The Facts about Katrina Response

[there buster]

The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed

Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio .

Sunday, September 11, 2005

It is settled wisdom among journalists that the federal response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina was unconscionably slow.

"Mr. Bush's performance last week will rank as one of the worst ever during a dire national emergency," wrote New York Times columnist Bob Herbert in a somewhat more strident expression of the conventional wisdom.

But the conventional wisdom is the opposite of the truth.

Jason van Steenwyk is a Florida Army National Guardsman who has been mobilized six times for hurricane relief. He notes that:

"The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane Andrew hit in 2002. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three.

Journalists who are long on opinions and short on knowledge have no idea what is involved in moving hundreds of tons of relief supplies into an area the size of England in which power lines are down, telecommunications are out, no gasoline is available, bridges are damaged, roads and airports are covered with debris, and apparently have little interest in finding out.

So they libel as a "national disgrace" the most monumental and successful disaster relief operation in world history.

I write this column a week and a day after the main levee protecting New Orleans breached. In the course of that week:

More than 32,000 people have been rescued, many plucked from rooftops by Coast Guard helicopters.

The Army Corps of Engineers has all but repaired the breaches and begun pumping water out of New Orleans.

Shelter, food and medical care have been provided to more than 180,000 refugees.

Journalists complain that it took a whole week to do this. A former Air Force logistics officer had some words of advice for us in the Fourth Estate on his blog, Moltenthought:

"We do not yet have teleporter or replicator technology like you saw on 'Star Trek' in college between hookah hits and waiting to pick up your worthless communications degree while the grown-ups actually engaged in the recovery effort were studying engineering.

"The United States military can wipe out the Taliban and the Iraqi Republican Guard far more swiftly than they can bring 3 million Swanson dinners to an underwater city through an area the size of Great Britain which has no power, no working ports or airports, and a devastated and impassable road network.

"You cannot speed recovery and relief efforts up by prepositioning assets (in the affected areas) since the assets are endangered by the very storm which destroyed the region.

"No amount of yelling, crying and mustering of moral indignation will change any of the facts above."

"You cannot just snap your fingers and make the military appear somewhere," van Steenwyk said.

Guardsmen need to receive mobilization orders; report to their armories; draw equipment; receive orders and convoy to the disaster area. Guardsmen driving down from Pennsylvania or Navy ships sailing from Norfolk can't be on the scene immediately.

Relief efforts must be planned. Other than prepositioning supplies near the area likely to be afflicted (which was done quite efficiently), this cannot be done until the hurricane has struck and a damage assessment can be made. There must be a route reconnaissance to determine if roads are open, and bridges along the way can bear the weight of heavily laden trucks.

And federal troops and Guardsmen from other states cannot be sent to a disaster area until their presence has been requested by the governors of the afflicted states.

Exhibit A on the bill of indictment of federal sluggishness is that it took four days before most people were evacuated from the Louisiana Superdome.

The levee broke Tuesday morning. Buses had to be rounded up and driven from Houston to New Orleans across debris-strewn roads. The first ones arrived Wednesday evening. That seems pretty fast to me.

A better question -- which few journalists ask -- is why weren't the roughly 2,000 municipal and school buses in New Orleans utilized to take people out of the city before Katrina struck?

[james423]

The only school buses I've heard about so far were 200 standing in water.

Other than that, the column expresses the feelings I've had all along about some of the coverage.

[Serenity]

Is this an Adventist messageboard or the Conservative Corner? I expected a much different discussion on this subject here. I guess my expectations were a bit lofty.

[there buster]

The truth is neither conservative nor liberal. I'm wondering what's more "lofty" than the truth?

Here are some more

----------------------------------------------

Katrina, What Went Right

By Lou Dolinar

With body recovery teams in New Orleans finding far fewer than the expected 10,000 to 25,000 dead, despite the flooding of 80 percent of the city, it is time to ask: What went right?

