while European and Japanese economies have stagnated haven't built any levees. The wealth generated by the "enlightened" US tax regime hasn't trickled down to bring water supplies, medication, clothing, shelter, etc to New Orleans people sitting on their rooves in sewage-soaked rags, has it? So, when it comes down to situations like this, what good is it?

Reprioritisation of government programs requires a review of spending and taxation. (If only to pay off the defecit, let alone making certain spending programs more robust.)

Stop thrashing about and admit the possible necessity of increases in taxation to fund some of the programs you talk about, or else you're trying to tie down the issues while holding only one end of the string.

Julian,

Adding taxes is definitely a potential solution to the problem. It might even be the best, and most politically possible one. I should have included that in my discussion. My intent was to focus on what are we prepared to do...we either have to give something up, or provide more funding for it. The point being that someone else isn't going to fix it for you, you have to be prepared to sacrifice to make it happen. If paying more taxes is the sacrifice the majority are in favor of, then by all means that should be on the table. As a fiscal conservative...I'm not even against that being the solution. Clearly, there are long term benefits to this, as the current situation shows. How much money would the government have saved now if they had improved the levees in NO before? Clearly, the prevention would have been cheaper than the cure (although that benefits from current hindsight)...thus resulting in a long-term savings in government spending.

I completely disagree with you, but I don't see that I'll make very much headway on that so I'll just ask a question instead. We have this nifty Department of Homeland Security which is supposed to excel in disaster response, coordinating communication and efforts, etc. We've had them for 4 years and we've paid billions of dollars for them. What have we bought exactly? What do you expect from your tax dollars?


I haven't seen all of the news coverage out there and in fact I quit watching it after a while. But I'd say that the reporters on the ground there "get it" far more than anyone else does. In fact they were bringing critical information to the government. I ripped this from a blog, which has a loose transcription of Ted Koppel's show:


Heck even Bush admits (today) that the response has been inadequate. Too little too late Mr. Bush - story


Edited to add: If you want to read the mayor's perspective on it then I'd suggest you read a transcript from a radio interview posted over at CNN. If that doesn't convince you that the response to this has been a miserable failure then I don't know what will.

The looting and violence have only hindered recovery and relief efforts.
So, if you want to spread blame about the lack of swiftness, those individuals
partaking in the violence and looting should be held accountable.




This isn't a war, for Pete's sake! The national guard shouldn't have
to endure gunfire while attempting to save the lives of those who are shooting
at them. It's asinine to expect that from anyone. Comparing Iraq (a place
where we are not wanted by many Iraqis) to New Orleans (our own state
in our own country, where the presence of our troops is wanted and expected)
is like comparing apples and oranges.




From what I have seen in press releases and media, food and water has been
air-dropped since the beginning. Finding a way to do so effectively, and without
causing chaos among the crowds of people, has been the greatest challenge.

As far as the looters and criminals, the governor herself said that such behavior
won't be tolerated, yet the focus is (and has always been) on relief and recovery.
But there has to be some semblance of order for any operation to be effective,
especially one of such great magnitude.



If there is a lesson to be learned from this, it's that we cannot depend on our
government. When we do, we may be disappointed. A lot of the people stranded
are those who have depended on government assistance before this crisis hit,
for whatever reason. Our tax-dollars have been going to these people before
and they will continue to. We ARE paying for this crisis, and people are being
helped. Maybe this will be a learning experience, that will help us (and our
Dept. of Homland Security) be better prepared for future disasters.

Well Folks, I have watched TV for the past 4 days and I have never seen such an inept attempt to complete a mission of taking care of our own citizens.

Even since Saturday it was known that New Orleans was going to be most likely in the direct path. If not New Orleans, some place close was going to take the full brunt of hurricane Katrina.

On Sunday, all the talk was of Katrina maybe being the most powerful hurricane to hit the US.

So according to this adminstration, and FEMA resources were put in place during the weekend.

Then why were not these resources used (efficiently or not at all in some instances)in places such as the convention center. My God it was until Friday before these 10,000 to 15,000 received as much as a drink of water. Nothing for 3 or 4 days. There is absolutely no excusefor this kind of inaction.

People have died because top management somewhere didn't care or have the mentality to do his job. Why? Hell, if I know, but they sure have failed their job description and should be sent packing.

And what dismays me is the comments from fellow AD members.



How about taking 4 days. Is that long enough, as in the Convention Center. Ony 15,000 people there.



