Bad Idea: Increasing military's role in domestic disasters.

Fire of Liberty

In the subsequent weeks following the massive flooding of New Orleans at the hands of hurricane Katrina, they're were countless talking heads, commentators, staff members at the DOD as well as President Bush have publicly bandied around the idea that the US should consider about broadening the scope of the US military's participation in domestic disasters like floods, hurricanes and earthquakes. Though it would be nice to have the most advanced and efficient arm of the government responding to all sorts of disasters that sprout up, I have my reservations and feel that our soldiers need to be focusing their resources and troops to what they do best, which is fighting war. Now it's true that if there was a nuclear attack or some other massive terrorist attack on this nation one could see the president waving the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act (which he can) but for all practical reasons, I prefer that the national guard take the brunt of responding and should never call on the regular military unless it's a last resort. Thankfully, Mackubin Thomas Owens, a former Marine and a current professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, has written an extensive article in the October 24, 2005 issue of the Weekly Standard the pretty much sums up the pros and cons on why the US military should steer clear of entering into the domestic affairs of this nation. It's far better that we continue to have clearly designated areas and rules in which the military has it's defined borders and are unwilling to fuzzy it with a wish to respond to disasters much quicker than the state authorities.

Let's worry more about the forces fighting the terrorists in the Middle East rather that finding a way to get them to respond to natural disasters. The disasters might kill and displace folks but it pales in comparison to what the folks of al Qaeda are willing to do. Hopefully, Owens makes the whole argument a little more clearer to the folks who have thought about the same questions following Katrina and President Bush's public discussion of such a policy re-look.