Largely invisible to the media's radar, a broad-based rescue effort by federal, state and local first responders pulled 25,000 to 50,000 people from harm's way in floodwaters in the city. Ironically, FEMA's role, for good or ill, was essentially non-existent, as was the Governor's and the Mayor's. An ad-hoc distributed network responded on its own. Big Government didn't work. Odds and ends of little government did.

The critical period was the immediate aftermath of the levy breaks on Monday, August 29 until the flooding crested on Sept. 2. If people were going to be trapped in attics, drowned in their cars, or washed off roofs, this is when it would have happened. Once the flooding crested, while thousands still needed to be removed from their homes, fed, and relocated, at least the immediate threat of drowning was over.

Article Continues Below

During the critical period beginning Monday, rescue helicopters were already reeling in at least 2000 people a day. These independent units comprised dozens of Coast Guard, Air Force, Air National Guard and Army choppers. Various boat-rescue operations by New Orleans first responders saved thousands more-even as the media's attention was focused on the Superdome, snipers and scenes of looting. The response to the real threat of Katrina, other words, was immediate and massive -it just wasn't the response the media wanted, expected or was spoon-fed at a press conference.

The precise records of who saved how many, when, are incomplete. However, the bottom line here is the count of the dead. That it is far lower than projections indicates that many of the people who faced imminent doom were rescued as waters rose. By Friday of the first week of operations, chopper crews had literally run out of victims to save and had mostly switched to transporting supplies, dropping sandbags, and rearranging people who were already safe.

The Connecticut Post, of all places, gives the best overview of the operation in a column by Peter Urban. He points out that a single chopper of the Louisiana National Guard, on Monday after the storm hit, pulled some 250 people to safety; there were 16 other 30- passenger Black Hawks in the unit that had been stripped of seating to fly similar rescue missions. If the other choppers only saved half as many people, that one unit alone pulled out 2000 people a day.

But the Louisiana Blackhawks weren't the only rescuers. The Coast Guard was flying as soon as the hurricane passed on Monday as well and had already accounted for several thousand victims by Wednesday.

The Air Force reported 1,300 rescues and some 14,000 "transported" by Sept. 4.

By Tuesday night, the Navy's USS Bataan amphibious assault ship -cited for its inaction by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman--in fact had five choppers flying rescue missions and had pulled out several hundred people.

But those weren't the only helicopters flying. Overall, 113 choppers were in operation around New Orleans by Sept. 1, according to The Armed Forces Press Service.

Urban also notes one explanation why the rescue operation flew below the radar of the media: Individual federal and state units were not coordinating their efforts overall. There was no central clearing house for information on rescue efforts. What looked like a hurricane relief breakdown was in fact a press release breakdown.

Local rescue efforts by boat were surprisingly robust, contrary to conventional wisdom. The much maligned New Orleans police and fire departments, which began operations Monday afternoon, were able to field 100 to 200 boats in the first 24 hours after the breach, according to local officials quoted in the Times Picayune. However, with the City's communications system broken down, the 500 to 1000 rescue workers had to organize themselves and so were operating without central command and control, thus also below the media radar. How many these police and firefighters saved is unknown, but with so many boats in the water so quickly, the number would have easily been in the thousands.

Meanwhile the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, claimed 20,000 rescues by Sept. 8 at which point it suspended calls for more volunteers and boats. While it is unclear how many of these rescues took place in the critical time frame, the only mention of this staggering achievement came in the Sept. 8 press release. How many national reporters thought to call the Wildlife department, or even thought it was a go-to agency?

This list is by no means exhaustive. State police and deputies from various Sheriff's departments were operating rescue boats, as was the Coast Guard. Individual National Guard units responded on their own initially, as did civilian rescue teams from out of state. Dates and numbers saved simply haven't been added up, or served to a skeptical media.

Besides the large number of rescuers, there was another key reason for the success of rescue efforts. The nature of the flooding differed from the scenarios that would have resulted in 10 to 25 thousand dead. Worst case models projected a storm surge that overtopped the levies by 10 feet, destroying them and creating an instant flood at or near the time a Cat 5 hurricane leveled 80 percent of the structures in the city and environs.

