Pentagon Study: Iraq Hindered Katrina Reponse
The U.S. military's performance in the wake of Hurricane Katrina was "disastrous" and the deployment of National Guard forces in Iraq was a "major factor" in the government's delayed response, according to a Pentagon study obtained by The Independent in London.
"The US military has long planned for war on two fronts," wrote Stephen Henthorne, a former professor of the U.S. Army's War College who served in the Louisiana relief efforts. "This is as close as we have come to [that] reality since the Second World War; the results have been disastrous."
Henthorne's "hard-hitting analysis" was commissioned by the Office of Secretary of Defense as an "independent and critical review," according to The Independent.
U.S. critics of the Iraq war may welcome Henthorne's finding that a "major factor in the delayed response to the hurricane aftermath was that the bulk of the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard was deployed in Iraq."
"Even though all the states have 'compacts' with each other, pledging to come to the aid of other states, it takes time, money and effort to activate and deploy National Guard troops from other states to fill in," Henthorne wrote.
But Henthorne's findings also lend credence to Bush administration officials seeking to blame to elected officials in Louisiana, most them Democrats, for the post-storm debacle.
"Corruption and mismanagement within the New Orleans city government" had "diverted money earmarked for improving flood protection to other, more vote-getting, projects," Henthorne wrote. "Past mayors and governors gambled that the long-expected Big Killer hurricane would never happen. That bet was lost with Hurricane Katrina."
Henthorne's conclusion: "Failure to plan, and train properly has plagued US efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and now that failure has come home to roost in the United States."
By Jefferson Morley |
October 3, 2005; 2:00 PM ET
| Category:
Americas
Previous: 'Iron Lady' Talks in 'Hammer' Probe |
Next: Uncovered at Home and Abroad
Posted by: Dave Kaufman | October 3, 2005 09:50 PM
Well, since they weren't (and still aren't) defending the homeland in Iraq (but rather getting themselves shot at in the middle of a Shi'ite-Sunni civil war), Bush's deceit-based invasion has assured that the National Guard troops were able to do neither.
Posted by: Mark W | October 3, 2005 11:44 PM
Who does the primary responsibilty belong too... Well on the Homeland Security web site it says it belongs to the FEDERAL Government, Not local officials. I recall as the rest of the world does that the Mayor was on National Television PLEADING for help from the Federal Government!!! What a disgrace to America!
In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/theme_home2.jsp
Posted by: Donna | October 3, 2005 11:58 PM
The Bush Administration was not prepared for either Iraq or any natural disaster. In his first term, Bush was focused on the re-election campaign of 2004, and not going to make the same "mistake" his father made about not raising taxes. It was his aim not only not to raise taxes but to lower them for the wealthy.
Another "problem" Bush had was massive expensive programs like the Star War" Missile Defense System A cash cow for Boeing since the Reagan Administration. I think the Neoconservatives brought Israel on board because they are wasting their money on the Arrow missile defense system which also doesn't work. In his "Clean Break" plan for Netanyahu, Perle mentioned it as a good way to get in with Congress. However, there is a rainbow in this deal, because Israel sold it to China, and they are now wasting their money on it. However with the demise of the Soviet Union justifing the expense was difficult. Among other reasons, The "Axis of Evil" countries development of nuclear weapons became a convenient excuse for Star Wars. It was also the Neoconservatives brainless plan proposed to the Netanyahu government. Whatever you want to say about the Israelis, they have enough sense not to buy into that stupidity themselves. But, if the Americans did it, Israel would have one ally in their Middle Eastern conflicts. Of course, we would also be isolated in the Middle East.
Combine these items, with giving the Militaries logistics chain to Halliburton, and you have enough for a quick conventional war, but not for an extended occupation. With the money being wasted on "Star Wars" and Halliburton, You could have Fielded a couple of more,"well equipped" divisions in Iraq.
Now Gulf Coast disaster relief is again going to Halliburton' and it will also be a train wreak. Government is cheaper than private enterprise.
Posted by: P. J. Casey | October 4, 2005 04:27 PM
It does seem a great pity that the forces most capable of responding to a national disaster, is deployed elsewhere engaging in other activities - when they could be directly be involved in bringing help to those who need and want it
Regardless of whether it is their responsibility or not, the military be utilized in such situations. No other single organization can bring to bear the sheer organizational and material capability that the military can.
Disaster relief may not be it's primary but a disaster of this proportion should fall under "Defense of the Homeland".
Posted by: MWI | October 5, 2005 01:23 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
The active duty military's priniary mission is for defense of the homeland. Disaster relief is not in the military's mission statement, nor is law enforcement. The lack of national guard assets did hinder the response, but it is far cry from a disaster.
I agree with the analysis that state and local elected officials were not not effective. In my opinion their actions or lack thereof magnified the situation. disaster relief.