Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

December 11, 2015

Friday Free Forum

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Philip J. Palin on December 11, 2015

William R. Cumming Forum

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

15 Comments »

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 11, 2015 @ 4:00 am

The President is Commander-In-Chief and Chief Executive. The Commander-In_Chief role largely involves the Armed Forces of the USA. DoD is much more than the Armed Forces yet to some degree its assets and capabilities are assumed not documented.

Extract from Page Roman XIII of a recent RAND Report [RAND is an FFRDC] linked later in these comments:

“Clear expectations for types and numbers of resources are critical for DoD to be able to fully support FEMA in the wake of a disaster, particularly a large-scale catastrophe. DoD
should consider initiating a series of small, focused workshops with FEMA officials to discuss remaining information gaps and ways to close them, as well as ways to make expectations on
both sides more explicit and understood. While requests are submitted from FEMA to DoD in the form of capabilities, it would help DoD planners to know what specific resources might be needed or expected, while still affording DoD flexibility and discretion in response. The AHPs might be more useful to DoD planning if scenarios referenced the need for specific capabilities in the form of approximate numbers (e.g., weights, distances, personnel) that might be
requested by the FEMA regions, with the understanding that these would be rough estimates for planning purposes.
Additionally, DoD (as well as other agencies engaged in disaster response) would benefit from a listing of specific actions and capabilities in the face of large-scale catastrophes. In most regions, FEMA has solid procedures and checklists in place. However, apart from the “entirety
of DoD” through the Global Force Management (GFM) process, it is not as clear where the
additional resources and assets (both material and personnel) to implement these plans will
come from in the event of a catastrophe. The ISPs that do exist are fairly detailed in identifying requirements for DoD and could be used as exemplars. Several other region-specific ISPs are still in progress or unavailable. These plans will provide key guidance in the event of a catastrophe,
so DoD might wish to identify opportunities to facilitate their development.”

No need to evaluate the alarming message contained in the extract the above except to point out as did the mythical small boy THAT THE KING HAS ON NO CLOTHES!

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 11, 2015 @ 4:03 am

Link to RAND rept discussed in first comment:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1300/RR1301/RAND_RR1301.pdf

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 11, 2015 @ 4:08 am

In the RAND rept. linked above in a single place interested persons that want to determine if there is a “new FEMA” can to some degree evaluate that claim. IMO the rept. documents, but only in part, the status of the claim and if a grade were to be given probably an F as in Failure!

Others may disagree but in any case given the history of FEMA and DHS what is clearly documented is no comprehensive response system, little or no capability system, and decrepit logistics.

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 11, 2015 @ 4:15 am

A first principle that should be observed is that DoD is directly authorized to operate by the Robert T. Stafford Act and FEMA is not but instead has delegated authority from that vested in the President as Chief Executive and the Stafford Act itself.

Second, no appointee or employee of FEMA has authority to order anyone in DoD or the Armed Forces to do anything. The same goes for FEMA appointees, officials, and employees with respect to STATES and their local government officials and employees–specifically FEMA has NO AUTHORITY to so order!

Comment by Vicki Campbell

December 11, 2015 @ 9:57 am

Bill, it’s probably just me, but I really don’t understand the point(s) you’re trying to make here or the discussion you’re trying to introduce at all.

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 12, 2015 @ 2:25 am

Vicki! 95% of the world’s military do their nation-states disaster relief. Not so in the USA for good reasons IMO. Disaster response and relief is a function of civil governance IMO!

Comment by Jasper

December 12, 2015 @ 8:28 am

Breaking News: European Media Outlets –

“We Need More Love and Understanding!” ” Nous avons besoin de plus d’amour et compréhension ”

“Jasper” an American “anonymous US Citizen” speaks out — ?suggests a toy maker create a good ‘ol Ms. Hillary and Barack Hussein Obama doll? w/setting at the “Benghazi Massacre” speaking in French with English translation stating to ?American populace strapping on 57k new guns daily as the Oval Office and good ‘ol Ms. Hillary spew to ?ISIS? as well in their leaflets being dropped by F-18 fighters returning with 80% of their ordinance?:

“We Need More Love and Understanding!” ” Nous avons besoin de plus d’amour et compréhension ”

Jasper then cites the following:

God Bless us all:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/christianattacks.htm

Comment by Vicki Campbell

December 12, 2015 @ 10:29 am

Bill, I really agree, but would go further in saying that I have real concerns that the U.S. military (except for Coast Guard) has not, that I’m aware of, come close to fixing its inherent problems being involved in response or relief work without taking over – ie., humanitarian “support” has not at all been its strong suit, and really is fundamentally the antithesis of everything its trained for. Only the military and the U.S. government give itself good reviews in this area. All responses I’m aware of both domestically and internationally have been given bad reviews by other major players (with the response to Haiti seeming to be an all time low performance by U.S. military, and panned by many).

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 12, 2015 @ 5:43 pm

Whether even the Armed Forces can do the civil support mission when the civil sector in extremis is an open question IMO!<

Comment by Christopher

December 12, 2015 @ 6:59 pm

One book that I recently got in the mail is from Dr. Gorka, Toward a Grand Strategy against Terrorism. I feel that a grand strategy can be adaptive to assess new threats that present themselves, but also have overarching objectives that stand the test of time. It relates to the different schools of strategic planning where the enterprise can grow and learn over time from experiences and events.

Comment by Philip J. Palin

December 13, 2015 @ 4:56 am

Vicki and Bill: The good news is that the military is aware of the problem you are discussing. I think Bill’s point regarding the military’s dependence on private sector sustainment is pushing this awareness. But Vicki’s point on mission-conflict — and related cultural/organizational limitations — is a huge complication. Once upon a time I thought that a sophisticated counter-insurgency strategy might drive “warfighting” capabilities to intersect with civil support capabilities. It has not (yet) happened.

The Coast Guard exception highlighted by Vicki is, I think, fascinating. USCG has an organizational culture that I find to be the most humane, positive, creative, constructive, and effective of any large organization — private or public, armed or not — that I have encountered. I dread big bureaucracies. But I welcome interaction with the Coast Guard.

Any suggestions for the source of the difference?

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 14, 2015 @ 1:19 pm

The complicated missions and goals of the Coasties make for 24/7/365 stress and desire to improve things a la DEMING as opposed to the Pentagon’s big fix or search for it.

Again USCG budget and staffing should be doubled or tripled.

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 16, 2015 @ 12:47 am

IMO only Rand Paul, Donald Trump, and John Kasich gave indication of moderation of higher investment in the DEEP STATE in the Tuesday night debate. More WAR seemed the driver for all the other candidates. Could be wrong as always!

Comment by William R. Cumming

December 17, 2015 @ 7:27 am

Now Ash Carter may fall to the generational ignorance displayed by HRC and her private belief in private e-mail privacy!

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>