People in the US seem to expect federal disaster relief effort to be flawless, no mater the circumstances.
Federal emergency relief plans for hurricanes assume that the local and state governments would be competent, and that the federal government would play a supporting role at the request of the local governments. That model worked fairly well during 9/11, for last year's four hurricanes in Florida, and for the Mississippi and Alabama gulf coast regions during hurricane Katrina.
However, federal plans apparently do not provide for the contingency that the local and state governments would be worse than incompetent, and would, in fact, actually hinder response to the disaster. It took too long for the feds to adjust to the required change in role from "support of local efforts" to "primary responder" in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina.
Nevertheless, the US public expects the federal government emergency response to be flawless, no mater what the circumstances. Therefore, President Bush is, in effect, being bashed for not anticipating the inadequate performance of the New Orleans mayor and the governor of Louisiana.
At the risk of being flamed, that particular criticism may have merit. Federal emergency response, in the broad sense, should not depend on the competence of first responders. We need to rethink our model for federal disaster relief.
Right now, the feds are the third tier, following local and the state response. There needs to be the legal and structural mechanism for the feds to jump into the primary role quickly when it is apparent the the local and state governments are unable to act, or incompetent in their ability to act.
I disagree. First responders know they lay of the land, they are aware of the particular resources on the ground and are the face that people know. Secondly, it creates incentives for local politicians to make the federal government responsible for their citizens and frees them up to divert tax money to waste on less important projects. Third, and most importantly, it would allow the feds to usurp state authority which is not a healthy thing in our structure of government. There were proceedures in place to handle the situation, the mayor and governor fell down on the job and the first responders didn't all show up to do their jobs. Lastly, let's not forget that plenty of people in the city committed suicide by electing to stay.
I think your post pretty much summarizes the circumstances of Katrina and the local, state and fed response.
The best defense is a strong offense. Watch the liberals rally behind Nagin and Blanco and the attacks against Bush and Brown increase. Has anyone heard one Democrat being critical of Nagin or Blanco?
Have you considered that the current tier of disaster response has worked just fine in numerous other disasters that have required FEMA assistance? The main reason that we should keep the current system is very simple. Those closest to the disaster have the most SELF INTEREST in preparing for and responding to that disaster. They have the highest risk from the disaster so they should be willing to take the highest burden in preventing it. They have knowledge of their communities strengths and weaknesses and are can best apply that knowledge to disaster planning and prevention.
It is human nature that I am going to make a better effort to care for my own than I am for others.
Compare it to fire safety. We do the most we can to prevent a fire in our home. We are the ones who practice fire prevention. We prepare for if there ever is a fire. And we make sure our family is safe if fire strikes. The fire department's role is mainly reactive. Our role since it is our family, our home is mostly proactive.
I am in no hurry to have those with less personal interest in my loss be the ones charged with first response.