What we could do

Mike Davis and Anthony Fontenat, writing for The Nation, offer a provocative list of "25 Questions About the Murder of New Orleans."

The title of this list might seem, to some, uncharitable and a violation of Hanlon's/Heinlein's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." But the cumulative effect of these 25 questions reinforces the conclusion that any disinterested observer reached while witnessing the weeks of government bungling in response to Hurricane Katrina: A nonresponse this consistently and lethally inept cannot be adequately explained by stupidity.

Chaotic bungling and ineptitude would have been forgivable had it occurred with a sense of urgency, but the utter lack of such urgency defies any charitable interpretation.

In terms of effect, of course, it doesn't really matter whether this bungling was the result of a colossal cockup or of a conspiracy. Many have already noted this, citing this variation on one of Arthur C. Clarke's laws: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

Whatever the cause, the "Can't anybody here play this game?" clown show of a response to Katrina forces me to revisit one of my favorite Big Ideas. I wrote about this initially in two posts: "We Can Help. We Should Help" and "The Path Not Taken: How to make allies and influence international opinion." Both of those follow the "waking dream" outlined by Jack Hitt in a Mother Jones article, "A Bully's Pulpit."

Here, in Hitt's words, is the basic idea:

A few months back, a terrible earthquake rattled a portion of Iran. Entire villages were erased. The immediate death toll was 500. Thousands were injured. A radio account of people trapped and dying beneath a collapsed mosque had me riveted. ...

When the news moved on to something else, I fell into a waking dream. ... It begins with some other president, or at least another version of George Bush. This president reacted differently to 9/11. ... This president realized right away that al-Qaida's attacks were conducted on two fronts. One was old-style terrorism, which kills civilians in unexpected ways. The other front is new -- the medium formed by the global reach and speed of television and computer screens that now bind the world into a tight infosphere. On this second front, the actions of the first are amplified in such a way that every violent act by al-Qaida provokes global terror and every military maneuver by the United States is seen as imperialism. ...

And so this doppelgänger Bush would have seen the advantage -- oh, about a year ago, when half the world seemed to be wearing NYFD caps -- in stationing a fleet of C-5 cargo planes at Kennedy Airport. When an Iranian earthquake or a Bali bomb blast occurred, 200 of New York's bravest and all that rescue paraphernalia for which we are famous -- Jaws of Life cutters, search dogs, remote cameras -- would immediately be dispatched. In my dream, I see NYFD pulling trapped Persian grandmothers out of that collapsed mosque. And the fantasy plays on out, with the president -- Bush would be especially great at this part -- taking to a podium and saying, "Al-Qaida blows up buildings and kills people. We dig through rubble and save human lives. This is what America does."

As Katrina struck and the levees broke, "all that rescue paraphernalia for which we are famous" sat idle. We can "dig through rubble and save human lives," but as we saw, this is not always what America does.

I still very much like the idea Hitt proposes. America can and should have a mechanism for sending rapid-response teams to assist in the event of disasters like the earthquake in Bam, Iran, or the Boxing Day Tsunami. This happens now, sometimes, in an ad hoc manner, but it could be more effectively coordinated and, to be blunt, more effectively publicized. These rescue teams should wear the American flag, but not the uniforms of the American military. They should be dispatched not only to aid our friends and allies, but also our enemies -- especially our enemies.

The calamitous incompetence of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security in response to Hurricane Katrina raises some doubts about the feasibility of such a scheme. But this was not a failure of capability, it was a failure of intent -- a failure of leadership and political will. With capable leadership, "all that rescue paraphernalia for which we are famous" could still be deployed effectively and efficiently both at home and abroad.

