« Getting it Wrong | Main | Winning »
September 30, 2005
Combat Emergency Rescue Logistics
There have been some suggestions made — apparently seriously — suggesting that the US military should be given a primary role in disaster response. That is to say, the military should be given the job of being first on the scene in a disaster, without the requirement of acquiescence from state and local officials. As Planet Moron points out, this is perhaps not the best idea going.
My first thought on improving the logistical capacity of the Federal government's civil disaster response agencies (FEMA and other DHS agencies, primarily) was to estimate the cost of maintaining even more disaster response capacity than we already have at the Federal level. The long-term cost of maintaining those resources as opposed to the requirement for them, which is running about once every 25 years by my reckoning, would be pretty high. There's also a more immediate objection: having more resources at the Federal level would encourage states and localities to do less, on the presumption that the Federal government would bail them out. This would require even more Federal resources to ensure that the government could have first responders in any community the first day. It's hard to move resources from, say, Maryland to Louisiana, or California to N. Carolina, so you'd need regional duplicates of much of your capacity. Not only does that cost, it also makes response slower, because the larger bureaucracy required to manage that kind of infrastructure will inevitably move more slowly because of the weight of the overhead that has to be dragged along.
So, bad idea. But what about beefing up local response capabilities? There's some justification to that, in fact quite a bit of justification to that, but it's probably not a good idea to do that at the Federal level. In addition to the redistributionist aspect of such a scheme, there's also the simple fact that California will prepare better for earthquake response than the Federal government would, and Louisiana would similarly prepare better for hurricane response than the — — sorry, I forgot for a moment that we were talking about Louisiana. Remember the saying about getting the government you deserve? I bet if Louisiana had called an election in Baton Rouge for the day of the hurricane, they would have gotten those buses moving.
Anyway, it might be a good idea to have the Federal government set up to handle responses to events unlikely to hit anywhere, and equally likely to hit any given place when they do, like having chemical decontamination facilities and such. But other than that, there's not much wrong with the setup we have now, assuming the local and state officials do their jobs. And frankly, that's a job for the voters to manage: note that Texas' response was significantly different to not only Rita, but prior hurricanes as well. Compare last years' hurricane response to Ivan (NOLA dodged that bullet and the local and state governments muffed that one, too) with the prior years' response to Claudette (admittedly smaller).
But I was thinking about logistics, and how you could improve materiel stockpiling and delivery at any level, and it occurred to me that we don't need to beef up our logistics capacity at any level, really. All we have to do is take advantage of our wonderful economy, and get contracts out in advance from both state and local agencies to companies like Wal Mart (supplies, warehousing, and transportation), Federal Express and/or UPS (time-critical transportation), Safeway and other grocery chains (supplies), REI and other sporting goods chains (supply). Since these companies (and others) have the right supplies and the capacity to deliver them quickly to any area, we could contract to take over as much as necessary of their supply and logistics as we need, essentially redirecting what is already in the civilian economy.
The companies could price this based on their expectation of the risk of business loss and the cost of goods that would likely be consumed. They would have a guaranteed income stream for doing nothing, as long as nothing needed to be done, and the overall spending by government would be much lower than if government maintained all of this stuff on its own. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems sensible and win-win to me.
UPDATE: Tim Worstall notes another place where government use of the economy works. (Hat tip: QandO)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/497
Comments
Without commenting on the logistics proposal you make (which would require more thought than I can muster at one in the morning), the more I learn about Katrina, the more I think the Feds and FEMA are getting a bum rap. The bulk of this problem lays, ultimately, at the feet of Louisiana politicians, and possibly even more so, Louisiana voters. I don't know if the mayor is especially incompetant, but he certainly made mistakes. However, I am postivie the governor was very incompetant. Add to that the numerous incompetant, and corrupt, politicians that have held power in Lousiana over the years - you know, the same people who kept diverting the government funds allocated for fixing the levees to other causes, and you have a recipe for trouble.
Now, because of that incompetance, and the administration being blamed for it, we have this proposal to expand the military's role. This is a VERY bad idea people! The founders feared a strong centralized government, with good reason. This kind of policy, taken to the extreme, can lead to tyranny. Can't happen here, you say? I'm sure the Germans, Italians, and many others felt the same. It's not a gamble I want to take. I like the fact that the president can't send the military into a state without the governor's approval, barring insurrection. That is a powerful check on tyranny. It is something I don't think we should give up. Now, maybe that means that when a state has an incompetant governor during a crisis, it will make things more complicated and more disastrous than necessary. It's up to a state's voters to vote responsibly to prevent that. That is a much better response than expanding the role of the executive and the military. Besides, isn't it logical to have your local and state governments, for whom any disaster would be much more immediate, be responsible for being first on the scene than to rely on a national government responsible for the entire country, with it's resources accordingly spread much further afield? Hey, I found a link to logistics after all!
I'm just rambling, I know. That's what happens when I start writing when I should be sleeping.
Posted by: Brian Medcalf at October 1, 2005 1:48 AM
Yep. That's why I've argued for reviving the old Civil Defense system. FEMA should have its mission statement changed to being a standards, review, and coordination organization rather than an aid organization.
What's really needed IMO is a Wall of Shame. Cast light on local and state governments that are lax in preparedness. The professional media just won't cover do such a thing: it takes tenacity and patience and—let's face the truth—fires, floods, and earthquakes are a lot more videogenic than preparedness (or lack of preparedness).
Citizen journalism is all that's left.
BTW have you checked the emergency response plan for your city, county, and state? I'm in the midst of preparing a review of the Chicago and Cook County plans. Let's organize bloggers to do it nationwide!
Posted by: Dave Schuler ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.caerdroia.org/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 1, 2005 10:25 AM
Dave above mentions that the media isn't interested in preparedness. I think it goes further than that. For some reason, there are a lot of people out there who think that people who prepare are scary paranoid types.
When it comes to preparedness (at least on a personal level), I've detected the same "why do you need that?" attitude that many liberals have with regards to guns (especially concealed carry). Hmm... and oddly enough, isn't the media rather liberal? So I suppose there's no mystery there.
Posted by: Aubrey Turner at October 1, 2005 6:46 PM