September 2, 2005
The Katrina counterspin begins...
So on the ground, the director of homeland security for New Orleans has been very critical of the federal response to Katrina. According to the NYTimes,"carried on the backs of the little guys for four goddamn days. The rest of the goddamn nation can't get us any resources for security. We are like little birds with our mouths open and you don't have to be very smart to know where to drop the worm. It's criminal within the confines of the United States that within one hour of the hurricane they weren't force-feeding us. It's like FEMA has never been to a hurricane."
Likewise, people are beginning to question whether part of the inability of the National Guard to respond in a timely manner was impaired by the fact that a third of the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard, and their equipment, are currently in Iraq. As of yesterday, I still wasn't convinced this was the case. In fact, I'm still not convinced. However, I think the question is worth asked. As such, I'm disappointed, but not surprised that the counterspin has already begun.
Over at redstate.org, strieff is already claiming that this is a "dishonest attack perpetrated by the left in their concerted effort to make political points on the backs of the dead and homeless." In his post, he analyzes the disposition of the troops that have been deployed and those that remain. He notes the unit that is not in Iraq, the 225th Engineer Group, is well suited to relief, whereas the 256th Infantry Brigade and its 1088th Engineer Battalion, currently in Iraq, couldn't really have made a difference since it only has 450 personel and 18 armored bulldozers.
Problem is, he defines the problem far too narrowly, and he does so at two levels. First, the expertise of the engineers is far more important than their equipment. Certainly, those 18 bulldozers would have been helpful, but to suggest that trained combat engineers wouldn't have used any front-end loaders, bulldozers or dump trucks they were able to scrape together is assinine. Second, he defines the scope too narrowly with respect to the *type* of troops required. Combat engineers are nice, but what about heavy airlift capability, either fixed or rotary wing? The Chinooks were diverted from repairing breeched levees to save stranded people. Would the Chinooks have been diverted if Blackhawks had been available for Search and Rescue? Strieff also completely ignores the ability of plain old infantry to hand out water and food, or, if needed, stop marauding gangs. Likewise, I think a 19 year old Abrams driver or a Bradley gunner can certainly stuff sandbags.
In short, I'm not sure having the troops at home would have made a difference, but the question does need to be asked, and answered, with honesty. But dismissing the question as nothing more than a attack from the left is highly disingenuous spin and nothing more.
Posted 5 years, 5 months ago on September 2, 2005
The trackback url for this post is http://blog.john-hayes.com/bblog/trackback.php/129/
The trackback url for this post is http://blog.john-hayes.com/bblog/trackback.php/129/
SQL/DB Error -- [Got error 127 from table handler]
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /Library/WebServer/Documents/hayes/bblog/inc/bBlog.class.php on line 707
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /Library/WebServer/Documents/hayes/bblog/inc/bBlog.class.php on line 715
Warning: Variable passed to each() is not an array or object in /Library/WebServer/Documents/hayes/bblog/inc/bBlog.class.php on line 965