A young infant could possibly starve to death in a few days. Shame on that reporter for telling it like it is. Maybe we should look the other way and pretend like we never saw anything. How callous can you be?



How long has DHS been in existence. Only 3 or 4 years and at least a $100 billion or more budget.

If DHS can't do any better than this with a disaster that we know will happen and when. How are they going to deal with a terrorist act and they don't know when or how it will happen?

Seems to me that they don't have a chance of a snowball in hell.

What dismays me are the misrepresentations from fellow AD members.

Comments like this.....



Do you have any source for this statement, Popeye, or are you just making stuff up here to bash Bush? According to the Washington Post, this statement is inaccurate. From this article......



"Running out of supplies" is a whole lot different than not having any in the first place as your claim would imply. I saw Coast Guard helicopters rescuing people from rooftops on the first day. Would you have let those people die so that you could use those helicopters to deliver water and food to the Convention Center instead?

This recent CNN article does an excellent job of putting the statements from Brown (chief of FEMA) and Chertoff (Homeland Security Director) against reality. Example segment:

My point was that no local or state or federal governmental entity had given these people any water or food. Most of the few supplies they had were water they brought with them or scavenged from other buildings. If you recall, most of the people at the convention center were there because of the news that if they came there , help was on the way.

Also.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/02/katrina.impact/index.html



As far as General Honore knew, this was the first supplies given to the people at the convention center.

I am finally glad that someone like General Honore finally took the bull by the horns and did something beside talk. It show you that things could have been done quicker if they had got up off their lazy posterior.

BTW---I wouldn't have to make anything up to bash Bush. Every time he talks there is lots of evidence.

I'll be the odd person out and say I don't think they've failed. Transcript of August 31st Defense Department Briefing on DoD Response to Hurricane Katrina.

The worst flooding of New Orleans occurred on the 30th. The above was the day after, and already they had 11,000 boots on the ground in the stricken areas. A disaster of this magnitude requires a bit of time to respond to. I don’t think three days is so terribly long under the circumstances. Yes, it is horrifying to watch, and if I were sitting on my roof with a house under septic water I’d be angry, too…but that doesn’t mean the criticism is justified.

From the Louisiana office of homeland security From the Louisiana government's mouth. No mention of "FEMA will quickly provide for you with a couple of days". It's nice to hope, but with tens of thousands in desparate need that is a lot to expect.

Next DOD transcript, September 1st:

I'm not really sure how folks can continue to argue that we were really prepared for this or that the response was adequate when even the President admits it was lacking - source.


Former House Speaker newt Gingrich had this to say:


From the Gov of Massachusetts:


In fact I don't hear very many people trying to defend the government's performance at all. The results are pretty clear cut in my opinion.

Considering hundreds of people are dead and thousands are without homes, it would be completely inappropriate to praise the results at this time. Do you expect any politician to stand up and say results are groovy? They aren't. Four or five days is not enough time to assess the results of an effort to respond to this scale of a disaster. It takes time to come up with a convoy and support large enough to care for about a hundred thousand (or more?) displaced people. The convoy that just arrived in New Orleans contains a supply that should feed 60,000+ people for 10 days. They have been airlifting supplies and busy evacuating and conducting rescue operations for days now. It has only been four days since the storm passed.

Actually both Brown and Chertoff have been pretty complimentary about the effort. From a CNN article I have already cited in this thread. Here is what Brown and Chertoff had to say in regards to the federal response:


Sounds like they are praising the results to me Mrs P, that pretty much blows your argument out of the water.

I think the more likely explanation is that these politicians have realized the gravity of the situation and know we messed up here. As further proof, there is already talk of a bipartisan congressional investigation on the matter - article.


I suppose you are chalking this up as politics, I believe it is progress. If we are going to have a Department of Homeland Security and spend billions on then they better do the job they were created for.

The Governor of MS, next door, had his National Guard mobilized before the storm. LA did not. It makes a difference.

But to the topic at hand, in order to state whether the transformation/ reform/ changes that have occured are a "failure", "success", or otherwise - you need to have something semi-equivalent to measure them by. The most recent incident for comparative analysis is the response to Hurricane Andrew in '92.

Hurricane Planning and Impact Assessment Reports

Senate Hearing: Lessons Learned from Hurricane Andrew

Humanitarian Operations in an Urban Environment: Hurricane Andrew, August-October 1992

Those links are direct to articles. For those on this board who are in the military, The Center for Army Lessons Learned Website now has a Katrina-related section with a large number of previous disaster-assistance AARs and other documents loaded up. You'll need an AKO or CAC log-in: CALL - Disaster Relief. If you have SIPR access, go to the DAIIS website, where they have set up a one-stop shop of current Katrina products and links.