Comments

[eriol]

I tried to send a letter to the editors of the Nation, but it didn't work (whatever "it" was). The final question from the writers, "whatever happened to democracy?" is why I liked it. Anybody can ask a question like that, but how many have asked such a question and assembled pithily (is "pithily" legal?) damning body of evidence? Seems democracy has disappeared into Bush's bureaucracy. Anytime something happens a new department is formed; not because of any need of specialization but because Congress can't keep on blaming the same people. Bureaucracy is a perversion of democracy. Instead of faceless, regular citizens changing government for the better, we have faceless, regular citizens protecting the power of Bush, et. al while things are getting worse. I can't tell if elections would change anything as America seems to be petrified.

The idea fear can be used to "win hearts and minds" (which is brainwashing) did not start with Bush. After all when the Civil War was finished the US used the navy to open up Japan, and the CIA's presence was so pervasive in Eastern Europe that when the Berlin Wall fell it was difficult for many Eastern Europeans to trust Americans. The only things the Americans did during the Cold War to win people over was to play rock music on stations that spilled over the wall, and the Berlin Airlift.

[Steve]

Seems someone already saw the political opportunities of this approach...when Chavez of Venezuela offered to sent troops and assistance in the wake of Katrina, shortly after Pat Robertson's famous remarks that Chavez should be assassinated. Crafty political move by Chavez, huh? Of course, the US refused.

[JRoth]

Actually, Fred, one of my first thoughts in the wake of Katrina was of this idea - which I attributed to you, not to Hitt, since this is where I read it. Ay any rate, it's hard to believe that this - or something quite like it - hasn't been a. proposed by someone high profile and/or b. implemented.

OK, we know why b. hasn't happened - good policy is anathema to this admin, and policy that would show the American gov't in good light (especially to foreigners) is grounds for spending more time with family.

[Philosopher Poet aka Flying Squirrel]

Quote: "They should be dispatched not only to aid our friends and allies, but also our enemies -- especially our enemies."

I like this idea, but I think you may be overlooking an obvious problem. What happens with a country like North Korea, if there is a massive disaster, they won't greet your rescue team with open arms. They will think it some sort of spy squad, or the beginnings of an invasion: DESPITE what good intentions may be vocalized.

[Ray]

If the North Koreans turn you back at the border, you turn around and come home. They're not worse off than if Team America didn't exist in the first place. But if International Rescue (perhaps a more palatable name) has a good record of going in to other disasters, and leaving when the job is done, countries like North Korea, Iran, and Japan would have a hard time refusing them entry.

[Isaac Freeman]

New Zealand has always had a friendly relationship with the USA, but as a New Zealander, I doubt this plan would inspire much confidence in me. Just as the USA didn't take Chavez or Putin seriously when they offered useful aid to New Orleans, I would have a hard time seeing a unilateral offer of aid from the USA as anything but a cheap publicity stunt. Likewise, the aid given to by the US after the Boxing Day Tsunami was generous, but the manner in which it was delivered, denigrating the coordination efforts of the United Nations to coordinate effectively and often belittling the equally generous contributions of other nations, left a bitter aftertaste.

People are good at distinguishing between sincerity and marketing, and the USA has a severe sincerity gap.

[Scorpio]

Yah, well first we need an administration whose minions aren't jerks who think their authority is more important than rescuing people and getting them food and water.

[Ken]

"Yah, well first we need an administration whose minions aren't jerks who think their authority is more important than rescuing people and getting them food and water. "

Oh, so you're joining the Blanco recall movement?

It was the state Department of Homeland Security that turned the Red Cross away and kept the people from getting food and water. It was the local authorities that told people to go to the convention center and forgot to mention it to the Feds.

There was failure, all right, disastrous failure by two incompetent administrations. One headquarted in New Orleans and the other in Baton Rouge.

[Sigivald]

Ray: North Korea would "have a hard time refusing them entry"?

You live in a world where North Korea is rational and cares about its people, then?

Isaac: The UN is lousy at "coordinating", and very slow about it. I certainly am aware of no evidence that Indonesians are mad that the US didn't throw its money through (into) the UN sinkhole for slothful distribution.

Though the UN and EU chattering-classes were doubtless incensed, I'm sure.