That only happened in parts of the city, eastern New Orleans. It is clear from video footage that even there much of the housing survived, at least insofar as it provided a few days of refuge from flood waters. The flooding elsewhere was extensive, but not always rapid--in many areas the rise was six inches to a foot per hour, easily evaded by a moderately fit adult or child.

Flooding didn't crest until Sept. 2, giving rescuers a five-day window in which to prioritize operations for the most desperate. Even then, few homes were overtopped and submerged.

The death toll from Katrina in New Orleans will inevitably rise, but it will likely be in the hundreds rather than the thousands, contrary to the ghoulish projections. That doesn't absolve authorities from responsibility for some of those deaths. As is the case in any disaster, the old, the sick and the handicapped will disproportionately be victims, bringing into tight focus the City of New Orleans' failure to take the modest steps needed for early evacuation for a few thousand of its most vulnerable. More died at the Superdome after the Governor decided on a Pol Pot solution for evacuation of the city, e.g. Starve the city dwellers to force them into the countryside. And of course FEMA's political appointees, and by extension the Administration, failed to step in to address these and other problems, particularly the lack of coordination between the many agencies that were flying blind for the first 48 hours. Indeed, if it turns out that there are large numbers of dead remaining, they won't have died for lack of resources, but rather, because there was no one to tell the vast and otherwise successful rescue flotilla where to go.

Lou Dolinar is a former volunteer firefighter and a retired reporter for Newsday.

[Serenity]

The truth is in perception. We all have preconceived perceptions on subjects, whether you be liberal, conservative, or independent, your beliefs and background will determine what you perceive to be the "truth". Posting random articles from journalists, especially ones with ulterior motives does not mandate something to be true or factual.

[Bravus]

Hi Serenity

This board is full of all kinds of people, of all kinds of political, religious and personal convictions. I think what you're observing at the moment is that many of us who don't fit into Conservative Corner have got to the point where we're ignoring such posts rather than get into any more pointless arguments. You shouldn't assume that because no-one disagrees with these posts in the forum they represent the consensus of the forum: far from it. It's just that, in this particular case, a large number of us have Ed on 'ignore' and can't even read the text of his posts. Hence no responses.

[Serenity]

Thanks Bravus...I've been reading and hearing all this Liberal vs. Conservative talk, and I'm just tired of it, and didn't expect it here. Thanks for the heads up!!

[lazarus]

I'm a conservative liberal evironmentalist animal loving pacifist hawk.

Jesus Still loves me despite all of that

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Posting random articles from journalists, especially ones with ulterior motives does not mandate something to be true or factual.

---

Quite so. Which facts do you dispute?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I'm a conservative liberal evironmentalist animal loving pacifist hawk.

Jesus Still loves me despite all of that

---

I must say, lazarus, you've won me over already. I can't help but love someone with that sense of humor.

[prophecies]

What about the conspiracy theorists? Do they get any love here?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

We all have preconceived perceptions on subjects, whether you be liberal, conservative, or independent, your beliefs and background will determine what you perceive to be the "truth".

---

Would one of those preconceptions be that discussion can be either "conservative" or "lofty?"

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

What about the conspiracy theorists? Do they get any love here?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Yes, to a certain extant.(the person gets the love but the theories.....?) You and Cleo would likely get along very well. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/mittelgr124.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

.I've been reading and hearing all this Liberal vs. Conservative talk, and I'm just tired of it,

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I am just the opposite. I want to read/hear/see what each side has to offer. Only after seeing the various opinions can I decide which one I want to support. It is very important to me to get my news from a variety of sources.

Now long posts are another issue. When someone just cuts and pastes some long article into a post I normally just skip over it. All I need is the link and maybe a few sentences quoted from the article.

[K]

The conservative vs liberal opinons on this site are some of the harshest stuff I've ever read. I choose to stay away or not make comments because the attacks become very vicious. It is amazing to me that we all worship the same God, and call ourselves Seventh Day Adventist Christians.

