Back to Business as Usual

Why wasn't the 82nd airborn sent to New Orleans ? Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker report in the New York Times. They quote many anonymous administration and pentagon sources trying to shift the blame to Governor Blanco. They never discuss the possiblity that active duty military could be sent to New Orleans even if the Governor did not surrender control of the national guard. Since this happened, one suspects it is possible. They quote discussions of what to do if the governor did not request deployment of active duty military which took place days after the governor had requested it without noting the gross error made by the Bush administration lawyers.

One of the barriers that some thought Katrina breached is that erected between the truth and the public by a press which feels it is obliged to be fair to lies and reach balanced conclusions no matter what are the facts. Sad to say, the barrier imposed by journalists professionalism which prevents journalists from doing their jobs proved stronger than the levee at the 17th street canal.

Already the Washington Post and Newsweek quoted an anonymous source claiming that Blanco had not declared a state of emergency by Sept 2rd when she had declared one 8 days earlier. The Post published a correction. Clearly serious reporters interested in doing their job must have recognised then, if not years before, that informing the public and quoting anonymous Bush administration officials advancing the talking point of the day are inconsistent. Reporters can just say "no don't tell me" if a source asks for anonymity. They can also listen and most thoroughly protect the anonymity of their source by ignoring him or her.

I am trying to get around to discussing "Political Issues Snarled Plans for Troop Aid" by By ERIC LIPTON, ERIC SCHMITT
and THOM SHANKER (from now on LSS) in the New York Times. The article asks why active duty troops weren't sent to New Orleans. In particular why the 82nd airborn, which was standing by, didn't get the order to fly.

One false argument (discussed in a post below) is that the Posse Comitatus act forbids active duty military from acting as police. This argument has long since ceased to be operational, since it is known to be false by basically all military officers. In law and in practice, this is not a barrier if there is a natural disaster and the governor of the state requests assistance. Back to LSS

"I need everything you have got," Ms. Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Monday, after the storm hit.

In an interview, she acknowledged that she did not specify what sorts of soldiers. "Nobody told me that I had to request that," Ms. Blanco said. "I thought that I had requested everything they had. We were living in a war zone by then."

By Wednesday, she had asked for 40,000 soldiers."

So that's that for the Posse Comitatus act. Note that LSS in the effort to be balanced even if that is unfair present "I need everything that you have got" as a mistake on Blanco's part which she "aknowledged", since the Posse Comitatus act clearly states that the Governor of the state must place her hand on her heart and hop on her right foot to make assistance by active duty military personel possible.

LSS quote anonymous "pentagon officials" who argue "even the 82nd Airborne, which has a brigade on standby to move out within 18 hours, could not arrive any faster than 7,000 National Guard troops," . This begs the question "why not send both?" No argument is made that the Bush administration had to choose between one and the other. No one makes any claim that sending the 82nd Airborn too would have interfered with anything or had any practical disadvantages. It is clear that it would have had huge advantages including probably saving American babies from dying of thirst. Now I understand that LSS are forbidden by the journalistic equivilant of the Posse Comitatus act from just pointing this out themselves, but they could run the argument past some sane human being who is not a shill for Bush and quote the reply as in "Mr x who was passing us on the sidewalk was informed of this argument and said "why the hell couldn't they have sent both". In an effort to be fair and balanced we visited the Washington center for supported work therapy for the profoundly mentally handicapped and Mr Y who has an IQ of 65 said "huh I don't get it. Why send national guard mean can't send 82nd Airborn" I mean if journalistic ethics forbid you to point out the obvious, it can't be hard to find someone to quote noting the obvious.

LSS state in their own voices the absurd argument made by anonymous sources "Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area. But they also say they were desperate and would have welcomed assistance by active-duty soldiers." OK so LSS argue in their own voices that it would be necessary for the Governor to give up control of the National Guard in order to send large numbers of active duty military personel. They neglect to note that the Governor still has not done so and that there are large numbers of active duty military personel in New Orleans. Either it is possible or it isn't, and that the fact that it happened suggests that it is possible. Also what's this about"large numbers" How large is "large numbers". I haven't read the Posse Comitatus act which undoubtably says something like "A governor can get the pres to send up to 7000 active duty military personel without giving up control of the state national guard. If the Governor wants 7001, he (they were politically incorrect back in 1878) must give up the guard." Here LSS must have understood that the legal issues are the same for large numbers and small numbers. Why did the write otherwise. They are not even quoting an anonymous shill.

