quote:

Originally posted by occrider The governor requested troops on Saturday as confirmed by Honore. So why were there no troops?

what do you think she did not have troops for exactly?

Last edited by Q5echo on Sep-16-2005 at 00:06

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what do you think she did not have troops for exactly?

Are you kidding me? You just tried to lay the entire blame on Blanco's feet because she did not request national guard troops from Bush specifically despite the fact that she requested troops on Saturday according to procedure. Now it's a moot point because she did get some troops? First of all, the federal governent failed on so many levels asides from the issue of national guard troops, however, to answer your question, well gee, how about there weren't enough troops to stabilize the region in order to conduct rescue operations one or two days after the catastrophe instead of 5 days later? On Monday, we had the pentagon saying that there were sufficient troops in the region:

quote:

National Guard: Enough GIs for Storm Duty By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Mon Aug 29, 7:52 PM ET WASHINGTON - Some 6,000 National Guard personnel in Louisiana and Mississippi who would be available to help deal with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina are in Iraq, highlighting the changing role of America's part-time soldiers. "The juxtaposition of the mission to Iraq and the response to Katrina really demonstrates the new and changing character of the National Guard," Daniel Goure, a military analyst at the private Lexington Institute, said Monday. The war has forced the Guard into becoming an operational force, a far cry from its historic role as a strategic reserve primarily available to governors for disasters and other duties in their home states. At 1.2 million soldiers, the active duty military is simply too small to carry the load by itself when there is a large sustained deployment like Iraq. Nationally, 78,000 of the 437,000 members of the Guard force are serving overseas. As part of the transformation during the war effort, the National Guard has promised governors that at least 50 percent of soldiers and airmen will be available for stateside duty at all times. In most cases, the rate is well above 50 percent. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said the Gulf states have adequate National Guard units to handle the hurricane needs, with at least 60 percent of the Guard available in each state. In Louisiana, which took the brunt of Katrina, some 3,000 members of the 256th Combat Brigade are in Iraq, while 3,500 members of the Guard were deployed to help hurricane victims and another 3,000 were on standby. In neighboring Mississippi, the Guard had 853 troops on hurricane duty — a small slice of the more than 7,000 Guard troops in the state's ground and air components. Some 3,000 National Guard troops from Mississippi are in Iraq, another 300 in Afghanistan. The states in the hurricane's path have relatively large Guard forces. But some states with smaller Guard forces and a high percentage of soldiers in Iraq have expressed concern that they may be stretched too thin. For example, about 1,800 of Idaho's 4,400 Guard troops are serving overseas, a somewhat worrisome figure for officials facing a high risk of forest fires in the middle of a drought — fires that Guardsmen would help fight by providing logistical support to front-line firefighters. Mark Allen, spokesman at the national headquarters for the National Guard, said officials are confident the Guard can serve its dual roles. "We've always done both. It's just on a bigger scale today," he said. http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...lient=firefox-a

Surprise, surprise now we have subject matter experts, aka national guard generals coming forward to say that the support was damaged and weakened by Iraq:

quote:

Iraq hurt Katrina response, general says Pentagon says it can handle both the disaster and Iraq war Friday, September 9, 2005 Posted: 2225 GMT (0625 HKT) BAY ST. LOUIS, Mississippi (AP) -- The deployment of thousands of National Guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana in Iraq when Hurricane Katrina struck hindered those states' initial storm response, military and civilian officials said Friday. Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day or so of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq. "Had that brigade been at home and not in Iraq, their expertise and capabilities could have been brought to bear," said Blum. Blum said that to replace those units' command and control equipment, he dispatched personnel from Guard division headquarters from Kansas and Minnesota shortly after the storm struck. http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/09/0...na.natguard.ap/

Now you have congress and republican senators questioning the unmet needs of the gulf coast states:

quote:

Guard Stretched Between Katrina, Wars By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Sat Sep 10, 7:24 AM ET WASHINGTON - The National Guard is stretched so thin by simultaneous assignments in Iraq and the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast that leaders in statehouses and Congress say it is time to reconsider how the force is used. ADVERTISEMENT Republicans and Democrats alike worry about the service's ability to balance its federal and state missions of fighting wars and responding to domestic crises. "We need to look at what is going to be the long-term future of our Guard when states need to rely on these soldiers for emergencies and the nation continues to rely on them for overseas deployment," said Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat. About 41,000 Guard members are scattered across Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, along with 17,000 active-duty troops. About 30,000 Guard members are serving in Iraq, with smaller numbers in Afghanistan, Kosovo and elsewhere overseas. Since the storm devastated the deep South, Republicans and Democrats have praised the Guard for what may be the most massive U.S. military response to a domestic natural disaster. But lawmakers also have questioned whether poor coordination between the federal government and the states — and the overseas deployments — kept the Guard from getting where it was needed quickly after the hurricane. Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, intends to review the Guard's hurricane relief performance this fall. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050910..._national_guard

So why don't you tell me how she had enough troops to get the job done?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Are you kidding me? You just tried to lay the entire blame on Blanco's feet because she did not request national guard troops from Bush specifically despite the fact that she requested troops on Saturday according to procedure. Now it's a moot point because she did get some troops? First of all, the federal governent failed on so many levels asides from the issue of national guard troops, however, to answer your question, well gee, how about there weren't enough troops to stabilize the region in order to conduct rescue operations one or two days after the catastrophe instead of 5 days later? On Monday, we had the pentagon saying that there were sufficient troops in the region:

when did the levee break? thats an important question you can answer later. but really, what could 12000 National Guardsmen (pre-Iraq)do that 20 some odd thousand (days following the levee) can't do?
thanks for changing the subject BTW. i think Blanco knows more about the differences using her troops for aid and Federal active troops for security than you do. which isn't saying much really.

quote:

Surprise, surprise now we have subject matter experts, aka national guard generals coming forward to say that the support was damaged and weakened by Iraq:

with all do respect to the General, once the levee broke the numbers he would have had without Iraq wouldn't have made a any difference. thats an opinion and as he said, "arguable". fact, as of 30AUG05 (what happened at around noon that day?) there were 3500 troops activated representing a third of his assets. doing what really? because at that time they were still under Blanco's authority. by wednesday there were 19500. another opinion is that for you to use the Iraq argument is weak and shortsided IOW purely political. the general would prolly agree.

quote:

Now you have congress and republican senators questioning the unmet needs of the gulf coast states:

by the 3rd there were 4000 active federal troops and 21000 National Guard. that same day Bush ordered another 7000 additional active duty. far be it from me or anyone to second guess some bloviating Congressman about utilization of 174,000 National Guardsmen.

quote:

So why don't you tell me how she had enough troops to get the job done?

i didn't have to but i did.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo when did the levee break? thats an important question you can answer later. but really, what could 12000 National Guardsmen (pre-Iraq)do that 20 some odd thousand (days following the levee) can't do? thanks for changing the subject BTW. i think Blanco knows more about the differences using her troops for aid and Federal active troops for security than you do. which isn't saying much really.

Ummm well how about restore order quicker so that rescue operations could have proceeded in full force on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday as opposed to Friday? I would say a doubling of national guard troops would constitute a significant difference in the immediate short term as opposed to 20,000 troops days after the fact. As for your Blanco comment, I don't quite follow ...

quote:

with all do respect to the General, once the levee broke the numbers he would have had without Iraq wouldn't have made a any difference. thats an opinion and as he said, "arguable". fact, as of 30AUG05 (what happened at around noon that day?) there were 3500 troops activated representing a third of his assets. doing what really? because at that time they were still under Blanco's authority. by wednesday there were 19500. another opinion is that for you to use the Iraq argument is weak and shortsided IOW purely political. the general would prolly agree.

