Bush's concept of using the military in disaster relief is part of a disturbing trend.

What Bush wants and the reasons it makes some sense

A Reuters article from yesterday discusses something that on one hand makes sense, but on the other hand shows another step in what I consider to be a disturbing trend. The title of the article is "Bush mulls lead role for military in disasters." The key term is "lead role."

The article quoted both Bush and Scotty Boy McClellan. Sunday Bush was at Randolph Air Force Base in San Antonio to discuss with three generals future responses to natural disasters. As shown in the transcript of the press briefing after this meeting, the generals want a national plan for disaster response. Here's what Bush said at the briefing:

Part of the reason I've come down here, and part of the reason I went to NORTHCOM, was to better understand how the federal government can plan and surge equipment, to mitigate natural disasters. And I appreciate very much, General, your briefing, because it's precisely the kind of information that I'll take back to Washington to help all of us understand how we can do a better job in coordinating federal, state and local response.

The other question, of course, I asked, was, is there a circumstance in which the Department of Defense becomes the lead agency. Clearly, in the case of a terrorist attack, that would be the case, but is there a natural disaster which -- of a certain size that would then enable the Defense Department to become the lead agency in coordinating and leading the response effort. That's going to be a very important consideration for Congress to think about.

(emphasis added). Several hours after this briefing Scotty Boy addressed the media aboard Air Force One. McClellan explained the reason for possibly putting DoD in the lead role:

Q: What's the next step on this idea of the DOD maybe taking over at certain times if it's a big enough disaster?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's something we'll be discussing with congressional leaders, and talking about. The President, as I said yesterday, spent a good bit of time with Admiral Keating and Secretary Chertoff and others at Northern Command, talking about some of these issues. And it's something he believes very strongly that Congress needs to consider. And that's why I emphasized what we're talking about here are really extraordinary circumstances, brought about because of some catastrophic event, whether it's a natural disaster or a terrorist attack or -- I should say, a natural disaster or a terrorist attack of a certain magnitude and scope, or a disease pandemic, like an avian flu outbreak, and you need to mobilize assets and resources and logistics and communications very quickly to help stabilize or contain the situation.

The Department of Defense is really the one organization that has the ability and capability to be able to do that.

*******

But if you have a situation like a Hurricane Katrina, where the state and local first responders are, to a large extent, victims themselves, and somewhat overwhelmed, then what do you do in a situation like that, and should there be some sort of a trigger that says, okay, the federal government needs to marshal a lot of their resources quickly, get in there and stabilize the situation. And it's the Department of Defense that has the capability to do that -- the logistics, the communications, the assets to be able to do it quickly for the initial time period you need to stabilize the situation.

(emphasis added). The emphasized portions show why putting DoD in charge makes some sense. However, there are some serious questions left unanswered.

The questions

• Authority within the federal government
  

For instance, Scotty also said "There are a number--there are legal issues involved, and there are reasons we have these laws in place." Indeed, there are many legal issues. Under the Stafford Act, which was discussed briefly in Another part of the rantgent, FEMA and DHS currently have the lead role in any federal disaster response. Scotty Boy was asked about this issue:

Q: What would be the role of DHS if you were to do something like this, they would be supporting DOD?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this is the whole -- this goes to the issue of, when you have a catastrophic event like we saw with Hurricane Katrina, there's an issue of, what is the line of authority. And I think in the President's thinking, he wants to make sure there's a very clear line of authority who is going to oversee that response. Right now you have responsibility shared among local, state and federal officials. To a large extent, the federal government is in a role of supporting and assisting the state and local first responders. That's why states and local communities have response plans in place. And the federal government is there to do all we can to assist with the search -- with savings lives and search and rescue operations and sustaining life and providing or helping with the recovery.

Does that answer your question?

Q: So, basically, the bottom line is, is that the Defense Secretary would be the new line of command, and control all the operations?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's something we need to consider for the event of -- for any event of a extraordinary circumstance brought about because of some catastrophic event, whether it's a natural disaster or a terrorist attack -- a large-scale natural disaster or a large-scale terrorist attack type situation, or a large outbreak of disease.

Q: Currently, under the National Response Plan, it's Chertoff, it's the Homeland Security Secretary that's in charge. So you're -- the idea is to shift it over to DOD.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, it's in the event of an extraordinary circumstance that we're talking about. It has to be some trigger there for a severe, catastrophic-type event.

In other words, nobody yet has a clue has this issue will be resolved.

• State and local authority
  

As noted in the Reuters article, another question is what kind of role and authority state and local officials will have:

Putting the military in the lead role would sideline the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, which now works with local and state officials to coordinate disaster response.

Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat, expressed reticence about that approach on CNN's "Late Edition."

Landrieu said the military has a strong role to play "but so do our governors and our local elected officials."

"I mean we do have a democracy and a citizenship that has elected mayors, county commissioners and governors particularly. I'm not sure the governors association or all the mayors in America would be willing to step aside," she said.

Indeed, a reporter asked McClellan about this issue, and Scotty Boy basically gave one of his standard non-answers:

Q: Would the states have any say over whether the federal government would just come in and effectively take over some sort of -- you know, the disaster cleanup, or would --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, some of these -- there are some existing powers in place. A governor can certainly request certain things of the federal government, and that's an issue to look at. These are all issues to consider. That's what the President is talking about.

Q: But, I mean, other than -- the ideas that he has, is he saying once it reaches some trigger, than automatically the federal government takes over, or does the state have -- is this a mandatory thing for the states?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's one of the things to consider, is there -- when you have an automatic trigger that says, okay, now it's the federal government that takes over, and the Department of Defense is the one with the capability to be able to do that, help stabilize the situation. And it's not -- it would be the --

Q:At that point, the states wouldn't have any say in it.

MR. McCLELLAN: The Department of Defense would assume the responsibility for the situation, and come in with an overwhelming amount of resources and assets, to help stabilize the situation. And, certainly, we need support from state and local authorities and other federal agencies, as well.

This is a big issue to resolve, and as I will explain later, my view is that the resolution could be very disturbing.

• Does the military have the flexibility to do this?

Given our current military deployments and commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is a valid question, and it was posed to McClellan:

Q: Scott, isn't that, potentially, a very big commitment for the military at a time when they have extensive obligations abroad, and some say they're stretched pretty thin already?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, some may say that, but I think the military has said otherwise. The Department of Defense has discounted that. They're able to meet all their priorities. But, again, in terms of looking at this issue, apart from your question, is that this is something that the President believes needs to be considered, because we all saw what happened with Hurricane Katrina and the response efforts. The President was not satisfied about the results of that response.

He thinks the military has said otherwise? And who cares if DoD has discounted it? These are the same morons (Rumskull, in particular) that have been in charge of everything in Iraq, and, frankly, that means that DoD's opinions must be discounted.

• Just what does "extraordinary" mean?

This is perhaps the most important question. McClellan emphasized repeatedly that the military would take over only under "extraordinary" circumstances, but provided almost no guidance as to what that means. Here is what he did say:

And he (Bush) touched on -- he touched a little bit more on what he talked about to you all, about one of the things we need to consider is, is there a trigger that comes into play in the event of a catastrophic event or an extraordinary situation like a catastrophic event, where the Department of Defense would need to come in and help, really, to stabilize the situation[.]

*******

And that's why I emphasized what we're talking about here are really extraordinary circumstances, brought about because of some catastrophic event, whether it's a natural disaster or a terrorist attack or -- I should say, a natural disaster or a terrorist attack of a certain magnitude and scope, or a disease pandemic, like an avian flu outbreak, and you need to mobilize assets and resources and logistics and communications very quickly to help stabilize or contain the situation.

*******

It's something we need to consider for the event of -- for any event of a extraordinary circumstance brought about because of some catastrophic event, whether it's a natural disaster or a terrorist attack -- a large-scale natural disaster or a large-scale terrorist attack type situation, or a large outbreak of disease.

*******

Again, it's in the event of an extraordinary circumstance that we're talking about. It has to be some trigger there for a severe, catastrophic-type event.

*******

It's the situation of a -- the best way to say it is an extraordinary circumstance, a catastrophic event that -- of course we hope we never see another Hurricane Katrina in our lifetime, or a situation like that.

*******

We saw an extraordinary circumstance in Hurricane Katrina...

First of all, defining "extraordinary" with "catastrophic" does not provide any definition. Second, saying "of a certain magnitude" provides no definition at all. Indeed, it is the magnitude that needs to be spelled out with certainty. Third, why should the military be put in charge if there is an outbreak of avian flu? Fourth, why does almost everything with these guys have to be linked to terrorism? Fifth, if Katrina is an example of an "extraordinary" event, it is but one example. Does the term include things other than hurricanes? If so, what are they?

Some of you might be wondering why defining "extraordinary" is important. Well, let me tell you, when the military is going to be put in charge of doing things in this country, there needs to be a clear delineation of when it is to take control and exert power over the citizens of this country. Without such delineation, we will all be placed on a slippery slope. Without a clear definition of "extraordinary," the military could step in and "stabilize" situations of all kinds. And the people who would likely would give the order to "stabilize" would be Bush, Cheney, and Rumskull. And that is damn scary.

