Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A Neutral Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (25)	9/10/2005 9:25:04 AM
From: Constant Reader	Respond to of 2253

No good deed goes unpunished, eh? Unfortunately for FEMA, at this point, anything they do will be immediately seized upon by partisans of one side or another as yet another example of incompetence of one sort or another. I think they deserve some credit for trying and more credit for ending it once they realized the ramifications.

To: Lane3 who wrote (25)	9/10/2005 9:26:17 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 2253

One of the main arguments this past week has been over the timing and extent of involvement by the Feds. Barnett offers an interesting view of Bush's dilemma, and also puts in a plug for his sysadmin theories. Katrina: the meta-analysis begins Thomas Barnett ¦"Political Issues Snarled Plans for Military Help After Hurricane," by Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, New York Times, 9 September 2005, pulled from the web. ¦"Leaders Lacking Disaster Experience: 'Brain Drain' At Agency Cited," by Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post, 9 September 2005, p. A1. ¦"Some Urge Greater Use of Troops in Major Disasters," by Bradley Graham, Washington Post, 9 September 2005, p. A15. The sad story here is that Bush's biggest mistake was being too politically sensitive. Federal disaster planning always assumes the Feds' help will come on top of those efforts already under way locally and by state authorities. Here that assumption betrayed us. The locals were wiped out, and the President had a choice: send in the military by invoking the Insurrection Act. Why go that far? The military can respond to straight humanitarian relief within the U.S. without invoking the act, but Feds knew the forces would face serious law and order issues, hence the hesitancy. And this is where the politics comes into play: invoking the Insurrection Act meant Bush would be basically removing a female governor of the opposing party from effective control of her own National Guard. Big deal to any state. Bigger deal to a southern state. Bigger still if the governor is a Dem-and then add the female angle on top of that. Sensitive, sensitive. And so the response was slow. LA got the National Guard as they could flow in, but Army officers say the 82nd Airborne was ready to rock and roll the day before Katrina hit. Weird, huh? A Dem like Clinton could have ordered this with less concern. But the Republican, Mr. Defer to the States-he's hesitant. The system is the system, but it's still run by people, people with political concerns, which this time may have proven deadly in ways that did not need to be. Not an over-the-top criticism. If Bush had been the caricature that so many make him out to be, he might have done better here. He trusted, and he was punished for it, in large part because Louisiana is a third world government masquerading as a U.S. state. But also because his CEO-like faith in delegated authority wore out its welcome. Notice how the CEO presidencies do well for the first term, with the A Team hot off the election, and then they start sucking as the B Team starts rising to the top posts? In some places, like Defense, the talent pool is deep enough (especially for the Republicans), but elsewhere . . . and FEMA is just so elsewhere. So when Katrina hits, five of the top 8 officials had virtually no prior relevant experience before assuming their posts. Meanwhile, the real talent had left, as so often happens as the second term unfolds. The upshot of all this? Plenty of seemingly radical calls for the military to assume a SysAdmin role from the get-go the next time around. Like I have long stated in the brief: Leviathan respects Posse Comitatus restrictions on the use of force inside the United States; the SysAdmin obliterates that distinction. Sound radical enough? It's just admitting the nonsense of the "home game", "away game" distinction. The SysAdmin serves the System, of which the U.S. is the center of graviy. As such, the SysAdmin will serve us first and foremost. And when that service is rendered, and our confidence level matches our natural resilience, we won't have a Department of Homeland Security but a Department of Global Security.