The entire situation was complicated by far more than one factor. Iraq is by no means the sole source of the fiasco. However, it is a contributing factor which is what was meant to be outlined. Are you disputing the general's claims that it cost a full days response? You say that with all due "respect", the general is wrong? So does he not know what he's talking about when you say it wouldn't have made any difference when his statement directly contradicts your claims? Why don't you explain how you are the authoritative expert in this matter over him? As for the troops under Blanco's authority, they are actually under General Honore's authority. Are you saying they did jack shit because Blanco wouldn't let them do anything? What exactly did Blanco not let them do? Because what you're implying is that not only was Blanco negligent but Honore as well ... beause it's incomprehensible that Blanco underutilized the guard troops and Honore was complacent with such a mentality.

quote:

by the 3rd there were 4000 active federal troops and 21000 National Guard. that same day Bush ordered another 7000 additional active duty. far be it from me or anyone to second guess some bloviating Congressman about utilization of 174,000 National Guardsmen.

Yea those dumbfuck republican congressmen ... I know what you mean.

___________________
Retro ...

listen, for the last f**kin time. you said "where were the troops". she had troops. she didn't request them from Honore', yet she got what she asked for on the state level and it wasn't near enough. i'm not saying that was anybody's fault but she was complicit in her excuses and the media has blown it way out of perspective.

i gave an "arguable" opinion. so did the General. the context of the article you posted owns you, at least the political side of you. again you are, for an arguments sake, shortsided and wrong.

Honore', as of wednesday maybe thursday of that week was a liason or advisor to Blanco. the Federal troops and National Guard were operating on a hybrid organization of title 32 and title 10 of US Code authorized by the SECDEF. again, you were wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo listen, for the last f**kin time. you said "where were the troops". she had troops. she didn't request them from Honore', yet she got what she asked for on the state level and it wasn't near enough. i'm not saying that was anybody's fault but she was complicit in her excuses and the media has blown it way out of perspective.

Umm she did request them via Honore, otherwise why would Honore say she requested troops via the EMAC process? If I recall, your argument was that Blanco never requested troops until Wednesday. She clearly requested troops on Saturday. Therefore, that argument does not fly.

quote:

i gave an "arguable" opinion. so did the General. the context of the article you posted owns you, at least the political side of you. again you are, for an arguments sake, shortsided and wrong.

How so? Please elaborate. The general clearly stated that rescue efforts were delayed at least a day. Do you dispute that?

quote:

Honore', as of wednesday maybe thursday of that week was a liason or advisor to Blanco. the Federal troops and National Guard were operating on a hybrid organization of title 32 and title 10 of US Code authorized by the SECDEF. again, you were wrong.

Blanco never relinquished any command and control structure on wednesday or thursday. There simply was NO command and control structure prior to Honore's arrival. If there was, why was it so incompentant? Going back to the original argument, FEMA's ineptitude cannot be excused by the lack of guardsman requested by Blanco. Blanco in fact did request additional guardsman as of Saturday. The fact that she did not specifically request guardsman from Bush until Wednesday, when it became a critical point, is a moot issue because the federal response was lacking from the start. Or do you actually think that FEMA should remain unchanged ... including Brown as its director?

___________________
Retro ...

okay, remind me when she requested federalization of Guard troops again because this argument is bordering on semantics given what i've already posted on the first page regarding her videotaped confession and the security issues she faced that first week of the disaster.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider How so? Please elaborate. The general clearly stated that rescue efforts were delayed at least a day. Do you dispute that?

yes, i would "argue" against that. so would he. he said it himself. from what you posted. is that so hard to understand?

what assets did he have prior to the storm? say, on Saturday. when did he say that point would be "arguable"? after the flood? if it was, then he did not have the assets to control the city, Iraq, or no Iraq. he may have wanted assets to move to facilitate the force movement to the region, but as a force commander, it his his responsibility to have foresight to draw upon other assets that were more than willing to help given the situation. even then, he still has to work under the Governor, not FEMA, not Honore'.

not to have foresight is "arguably" not his fault. however, the chaos that followed the flood was a ball dropped by his superior.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo okay, remind me when she requested federalization of Guard troops again because this argument is bordering on semantics given what i've already posted on the first page regarding her videotaped confession and the security issues she faced that first week of the disaster.

