"We don't do nation-building" ... but what if it's our nation?

by emptywheel

The military, Bush tells us, is going to take a more active role in responding to disasters like Katrina.

It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces -- the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice.

Put aside, for a moment, the fact that Bush seems to misunderstand the military's existing role in disaster relief. As this damning  Knight Ridder article explains, all the legal provisions are in place to use the military in response to a disaster.

In a 1996 Pentagon report, the Department of Defense acknowledged its large role in major disasters. Between 1992 and 1996, the Pentagon provided support in 18 disasters and developed five training manuals on how to work with FEMA and civilians in natural disasters.

"In catastrophic disasters, DOD will likely provide Hurricane Andrew-levels of support and predominately operate in urban or suburban terrain," the report said. "This should be incorporated into planning assumptions."

[snip]

Former FEMA Director James Lee Witt, who served under President Clinton, believes that the Bush administration is mistaken if it thinks there are impediments to using the military for non-policing help in a disaster.

"When we were there and FEMA was intact, the military was a resource to us," said Witt. "We pulled them in very quickly. I don't know what rule he (Bush) talked about. ... We used military assets a lot."

So the real reason why the military wasn't more involved in responding to Katrina has everything to do with Bush Administration dithering rather than legal restrictions against using the military.

Two days after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, President Bush went on national television to announce a massive federal rescue and relief effort.

But orders to move didn't reach key active military units for another three days.

But let's put the question of the existing role of military involvement in disaster response aside and consider Bush's proposal to get the military more involved.

All over the blogosphere, a number of wise people are expressing legitimate concerns. From Josh Marshall, we get the very apt observation that Bush is attempting to expand his own power in lieu of competently using his existing power.

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?

From William Arkin and Heather Hurlburt, we get a more substantive criticism, cautions about what expanded military power means for the democracy. William Arkin:

I for one don't want to live in a society where "a moment’s notice" justifies military action that either preempts or usurps civil authority.

And Heather Hurlburt:

But when a democracy reaches the point that the military is the first answer to any policy question that comes up, that is a scary place.

I absolutely agree with these criticisms. We're in a scary place when Bush's best solution to a crisis--any crisis--is to bring in the military. And I'm not sure today's military really is the institution to bring order to civil chaos. So I'm willing to agree that increasing the military's involvement in disasters like Katrina is wrong. Wrong for society and wrong for those affected by the disaster, at least.

But what about its impact on the military itself?

There is a recurring discussion about the ways we need to change our military to win a GWOT (or whatever it's called today). A lot of this deals with equipment (smaller boats rather than ships). But one fundamental need is for some kind of civil force, that can reconstruct nations after we've blown them to bits. We did some of this in the Balkans. But then Bush made his famous statement during the 2000 presidential debate:

"Q: There's been—some people are now suggesting that if you don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind, that comes in after the military, that builds nations or all of that? Is that—is that on your radar screen?

"A: Well—I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."

And at a time when many people were clamoring to develop more civil capabilities, we backed away from developing those skills, relying instead on the National Guard. Except when an individual officer jas taken initiative to reach out to the local community, this kind of force was/is lacking in Iraq (and Afghanistan). Instead, we gave responsibility for reconstruction to the children of Neocons, fresh out of B School. With the result that we're losing ground in the GWOT.

Now there are a lot of reasons why we haven't been developing our nation-building capabilities in the military. Partly, it's because the Commander in Chief disdains nation-building, or at least says he does. Partly, it's because the civil skills needed for nation-building don't get you military promotions. And partly (as Armchair Generalist points out) because of limited resources:

If you read the DOD Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, it's pretty clear that supporting federal, state and local agencies in disaster response is a very low priority. This is not because the military doesn't care about disaster relief or people suffering or that they can't do the job, it's that they only get so much money for training, equipping, and operations, and for some silly reason, people expect that the majority of those funds go to combat operations.

But wouldn't that all change if the Commander in Chief declared that the military had to take a more active role in disaster relief? I realize it is a slightly different thing. But only slightly.

The push to give the military more authority in disaster relief would mean giving the military more training and resources for rebuilding and reconstruction. Of New Orleans, sure. But those same skills could be used--should have been used--in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Did President Bush finally recognize the need to develop nation-building capabilities in the military? No. Not that he realizes, anyway. But it may amount to the same thing.

Comments

[Muledriver]

Why isn't assisting in evacuation, transporting supplies and equipment and keeping or restoring order the job of the National Guard -- essentially a cross between civilain and military?

[emptywheel]

I think it would be. But they're in Iraq. So you still come down to the fact that SOMEONE in the miltiary needs to be trained in that military/civil role. And trained in more detail than the Guard is.

[Mimikatz]

"Nationbuilding" isn't just rebuilding levees and bridges and highways and the port and so forth. "Nationbuilding" really refers to the establishment of order and democratic governing institutions. We don't need to do that here, except for a very brief period while the local authorities rest and regroup. What we needed the military for was search and rescue, and delivery of supplies and evacuation. That is more traditional.

So I think Bush is really misguided here, but it isn't about "nationbuilding" so much as understanding that one big role of the Commander in Chief is to give orders, like "Go!" Rumsfeld wasn't involved, Cheney was fishing, and no one gave an order or told Bush to give an order.

As others have said, we really need to get FEMA back as an independent entity and get the national guard back as a real national guard--the guardians of the homefront. Easiest way is to bring them home and eschew any more foreign adventures. Then people would be willing to join the Guard and Reserves again, because basically many people liked the idea of being guardians of the home front.

[Sara]

One thing we really need right now is local Civilian Groups that will read through, and lead public discussion about, the local and state disaster plan. Something tells me that if even a few Citizens of New Orleans had reviewed their planning -- a good many questions would have been asked. For instance, Red Cross had refused to "service" the Superdome because the plan did not meet their minimal standards for shelter. From that little fact, a lotta hell could have been raised about the plan.

As to the Military -- of course they have a role in most current disaster plans -- but it is not within the competence of a local or state official to "command" the 82nd Airborne. But when the DOD takes about 30% of the Guard out of Country on Deployment, and about 50% of their equiptment -- they ought to be held responsible IN ADVANCE to designate the emergency replacement for the Guard, their assets, and what they can and can't do. Bush has been treating the Guard as a cheapo piggy bank into which he can dip with no consequences. We need to make that much more difficult to do. (I would add, look at the BRAC plan -- it takes away even more state based Guard assets.) This summer the Governor's raised questions about this, and PA has taken DOD and the BRAC plan to court. Stopping the current BRAC until an assessment is made on the impact on the Guard's ability to execute disaster relief should be a cause as the BRAC is on schedule to be voted on this fall.

I actually think we should go raw on Bush's suggestion of seeing military under his command as first responders. If you remember some of the cartoons about Nixon (Herblok) asking if you would buy a used car from this guy -- we need a new visual, -- would you trust your family safety to W (shown sleeping on his favorite pillow under something saying he wants his life back) when the guy has a history of "getting lost" when he should be on duty -- reference, TANG, 911, and Katrina.

[emptywheel]

Mimikatz:

I do think a sound rebuilding program would include some "nation-building." Only, in the ideal world, it'd be led by NAACP, not the military.

Our government failed at every level, city, parish/county, state, and federal. It failed because we no longer select our leaders based on the qualities that matter most--the ability to lead and a genuine concern for the welfare of the people. Which is not to say that Blanco isn't well-intentioned. It's just to say that we often don't have people who have been selected for their ability to govern.