Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Expanded military role a touchy issue

Should the military take charge in another huge natural disaster, or does that tax troops and trample over states' rights?

By ALEX LEARY and PAUL DE LA GARZA
Published September 27, 2005

ABBEVILLE, La. - The back-to-back hurricanes that struck the Gulf Coast in the past month prompted President Bush to raise a provocative question: Should the military be put in charge in the event of a catastrophic natural disaster?

Politically, it's a touchy question.

The Pentagon has balked at taking on such a role, sensitive to adopting a police presence on U.S. soil and because of strains on the armed forces from the war in Iraq.

The president reportedly told aides one of the major breakdowns in the Hurricane Katrina response was the federal government's inability to seize control of rescue and relief efforts. When Rita hit, the federal government dispatched troops sooner, sent supplies earlier and coordinated better with local authorities, helping to minimize the loss of life.

After a military briefing Sunday in Texas, Bush discussed the idea of expanding the military role.

"Clearly, in the case of a terrorist attack, that would be the case," Bush said. "But is there a natural disaster - of a certain size - that would then enable the Defense Department to become the lead agency in coordinating and leading the response effort?"

The military's help was certainly welcomed in Louisiana.

"They did an amazing job," Vermilion Parish Sheriff Mike Couvillion said Monday. "Without the military's help, we probably would have had casualties."

But in Florida, the idea of putting the military in charge, not just assisting local authorities, caught Gov. Jeb Bush off guard. "When state and local government does its job, there is no need for the military to take over."

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was with the governor at a leadership conference in Tallahassee, said he thinks the president could send in troops occasionally, without changing the law. But he urged caution.

In Washington, Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, scheduled a hearing Wednesday to discuss funding for Hurricane Katrina. He also planned to explore the president's idea. "I can understand why the president wants to do that," Young said. "But I also understand how overextended the military already is."

Expanding the military's role requires balancing the need for an adequate disaster response with the need to protect states' rights.

Under existing law, a state's governor is chiefly responsible for disaster response, including control over the state's National Guard, though in certain cases the president can order troops to support local law enforcement. If federal troops are brought in, they are there in support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Though the swift military response in southeast Louisiana has been portrayed as a positive effect of Hurricane Katrina, it seems largely due to proximity.

The soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division and National Guard troops already were in New Orleans.

Otherwise, said Capt. Chris Nyland, "We might just be getting here."

He said moving 4,000 troops and vehicles from Fort Bragg in North Carolina was a huge, time-consuming process.

Nyland and others said state and local agencies should remain at the forefront of disaster relief. "They know the area and what's needed."

Couvillion, too, was wary of the president's idea. "You need someone who knows the area," the sheriff said. "If my men are going to be out there, I want to be in control."

The Pentagon says 11,000 active-duty troops are in Louisiana, and another 1,000 in Texas. Capt. Renee Cunningham of the Colorado-based U.S. Northern Command, which is coordinating the military response to the hurricanes, said there was no difference in the military response to both hurricanes.

"As for the post-disaster national response plan, it's premature to discuss this issue in any detail," Cunningham said. "It's fair to say though that DOD is reviewing the lessons learned from these recent hurricane-relief operations and will work closely with other federal agencies to improve the overall national response plan."

The issue of military involvement in domestic affairs is not new.

One of the nation's earliest political dust-ups occurred when President George Washington sent troops to quash the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania, sparked by a federal tax on whiskeymakers.

In a CNN interview, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., addressed the subject. "We do have a democracy and a citizenship that has elected mayors, county commissioners and governors, particularly. I'm not sure the governors association or all the mayors in America would be willing to sort of step aside."

Other lawmakers, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., have suggested Congress might review the Civil War-era Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from performing law enforcement duties such as searching people or making arrests.

Military expert Gene Healy of the Cato Institute, in an analysis published Sunday, warned against tinkering with that law.

"Having already wrecked a legendary American city, Hurricane Katrina may now be invoked to undermine a fundamental principle of American law," Healy wrote, concluding that "when it comes to domestic policing, the military should be a last resort, not a first responder."

[Last modified September 27, 2005, 02:45:31]