The Latest Threat to Domestic Security
Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 04:34PM No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post
Ever since 9/11 our leaders have been eager to play on our fears in order to get us to surrender fundamental rights. We know what at least one of America’s founders thought of that, but it still has been generally successful. Whether or not you think authoritarian measures were justified in the immediate aftermath we are surely past that point now. Yet the government continues to press for more and more restrictions on our liberties. Now that our reptilian brains have largely ceded control back to the prefrontal cortex we might note that the concessions we made in our panic (Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Iraq war, etc.) not only have ranged from ineffective to disastrous but have proved to be very durable; the legislation in particular may outlast us all. Simply put, we do not make good decisions in such a state.
Now the president and Congress are looking to extend (via) what Cato Vice President Gene Healy called a “creeping militarization” of homeland security. The reasoning seems to be: Our existing agencies are insufficient to respond in the face of a catastrophic attack, so the solution is to bring in the military to provide that readiness. The Post article mentions Hurricane Katrina in describing the scale of disaster the new program will cover, and I am sure the Pentagon is all too happy to have that period in the public’s mind. Without diving too deeply into psychology here I suspect is the subtext - “There was a big disaster and the federal government couldn’t protect us. Federal blamed local, local blamed state and everyone basically sat around screaming and pointing fingers. That is not how we do things in the military. We’d have jumped in, got rolling and gotten things DONE. Isn’t that what you want the next time around?”
But Katrina was not too big to manage. What was unique about it was the bungled response from the federal government. Local government was wiped out and in no position to respond; the same was true to a lesser extent at the state level. The problem was a president who was on vacation or giving speeches while New Orleans drowned. That set the tone for the whole government - and let’s not forget that no matter how much of a hack Brownie was, it was the president who declared him to be doing a heck of a job. Perhaps if the president had actually gone there, maybe even grabbed a flashlight and visited some victims firsthand, we might have seen a more energetic response. A domestic army headed by that same commander - one openly hostile to the operation of government - would have bungled the response just as badly as FEMA did.
There is a more insidious program at work here as well. After Vietnam the Pentagon made it a point to turn the National Guard into an essential part of any future military conflict. The theory was that large parts of the country were insulated from the costs of war because, unless a loved one had been drafted, there was no visible effect of it. There certainly wasn’t any kind of World War-magnitude civic engagement with gardens, bonds, rations, conservation and the like. But if the military could lodge the Guard into the conflict surely there would be a popular revolt against the much-degraded ability of states to cope with local emergencies. Sentiment would either turn against such a war and force it to an end, or force a much more societal-wide commitment. Either way the Pentagon would not get stuck in limbo.
In theory, anyway. In practice the National Guard and active duty military have been sent into a seemingly endless series of stop-lossed tours and the much diminished reserve units have been allowed to waste away. In an ironic twist there has even been a backlash against the mere suggestion that our domestic preparedness has been affected by Iraq deployments. In trying to lessen the chances of what it regarded as marginalization the new Pentagon strategy had the opposite effect. This war receded even more rapidly and emphatically from public view (with some key assistance) - and took a larger part of the armed forces with it. But then serendipity intervened, potentially letting the defense department to add to its stature and influence (and quite literally become much more visible to the country). It makes perfect sense for military leaders to make use of such an opportunity. Whether that is a good deal for the rest of us is another matter.
Reader Comments (3)
Yep, George Bush our big bad war president who wears a US flag pin couldn't even pick up a freaking flashlight to be a beacon for the people affected by Katrina. Unfreakingbelievable. And....who did he stop to visit first when he finally came to the area? Oh that's right....a local oil company! Spit.
Gawd I hate this man with every ounce of my being and it pisses me off that he thinks the military is the best way to combat Americans. Sorry pal! Maybe some recognition of people's suffering would calm things down for crying out loud!
The evil of Bush, Cheney and the Republicans runs much deeper than most people imagine.
Katrina time-line (rough):
About 48 hours before Katrina hits, all three state governors in Katrina's projected path formally request federal disaster assistance. The Bush administration formally assigns FEMA disaster coordinators to each state. Louisiana's establishes a FEMA command center in Baton Rouge, to coordinate federal/state efforts between FEMA and Democratic Gov. Blanco's office.
A White House/FEMA/U.S. Weather Service teleconference is held before Katrina roars ashore. Bush and FEMA director Michael Brown actually sound coherent, pre-planning efforts seem successful, FEMA resources are in place, ready to go. A U.S. Weather Service person asks what if New Orleans' levees are breached. What then?
Katrina makes landfall. Ho-hum. Just another hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast. Ho-hum. Some damage, some deaths, some clean-up afterward.