But that is not the disturbing trend...

Here's the disturbing part...

• In general
  

This desire by Bush to put the military in charge of "extraordinary" and "catastrophic" events is just another step in the ongoing trend to centralize power in the federal government. First came the USA PATRIOT Act (check out Truth in acronyms). Next came the Homeland Security Act, which 1) created a new cabinet level agency that supposedly was to oversee all homeland security efforts in the country, and 2) so poorly defined just what DHS was supposed to do and made such a mess of the federal bureaucracy that it would be easy for DHS to do just about anything and either justify it or hide it. But then there is also a trend toward centralizing federal power in the Department of Defense. Witness the post-war planning for Iraq, which was taken away from the State Department and handed to the Defense Department. And now Bush wants to put the military (which is controlled by the DoD) in charge of a major domestic, non-military operation.

• A new law is not needed, and Congress better find some backbone.
  

To further show what I believe to be happening, I refer to something else Scotty Boy said:

Q: Does it take -- would it take an act of Congress to do what the President is thinking about? I think that's what you were saying.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, that's why he said, Congress needs to consider this, and that he wants to work with Congress to look at how we move forward on it.

An examination of the Stafford Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 5170b(c), shows that the President currently has authority to order use of military assets in disaster situations. Here is the general rule of § 5170b(c):

During the immediate aftermath of an incident which may ultimately qualify for assistance under this subchapter or subchapter IV-A of this chapter, the Governor of the State in which such incident occurred may request the President to direct the Secretary of Defense to utilize the resources of the Department of Defense for the purpose of performing on public and private lands any emergency work which is made necessary by such incident and which is essential for the preservation of life and property. If the President determines that such work is essential for the preservation of life and property, the President shall grant such request to the extent the President determines practicable. Such emergency work may only be carried out for a period not to exceed 10 days.

Given this law, please explain to me why there needs to be an additional law passed by Congress. I have a theory: 1) the current law does not enable the military to be given primary control (particularly since the initial request must come from a state governor); and 2) having Congress pass a law gives the sheen of legitimacy. In other words, as was done with the Iraq War Resolution, Bush could say that since the new law was passed by Congress, it reflects the will of the people.

Congress damn well better do its job for a change (and that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans). Both the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act were passed without any meaningful review and consideration. Very few members of Congress were willing to stand up and question anything about those two acts for fear of looking unpatriotic. In part, those acts were passed so that Congress could show the American people it was doing something. In other words, passing those acts quickly was the politically expedient thing to do. This time around, Congress needs to question this objective thoroughly, and if some new law is passed, it damn well better has clearly defined parameters.

• Josh Marshall sums it all up.
  

I have not been keeping up with my usual blog reading lately. I started thinking about this post a couple of days after Bush's September 15 speech when I re-read it, but waited until this past Sunday to start working on it. I know my thoughts are not original because yesterday I came across some of Josh Marshall's posts expressing similar views over at Talking Points Memo. Here's an excerpt from a September 26 post by Josh:

As I wrote a couple weeks ago, you don't repair disorganized or incompetent government by granting it more power. You fix it by making it more organized and more competent. Just so here -- the move to militarize government's domestic responsibilities rather than improve them is a dangerous trend. And it suggests that, functionally, there's little left of conservatism today other than a warped big-government authoritarianism.

And here is part of what he said in his earlier post:

Then there's the president's great line from the speech: "It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces."

No, it's not. Actually, every actual fact that's surfaced in the last two weeks points to just the opposite conclusion. There was no lack of federal authority to handle the situation. There was faulty organization, poor coordination and incompetence.

Show me the instance where the federal government was prevented from doing anything that needed to be done because it lacked the requisite authority.

This is like what we were talking about a few days ago. This is how repressive governments operate -- mixing inefficiency with authoritarian tendencies.

You don't repair disorganized or incompetent government by granting it more power. You fix it by making it more organized and more competent. If conservatism can't grasp that point, what is it good for?

As for the military, same difference. The Army clearly has an important role to play in major domestic disasters. And they've been playing it in this case. But what broader role was required exactly?

As I've been saying, repressive governments mix adminsitrative clumsiness and inefficiency with authoritarian tendencies. That's almost always the pattern. The direction the president wants to go in is one in which, in emergencies, the federal government will have trouble moving water into or enabling transportation out of the disaster zone but will be well-equipped to declare martial law on a moment's notice.

(emphasis added). Right on, Josh.

Right on.