Iraq deployment hurt Katrina relief efforts

[Amazing Rando]

You've heard it straight from the horse's mouth, the chief of the National Guard Bureau.

Iraq hurt Katrina response, general says

News | Article

BAY ST. LOUIS, Mississippi (AP) -- The deployment of thousands of National Guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana in Iraq when Hurricane Katrina struck hindered those states' initial storm response, military and civilian officials said Friday.

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day or so of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.

"Had that brigade been at home and not in Iraq, their expertise and capabilities could have been brought to bear," said Blum.

© source where applicable

[Ryokan]

Which really doesn't matter at all in regards to whether or not the Iraq war was a good war to fight, or if we should pull out now. If Iraq was truly a threat to us, or offered us a true opportunity to make a decisvie move inm the WoT, or we stand to be in a dangerous place if we fail in Iraq, then it was the right thing to do, or its right to stay there, even if it did hinder our Katrina response. If Iraq was no threat to us, offers us no opportunities to succeed in the WoT, or offers no benefit to us to see the war through, then it was wrong and we should leave.
Katrina has no affect on any right thinking persons opinion of the Iraq war.

[brother vinny]

You've heard it straight from the horse's mouth, the chief of the National Guard Bureau.

Iraq hurt Katrina response, general says

News | Article

BAY ST. LOUIS, Mississippi (AP) -- The deployment of thousands of National Guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana in Iraq when Hurricane Katrina struck hindered those states' initial storm response, military and civilian officials said Friday.

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day or so of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.

"Had that brigade been at home and not in Iraq, their expertise and capabilities could have been brought to bear," said Blum.

© source where applicable

Or, it's within the realm of possibility, those troops could've been numbered among the victims of Katrina, and being in Iraq saved their lives. The Lt. Gen. is engaging in idle speculation and could-have-beens.

[jason]

What idiocy.

With this sort of reasoning the military should not be used for anything at all just in case it is needed for emergency relief work.

That is just too stupid. Though I bet the left will make much of this.

Jason

[Teallaura]

Louisiana National Guard:

Deployed to Iraq: ~3500

Stationed At Home: ~8000


Any questions?

[Tfbandie]

Louisiana National Guard:

Deployed to Iraq: ~3500

Stationed At Home: ~8000


Any questions?

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day or so of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.

Nope.

[Jedidiah]

[QUOTE=Amazing Rando]

"arguably" a day or so of response time was lost

The key word here is arguably. This means that he thinks it might have been so.

[Jezz]

You've heard it straight from the horse's mouth, the chief of the National Guard Bureau.

Iraq hurt Katrina response, general says

News | Article

BAY ST. LOUIS, Mississippi (AP) -- The deployment of thousands of National Guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana in Iraq when Hurricane Katrina struck hindered those states' initial storm response, military and civilian officials said Friday.

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day or so of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.

"Had that brigade been at home and not in Iraq, their expertise and capabilities could have been brought to bear," said Blum.

© source where applicable

Even if true (which I will not speculate on), it is completely irrelevant to whether or not the war in Iraq was a good thing.

If the US had had the same number of troops in (say) Africa doing humanitarian and relief work, then the effect on the response to Katrina (if any) would have been the same. Would people then be using this as an excuse not to go into Africa and do humanitarian work? I don't think so.

To use Katrina as a reason for not going into Iraq simply begs the question of whether or not Iraq was a worthy humanitarian cause. If every nation on earth always kept all of its personnel home "just in case" they might be needed for internal relief work (the selfish extreme of this type of argumentation), then there'd be no overseas aid.

[anthrogirl]

While the OP doesn't address the legitimacy of the war in Iraq, it does say alot about homeland "security". Regardless of the war, it is clear that the U.S. and State gov'ts were not prepared to respond properly to a stateside disaster like this one--even with all of the technology and advanced warning.

It really seems like the gov'ts are not able (or, God forbid, unwilling?) to protect and support it's people.



ag

[Richbee]

You've heard it straight from the horse's mouth, the chief of the National Guard Bureau.

Iraq hurt Katrina response, general says

News | Article

BAY ST. LOUIS, Mississippi (AP) -- The deployment of thousands of National Guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana in Iraq when Hurricane Katrina struck hindered those states' initial storm response, military and civilian officials said Friday.

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day or so of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.