Have an informed rant.

I was referring to politicians who are elected, not appointed officials. It doesn't surprise me that the head of FEMA has nice things to say about FEMA, or the Director of Homeland Security has nice things to say of the response of homeland security. Elected officials which answer to the public don't have anything nice to say at this time. That isn't necessarily based on a rational, realistic assessment of the facts, IMO. According to one of the links Mustang provided, this isn't new. FEMA was referred to by politicians as "braindead" in its response to Andrew.

Actually, it validates it...




Given that, the level of response might be viewed as quite good, which is probably what Brown and Chertoff were alluding to.

BTW...those are both bureaucrats...neither is a politician.




Messed up, or were overwhelmed? There's a big difference between the two, although the results would look the same.



Proof of what? With the current political climate, I'll bet they'd start a bipartisan committee to investigate the brand of toilet paper picked for Congressional washrooms.




It's probably a mixture of both. There are clearly places where improvement can be made...but placing peoples head on a stick for failure to be adequately prepared for the largest natural disaster to ever strike the United States (especially after just a couple of days, when the total response will take years) is pure politics. Don't confuse the two, the motives are generally pretty clear. How much outcry have you heard about the woefully inadequate preparation from the mayor and governor of Louisiana, who just happen to be much more directly responsible for the well being of their citizens? Anyone discussing breakdowns and not mentioning that aspect is not trying to help, they're trying to capitalize on the situation. Which is about as low as you can get, politically.

Plenty Hobbes, have you watched the news recently? Anderson Cooper laid into Landrieu recently and other media personalities have had similar criticism. I don't care what party these officials belong to, they are going to be accountable for this.

As I predicted it doesn't seem that people can get past the fact that this was a natural disaster, as if that somehow makes all this unavoidable. Would you be sitting here excusing the response if this had been an act of terrorism? The results could be equally disastrous, probably worse since no one would have been evacuated.

I think that we should be striving for a much better response than we had with Andrew or any other hurricane. Why? Because we have this nifty new department that we've spent billions of dollars on for exactly this purpose! What exactly have they been doing for the past 4 years with their 183,000 people besides drawing a salary? This was their test, they have failed.

If you are willing to accept subpar results from the government and your tax dollars I suppose that is your prerogative, but in my opinion the level of incompetence here is unforgivable and I'm never going to agree with you.

And I suppose if you aren't going to believe me when every single politician under the sun is calling the response a failure then I'm not exactly sure what kind of evidence you are looking for here.

Yes, the results might be disastrous. That doesn't mean that a response like this within a four day timeframe is inadequate or incompetent. It depends on the circumstances. There is only so much of a response money can buy mere mortals without the gift of precognition.

Did you read any of Mustang's links? It looks like the results (on the federal side) were better this time to me. However, I didn't read all of them in their entirety. Andrew was nothing near the scale of this one either.

Indeed. Today I was watching an interview with the director of the Red Cross.
He said that teams of Red Cross workers are standing by. They are ready to
go and help, but are not being let in because of the volatility of the situation.
The Red Cross organization cannot justify putting its people in harm's way.
Frankly, had there been less looting and violence things would have gone
better from the get-go. That, on top of all the other unknowns that have
made this disaster unlike any other, have contributed to the difficulty in
expediting the relief effort.



I understand where you are coming from. But, I don't think this is the right
disaster (or at the very least, the right moment) to criticize the level of
competency and proficiency with the DHS.

Of course I want it better. But I also realize that this was a monumental disaster, and the first one the new department had had to deal with. Further, I realize that we've seen 3 days of a multi-year project here...and probably three of the worst possible. Are you that quick to judge on your own efforts?

The fact that this is a natural disaster vs. a terrorist attack is irrelevant. I only bring it up to indicate scale and scope, which is very relevant.

As for politicians, I place no credence in anything most of them say. But definition, everything they say is politically motivated. Given the images on TV...how many of them would come out and say things were going as well as could be expected, even if that were true? They're going to say whatever they think they need to say for their own self-interest. Using quotes from any of them to validate anything that's really going on is completely pointless, (particularly if its opinion, which it almost always is), since you have no way of knowing what they really think, and what's being said for political reasons. How many of them are taking any responsibility, or doing anything besides criticize (no, an investigation at this time doesn't count)? I really don't get this from you, CJ...they're Congress critters one moment, and eloquent speakers of pure truth the next. Here's a little secret...they're still critters, even when they agree with you...maybe even especially then, since that's how they get your votes.