Beware that if you cross them "you'll know who by hanging around here" you'll feel the wrath.

K

[Dr. Shane]

Yes, if one has thin skin and gets offended easily, one may want to be careful about disagreeing with some because not everyone here has refined the art of gracefully disagreeing.

But if one has thick skin and can roll with the punches, they may be like me and learn a lot from others while having their own thoughts and beliefs challenged.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

The truth is in perception. We all have preconceived perceptions on subjects, whether you be liberal, conservative, or independent, your beliefs and background will determine what you perceive to be the "truth".

---

Cool. So...

"You shall perceive that you know the truth, but that perception determines what that truth is, and that perception of the truth shall set you free, depending upon what you perceive free to be."

Words to live by.

[lazarus]

Quote:

---

K said:

The conservative vs liberal opinons on this site are some of the harshest stuff I've ever read. I choose to stay away or not make comments because the attacks become very vicious. It is amazing to me that we all worship the same God, and call ourselves Seventh Day Adventist Christians.

---

K, I tend to believe this is the real world. People tend to post what they really think because the consequenes here are minimal. Folks can't be as prejudiced, narrow minded, funny, weird, creative, boring, nasty in their churches or communities because perhaps its not as readily accepted. So they let it all hang out here. DON"T LEAVE! treat em mean and keep em keen!

See yourself as a Luke Sky Walker battling the EVIL forces of Darth Vader (you all know who that is on this forum right!) Or you could be the Bionic woman, or Cat woman (can't remember whether she was good or bad). Ok thats a bit silly but you know what I mean.

[K]

Lazarus,

You friend, have the right idea. Watch the board. You email me when you see someone change their liberal or conservative minds about any topic you see here. It will never happen. I do enjoy the banter, but the attacking leaves me empty and cold.

Oh and Lazarus, I can keep up with the big boys here. I choose to use the energy I have in other ways.

God Bless Friend!

I'll be watching and cheering you on.

K

[Serenity]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Quote:

---

.I've been reading and hearing all this Liberal vs. Conservative talk, and I'm just tired of it,

---

I am just the opposite. I want to read/hear/see what each side has to offer. Only after seeing the various opinions can I decide which one I want to support. It is very important to me to get my news from a variety of sources.

Now long posts are another issue. When someone just cuts and pastes some long article into a post I normally just skip over it. All I need is the link and maybe a few sentences quoted from the article.

---

I too read a variety of sources to get my news. I listen both to Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken daily, and I even seek out unbiased commentary regularly. My point is that I just for some strange reason thought that I could come to a Christian site and be able to engage in much different conversation...

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

You email me when you see someone change their liberal or conservative minds about any topic you see here. It will never happen.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Since I have been here I have changed my mind about wearing jewelry, divorce and attending theaters.

[there buster]

Christian Science Monitor today says 579 is the current death toll in Louisiana from the hurricane and catastrophic flooding. Terrible for the victims, their family, their friends.

But also much less than the 10,000 widely predicted.

And, BTW, much less than the more than 35,000 killed by a heat wave in Europe two summers ago.

You recall the debate that set off about European heartlessness, racism and discrimination? No, neither do I.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

The truth is in perception. We all have preconceived perceptions on subjects, whether you be liberal, conservative, or independent, your beliefs and background will determine what you perceive to be the "truth". Posting random articles from journalists, especially ones with ulterior motives does not mandate something to be true or factual.

---

I found you a kindred spirit.

Quote:

---

Aline Kaplan of Sudbury, Mass.letter to the editor in the Boston Globe:

Conservative friends have been sending me long, detailed e-mails about the government's response to Hurricane Katrina. They are all designed to place the blame on New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, while exonerating President Bush. These electronic messages have certainly been impressive and revealed previously unknown facts. After reading them, I acknowledge the timelines of what happened, when and who knew what, and when and who signed what and when. My friends are right that state and local government were the first lines of defense--and they failed. This represents a systemic failure of government at all levels.

While their details are valid and their points well made, these are merely the facts.

---