The reporting becomes surreal. I quote with big snips.

"I need everything you have got," Ms. Blanco said she told Mr. Bush last Monday, after the storm hit.

[snip]

By Wednesday, she had asked for 40,000 soldiers.

[big snip]

Justice Department lawyers, who were receiving harrowing reports from the area, considered whether active-duty military units could be brought into relief operations even if state authorities gave their consent - or even if they refused.

LSS could have noted that it is odd for Justice Department lawyers to wonder if active duty military units could be sent even if state authorities refused days after the Governor asked for "everything you have got." I mean I know lawyers do hypotheticals but wondering if someone who has been begging for something for days might refuse it is a bit extreme no ? To professional reporters, the contradiction between what they report and what they report must not be noted I guess.

OK now I will edit to story to remove anonymous quotes and bizarre claims made by LSS based on nothing. I won't mark my edits so this is not a quotation of the article.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.

For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control.

As the water was rising in New Orleans, the governor repeatedly questioned whether Washington had started its promised surge of federal resources.

"We needed equipment," Ms. Blanco said in an interview. "Helicopters. We got isolated."

In a separate discussion last weekend, the governor also rejected a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general - but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana National Guard.

Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, director of operations for the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Pentagon in August streamlined a rigid, decades-old system of deployment orders to allow the military's Northern Command to dispatch liaisons to work with local officials before an approaching hurricane.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales urged Justice Department lawyers to interpret the federal law creatively to help local authorities, those officials said. For example, federal prosecutors prepared to expand their enforcement of some criminal statutes like anti-carjacking laws that can be prosecuted by either state or federal authorities.

On the issue of whether the military could be deployed without the invitation of state officials, the Office of Legal Counsel, the unit within the Justice Department that provides legal advice to federal agencies, concluded that the federal government had authority to move in even over the objection of local officials. [comment why the hell are they asking if the military can be deployed without the invitation of state officials days after the governor invited indeed begged for that deployment]

This act was last invoked in 1992 for the Los Angeles riots, but at the request of Gov. Pete Wilson of California, and has not been invoked over a governor's objections since the civil rights era - and before that, to the time of the Civil War, administration officials said. Bush administration, Pentagon and senior military officials warned that such an extreme measure would have serious legal and political implications.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said deployment of National Guard soldiers to Iraq, including a brigade from Louisiana, did not affect the relief mission, but Ms. Blanco disagreed.

"Over the last year, we have had about 5,000 out, at one time," she said. "They are on active duty, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That certainly is a factor."

By Friday, National Guard reinforcements had arrived, and a truck convoy of 1,000 Guard soldiers brought relief supplies - and order - to the convention center area.

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security say the experience with Hurricane Katrina has demonstrated flaws in the nation's plans to handle disaster.

"This event has exposed, perhaps ultimately to our benefit, a deficiency in terms of replacing first responders who tragically may be the first casualties," Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for domestic security, said.

Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, has suggested that active-duty troops be trained and equipped to intervene if front-line emergency personnel are stricken. But the Pentagon's leadership remains unconvinced that this plan is sound, suggesting instead that the national emergency response plans be revised to draw reinforcements initially from civilian police, firefighters, medical personnel and hazardous-waste experts in other states not affected by a disaster.

The federal government rewrote its national emergency response plan after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it relied on local officials to manage any crisis in its opening days. But Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed local "first responders," including civilian police and the National Guard.

At a news conference on Saturday, Mr. Chertoff said, "The unusual set of challenges of conducting a massive evacuation in the context of a still dangerous flood requires us to basically break the traditional model and create a new model, one for what you might call kind of an ultra-catastrophe.""