So George Bush wants to give more power to the military in order to help responsiveness to natural disasters like Rita and Katrina. This would be a bad idea. We already have an emergency response team for domestic disasters and it is called FEMA. Its poor management is not justification for replacement by a miltary organization.
When our country was created, a military force was formed to protect it against foriegn attacks. Our military does a great job doing their duty where ever we send them and for that I am greatful, but thir place is not to be active on US soil. I think it may be a first step to a much larger problem later down the road. We have local and state agencies to handle most emergencies and for the really large ones, (hurricanes, etc) we have FEMA. Its place in the grand plan is to coordinate efforts between agencies, ergo its Federal Emergency MANAGEMENT Agency. Its function essentially is to organize the efforts of the local and state agencies already in place and to enlist the help of the federal government where needed. In no scenario can I forsee the need for a military action in a disaster zone. Fire fighters, police, builders, contracters and the like certainly have their place at a devistated area in the US.
The truth, is that there is no need for a group of people trained to do war in an already devistated populace in the United States. The military does have great training in quick engineering projects, mostly derived from keeping troops on the move in bomb strewn countries. However they are a martial force and should not impose that force on the population that they have sworn to protect.
I think a better idea is to use the military to train a civilian force in the quick build engineering that the military uses. We would have to make the technology available as well, such as transportable bridges, prefabricated runways, and mobile communication centers.
This sounds expensive and it is, but the fact is we pay the price no matter what approach is taken. We can pay for the soldiers in times of emergency and then pay a second price of troop depletion in critical areas, or we can train our civilian man force and make our cities and states self sufficient while employing the local populace and stimulating the local economies of the devistated areas.
Just a thought, Perihelion
When our country was created, a military force was formed to protect it against foriegn attacks. Our military does a great job doing their duty where ever we send them and for that I am greatful, but thir place is not to be active on US soil. I think it may be a first step to a much larger problem later down the road. We have local and state agencies to handle most emergencies and for the really large ones, (hurricanes, etc) we have FEMA. Its place in the grand plan is to coordinate efforts between agencies, ergo its Federal Emergency MANAGEMENT Agency. Its function essentially is to organize the efforts of the local and state agencies already in place and to enlist the help of the federal government where needed. In no scenario can I forsee the need for a military action in a disaster zone. Fire fighters, police, builders, contracters and the like certainly have their place at a devistated area in the US.
The truth, is that there is no need for a group of people trained to do war in an already devistated populace in the United States. The military does have great training in quick engineering projects, mostly derived from keeping troops on the move in bomb strewn countries. However they are a martial force and should not impose that force on the population that they have sworn to protect.
I think a better idea is to use the military to train a civilian force in the quick build engineering that the military uses. We would have to make the technology available as well, such as transportable bridges, prefabricated runways, and mobile communication centers.
This sounds expensive and it is, but the fact is we pay the price no matter what approach is taken. We can pay for the soldiers in times of emergency and then pay a second price of troop depletion in critical areas, or we can train our civilian man force and make our cities and states self sufficient while employing the local populace and stimulating the local economies of the devistated areas.
Just a thought, Perihelion
Comments