One of the key concerns that Hurricane Katrina has raised is whether it’s indicative of how the government might respond to a terrorist-created disaser. But, writes Donald Sensing,, a former military man, minister and top blogger/writer, says the two kinds of catastrophes may be apples and oranges.
Sensing writes that the government would respond in the case of a terrorist attack differently and quicker. First, he notes, in the case of a terrorist attack there would be no question whatsoever that the federal government would be the level in charge to respond ASAP.
That is not to say that response to a terrorist attack, if one comes again, will run like a well-oiled machine. It is to say that a federal presence, especially a federal military presence, will be present and operating almost immediately, even if no changes to present law are made. It should be encouraging to remember that on Sept. 11, 2001, despite the complete surprise and non-anticipation of the attacks, the federal government did respond fairly rapidly by ordering all aircraft to land immediately and establishing combat air patrols over NYC and Washington, D.C. There were other security measures taken right away, too, such as those by the Coast Guard. Clearly, security against further attack was the first responsibiltiy of the federal government.
On that day and following, the people of New York were far more fortunate than those of New Orleans for two reasons. One, NYC’s government and the state’s were far more competent than New Orleans’ or Louisiana’s governments. Two, the disaster in NYC was geographically small while Katrina’s effects were spread over thousands of square miles. Combined, these two factors meant that NYC’s own response units were effective from the beginning. They were augmented in following days by other state and local units.
No terrorist attack could possibly cause near the devastation that the Katrina caused. In fact, short of using some dozens of nuclear weapons, even the US military could not cause that kind of destruction in such a short time over such a large area. So a future terrorist attack, if one comes, will again be very localized, even if al Qaeda manages to pull off a worst-case scenario, detonating a nuclear weapon in an American city. It’s worth pointing out that the federal government has been prepared for that kind of attack, or accident, for decades. Of all possible terrorist attacks, I think that an atomic attack is one for which the federal government’s response agencies are best prepared.
Remember, again, that Sensing used to work in the Pentagon and knows his stuff on security and military issues. MORE:
In short, the response to any destructive terrorist attack will be far more inherently manageable than Katrina was with much less confusion about whose role is what. So I don’t think that the goat rope circus of local, state and federal reponses we saw for Katrina should set our hair on fire about responses to another terrorist attack. Should al Qaeda strike again, no president of either party is going to wait for a state government to ask for federal response. The only real delay might be from determining that the destruction was in fact an attack rather than a colossal accident, for which a different kind of federal response is needed, if at all.
Note to partisans on each side: Sensings’ arguments carry a lot more weight because when he analyzes this he’s not using it as a device to score points for one side or score points against another. He’s simply looking at the issue. MORE:
So while understanding the reason President Bush called for a “broader role for the armed forces� in disasters, I am also highly leery of relaxing present laws to permit it. In coming years we will be surprised (but shouldn’t be) at the downscaling of the magnitude natural disasters will need to be to evoke immediate military response. Once other federal agencies are empowered to get their hooks into the armed forces’ rapid-response capabilities and manpower, those hooks will be sunk in ever deeper with every domestic crisis. How long before a creek flooding in a small town in Idaho will activate the 82d Airborne Division? You think I’m joking? Just wait a few years – say about three more presidential administrations, party won’t matter. Military rapid response will become another form of political patronage and a way either serendipitously to bolster a president’s supporters or put the screws to his opponents.
A lot to think about — in a thoughtful presentation…
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.