I guess I'm still up in air on this and I don't want to turn this into a Bush bashing session but here's the deal. If government really did do a good job of getting help on the ground as fast as possible and their was a good plan that was executed quickly and efficiently (you can have the most detailed plan in the world, all the helicopters, medics, and rescue crews ready but if you dork up the execution, then you failed) then Bush and others need to be honest. Give the people the facts, tell them their was a plan, tell them how many people were rescued, tell them what makes this operation "successful" instead of telling them what is going to bump your poll numbers up. That way we don't feel like we're wasting our money on a bloated and bureaucratic program. Given Bush's "I'm doing and saying what I want" attitude in Iraq, I'm inclined to believe that he's not just saying they did a poor job because it's what the people want to hear. Which, if that is the case, and he really does believe the job was "unacceptable" then what are we arguing about?

1. During a moment of real and severe crisis has the Department of Homeland Security proved that it is ineffective and unprepared to deal with a national crisis? Why or why not?


Either there was no plan, an ineffective plan or no execution. Clearly it cannot be a surprise that the initial response must be swift in order to save those in immediate jeopardy. Had this been a terrorst attack the pandemonium would have been worse. At least people knew the hurricane was gone and wasn't coming back.

2. Considering the National Weather Service stated the severity of the aftermath on Sunday before the hurricane hit, is the response 5 days later acceptable? Why or why not?
This can be trcky because you know you may need a massive response but where? how close do you put it? Get it too close and you risk damaging the equipment or rescuers. However in this case it was clear that a launching place like Texas was a very good scenario. There should have been a few thousand ready to go. Unfortunately there are too many National Guardsmen in Iraq. They are supposed to be for the protection of the homeland (hence the term National Guard )

3. Given the performance demonstrated so far do you have confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is equipped to deal with a terrorist threat?

No chance. Add the fear of secondary attacks into this quagmire and the pandemonium would be raised exponentinally.

4. If you believe there is a problem, what should be done to fix the problem?

There needs to be a quick-strike force ready to go immediately. USe helicopters, hovercrafts, jet skis...whatever it takes. get there fast, get people out and save lives.
There also needs to be a mass evacuation plan. This will happen again.

I avoided the multitude of "who's fault is it" topics because I personally felt they were inappropriate and definitely too early to call. However, the shear number of topics, seemingly devoted to determining where we should place blame has convinced me to speak up.

The thing to remember is, response takes time, and the closer the responders are the faster they will get on scene. The ultimate responsibility here, is hard to call. But there was definitely an immediate lack of LOCAL leadership, coordination and planning.

When it comes to outside responses, everyone has to realize that it takes time to get assets to the scene. Naval vessels are there, with more on the way, but they had to get there, which takes time.

When the Guard or Reserves are called up, it takes time to get them in, get their equipment issued, review the mission, formulate a plan, transport the personnel, etc. They are not the minutemen of George Washington's time.

When Urban Search and Rescue teams are called, it takes time to get there, as it does with the Red Cross, CERT, and all other organizations. They have to mobilize, pack, and travel.

Add to that the fact that the city was all but completely inaccessible and the delays escalate.

C-130s flew in swift boats for water rescues. But the closest they could land was 150 miles away. Getting the transport trucks there that could make the trip and then making the trip, all took time.

When some in the city moved from looting to violence, the Red Cross and many other volunteer organizations could not / would not send their people in there until the situation was more secure. Securing those who would take advantage of this tragedy takes time.

There are so many professional Rescue personnel in the area, that I was told there was no need for volunteer divers or rescuers at this time. The issue of having to get them in and out of the city safely, between the limited access, floodwater, debrise, snipers, etc has resulted in a bottleneck that cannot be avoided.

At this point I have alot of questions. But theree is on major issue I have here so far. The Mayor of New Orleans told the people of New Orleans, if you can't get out, go to the stadium where you will be safe. Despite millions in grants from FEMA to develop an emergency plans they still did not have food and water for the people there. And they did a HORRIBLE job of keeping people safe (I dread the final count of the number of rapes, assaults and murders committed inside that stadium). The failure of the city to maintain control, and get supplies into the stadium (especially when it seems that they handled these jobs just fine for the Hyatt and