"Had that brigade been at home and not in Iraq, their expertise and capabilities could have been brought to bear," said Blum.

© source where applicable

Acutually NO!

The NG is under the control of the Gov. Blanco. 3,000 were in Iraq, but 8,000 were La.

Game over.

Blanco refused to allow the Fed's to run the show, she lost, and she will pay big time. (politically)

[Arnold]

It really seems like the gov'ts are not able (or, God forbid, unwilling?) to protect and support it's people.



ag

What a completely asinine statement. You liberals think that government is God - or with George Bush at the helm - Satan...

[Teallaura]

While the OP doesn't address the legitimacy of the war in Iraq, it does say alot about homeland "security". Regardless of the war, it is clear that the U.S. and State gov'ts were not prepared to respond properly to a stateside disaster like this one--even with all of the technology and advanced warning.

It really seems like the gov'ts are not able (or, God forbid, unwilling?) to protect and support it's people.



ag

First, the Fed is not the primary responder - and never will be. That's always going to be a state/local responsibility for the simple reason that they are always going to be closest.

Second, I heard today that Biloxi alone had 5000+ buildings leveled - yet the Mississippi death toll stands (last I heard) at -200 (no more than 300, but I'm not sure of that last figure).

Third, Alabama took damage all along its western edge - power not being restored for up to two weeks (and maybe not yet). Our death toll stands at two.

States were ready, willing and able - but Louisiana wasn't. And despite some ridiculously stupid stories coming out of FEMA the truth is that the Fed had people on the ground the next day. Needs improvement? You bet, a whole bunch, especially at FEMA - but saying that all state and local governments - and the Fed - were unable or unwilling to respond is just flat out false.





Onto the 'arguable' point:

Arguably, had we had forced evacuations ten days before (we had only five days warning, yes I know) then no one would have died. Arguably, if we didn't allow people to live along the coastline, then no one would have died. Arguably, if we built a land bridge to Cuba and made it mostly marsh to absorb a good deal of the brunt, no one would have died.

Armchair quarterbacking is easy - any one can do it. Trouble is, you can expend tons of wasted effort/resources in the process - or sit paralyzed with fear to do anything if you insist on 'perfection'. The US being in Iraq didn't kill anyone - poor on the ground coordination and response by local, state and possibly Fed authorities did. 3500 extra guys would have made no difference in that.

[anthrogirl]

What a completely asinine statement. You liberals think that government is God - or with George Bush at the helm - Satan...

I don't think Geo. Bush is Satan--where did you get that? I think we can all agree that there were failures at each level of gov't.

best,
ag

[anthrogirl]

First, the Fed is not the primary responder - and never will be. That's always going to be a state/local responsibility for the simple reason that they are always going to be closest.

Second, I heard today that Biloxi alone had 5000+ buildings leveled - yet the Mississippi death toll stands (last I heard) at -200 (no more than 300, but I'm not sure of that last figure).

Third, Alabama took damage all along its western edge - power not being restored for up to two weeks (and maybe not yet). Our death toll stands at two.

States were ready, willing and able - but Louisiana wasn't. And despite some ridiculously stupid stories coming out of FEMA the truth is that the Fed had people on the ground the next day. Needs improvement? You bet, a whole bunch, especially at FEMA - but saying that all state and local governments - and the Fed - were unable or unwilling to respond is just flat out false.





Onto the 'arguable' point:

Arguably, had we had forced evacuations ten days before (we had only five days warning, yes I know) then no one would have died. Arguably, if we didn't allow people to live along the coastline, then no one would have died. Arguably, if we built a land bridge to Cuba and made it mostly marsh to absorb a good deal of the brunt, no one would have died.

Armchair quarterbacking is easy - any one can do it. Trouble is, you can expend tons of wasted effort/resources in the process - or sit paralyzed with fear to do anything if you insist on 'perfection'. The US being in Iraq didn't kill anyone - poor on the ground coordination and response by local, state and possibly Fed authorities did. 3500 extra guys would have made no difference in that.

Calm down, there amiga--I'm not demonizing the gov'ts. I think we can all agree that there have been failures at each level.

I'm not armchair quarterbacking--I'm greiving this tremendous tragedy. Sue me.

ag

[Arnold]

I don't think Geo. Bush is Satan--where did you get that?

"unwilling"