She requested federal troops on Saturday. She did not specifically request troops when speaking to Bush until Wednesday. Instead she said send "everything". The point is is that she DID request federal troops early on, and thus that by no means excuses FEMA's ineptitude outlined by a variety of news sources across the political spectrum, by subject matter experts, and by military leadership elements. Simple as that. FEMA fucked up hardcore on so many levels. Unrelated local/state ineptitude is no excuse because FEMA and the department of homeland security was specifically designed to intervene in emergencies that would disrupt state/local coordination. Otherwise, what's the point of those federal agencies?

quote:

yes, i would "argue" against that. so would he. he said it himself. from what you posted. is that so hard to understand? what assets did he have prior to the storm? say, on Saturday. when did he say that point would be "arguable"? after the flood? if it was, then he did not have the assets to control the city, Iraq, or no Iraq. he may have wanted assets to move to facilitate the force movement to the region, but as a force commander, it his his responsibility to have foresight to draw upon other assets that were more than willing to help given the situation. even then, he still has to work under the Governor, not FEMA, not Honore'. not to have foresight is "arguably" not his fault. however, the chaos that followed the flood was a ball dropped by his superior.

Yes it is hard to understand. Please point out in his statement that he said that the national guard's response was not impacted or delayed in any way whatsover by Iraq. Everything he says contradicts that:

quote:

Iraq hurt Katrina response, general says Pentagon says it can handle both the disaster and Iraq war Friday, September 9, 2005 Posted: 2225 GMT (0625 HKT) BAY ST. LOUIS, Mississippi (AP) -- The deployment of thousands of National Guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana in Iraq when Hurricane Katrina struck hindered those states' initial storm response, military and civilian officials said Friday. Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day or so of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq. "Had that brigade been at home and not in Iraq, their expertise and capabilities could have been brought to bear," said Blum. Blum said that to replace those units' command and control equipment, he dispatched personnel from Guard division headquarters from Kansas and Minnesota shortly after the storm struck. Blum also said that in a worst-case scenario up to 50,000 additional Guardsmen per month will be needed in Louisiana or Mississippi over the next four months to continue providing relief, law enforcement and other post-hurricane services. Those 200,000 troops, if needed, would represent nearly two-thirds of the approximately 319,000 Guard troops available nationwide. Blum said his staff has almost completed a plan for 30-day rotations of Guard units so that no one will have to serve in the Gulf Coast for more than a month. There are about 30,000 Guardsmen in Iraq and a smaller number in Afghanistan, Kosovo and elsewhere overseas. Democratic Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi, whose waterfront home in Bay St. Louis was washed away in the storm, told reporters the absence of the deployed Mississippi Guard units made it harder for local officials to coordinate their initial response. "What you lost was a lot of local knowledge," Taylor said, as well as equipment that could have been used in recovery operations. "The best equipment went with them, for obvious reasons," especially communications equipment, he added. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said this week the Pentagon has the ability to cope with both Katrina and the Iraq war: "We can and will do both." Asked Tuesday about critics who said the commitment of large numbers of troops to the Iraq conflict hindered the military's response to Hurricane Katrina, Rumsfeld said, "Anyone who's saying that doesn't understand the situation." Blum said that overall the Iraq mission for Guard units across the nation is not limiting the military's ability to expand and continue the rescue and recovery operations in storm-battered states. "Iraq and other overseas commitments do not inhibit our ability to sustain this effort here at home," Blum said in an interview with three reporters who flew to Bay St. Louis with him Friday from Washington. Blum and Taylor toured the heavily damaged areas around Bay St. Louis. They also met with Guardsmen and other troops helping clean up and provide emergency assistance to those displaced by the wall of water that wiped out many homes and flooded a widespread area miles north of the coastline. Blum also flew to New Orleans, where he met with troops and commanders and was given an extensive aerial tour of flooded portions of the city. Afterward he flew to Baton Rouge and met with Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, commander of the military relief and recovery effort in the region.

To sum things up, FEMA's 5 day delayed response is not the governor's fault. It is FEMA's fault. You can't defend Brown's ineptitude, you fail to address any of the incompetance outlined by the washington post, the wallstreet journal, etc., etc., yet you still somehow defend FEMA on the basis of what exactly?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider yet you still somehow defend FEMA on the basis of what exactly?

Because he's a Bush lackey.