Then, New Orleans floods. This is the critical moment when the Bush administration decided to politicize Katrina in an attempt to bash Democrats and score points for the Republicans.
Karl Rove enters the picture, but only after the flooding of New Orleans. The Louisiana governor is a Democrat. The New Orleans mayor is a Democrat. A coordinated smear campaign by the Bush administration and right-wing pundits (radio and television) is begun. The Bush administration (Karl Rove) wanted to embarrass (drive out of office) these two Democratic leaders in Louisiana.
Former Democratic governor of Louisiana Blanco said earlier this year that in the days following NO's flooding, the FEMA command center in Baton Rouge was inundated with phone calls from the news media due to the right-wing smear campaign that only began when NO flooded. Desperately-needed open phone lines were tied up. Command center personnel had a hard time calling out.
Then, an interesting article appeared on-line (NO Picayune?) in which the FEMA disaster coordinator was caught complaining after NO flooded that his NO rescue and relief orders were either being blocked or countermanded...which can only mean that some Republican higher up the command chain, at DHS or in the Bush White House, was responsible. This FEMA disaster coordinator in Baton Rouge, a twenty-year FEMA veteran, was highly frustrated. However, nothing else was heard from him, He clammed up.
FEMA's disaster relief efforts in the first critical days following the flooding of NO, therefore, were blocked intentionally by someone in the Bush administration...while the right-wing smear campaign against Louisiana Democrats raged unabated...and while attempts by anyone, public or private, to provide desperately-needed assistance to New Orleans' residents were also blocked.
--Good Samaritan Louisiana boaters rushing to NO to rescue people from rooftops were turned away.
--U.S.A.F. helicopter pilots flying out of Pensacola FL were reprimanded upon their return to base for daring to rescue people from NO rooftops while on a resupply mission to an AFB outside NO. They rescued people until their fuel ran low.
--A U.S. hospital ship sat offshore of Louisiana, unused.
--Truckers carrying much-needed ice to NO were diverted elsewhere.
You see, the smear campaign against Louisiana Democrats just wouldn't have been as effective if actual help was making it into NO.
So, while horrific images were coming out of flood-ravaged NO, the Republicans (Karl Rove) were trying to pin blame on the Democrats, to score partisan political points, while U.S. citizens in NO suffered or died.
But there's more.
Louisiana's governor Blanco called other state governors after FEMA's disaster relief effort dried up, asking for help from their national guard units (those not in Iraq, that is) in providing disaster relief, rescue and security in the Katrina-ravaged areas, but especially in the flooded NO.
At the same time, someone in the Bush administration (Karl Rove? DHS-head Chertoff? Rumsfeld? Cheney? Bush?) began demanding that Gov. Blanco turn over her state's security to them, federalizing Louisiana's national guard units. (Note: the same demand was NOT made of the Republican governors in Mississippi or Alabama). She repeatedly refused, even when asked face-to-face and bluntly by Bush on Air Force One at the end of the week.
(Second Note: about a year after Katrina, the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress passed a law stripping state governors of any say in their state's security during and following any emergency, as declared by the Bush administration. All fifty state governors, Republicans and Democrats, protested the loss of their authority of their national guard and their state's security, but to no avail. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas was one of these Republican governors protesting. During the recent devastation by Hurricane Ike along the Texas Gulf Coast, Gov. Rick Perry had NO authority...George W. Bush literally became governor of Texas again, with Chertoff calling the shots, freezing Gov. Perry out of the command loop, which they'd tried to do to former Gov. Blanco of Louisiana during Katrina).
So, you see, we must all come to realize that every crime committed by the Bush administration, every action taken, wasn't "bungled," but was intentional. Nothing the Bush administration has done over the past eight years has been "by chance."
For instance, the Iraq War and its aftermath.
Some say that Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority "bungled" the occupation, but they're not viewing it from the Bush 43 administration's perspective. To the Bush 43 administration, Bush 41's first Iraq War was a failure...because the U.S. military did their job so exceptionally well.and relatively quick. Hey, where's the profit in that...especially if an administration run by corporate lobbyists, owned by corporate lobbyists wants to make a profit off a war? Thus, Bremer's CPA and the on-going, five-year occupation of Iraq has provided tens of billions in "profits" for a whole lot of crony Republican individuals and corporations, sucking our federal treasury dry, which is something that the First Gulf War didn't do because it was commanded and coordinated so well, and was over so quickly. When viewed from the Bush administration perspective, therefore, the "Mission" was "Accomplished," which will probably be the same banner flying over Bush 43's head as he leaves office in January. Everything was intentional. Everything done for a right-wing purpose. Everything done for money and power. "Mission Accomplished." America destroyed.
Thanks, Oracle. That deserves a post of its own, not just a comment. Do you publish anywhere?