Using the Military in Domestic Crises

While federal, state, and local authorities took turns blaming each other for flawed responses to Katrina, one federal department, the Department of Defense, was receiving praise from all quarters for its effective performance. So effective, in fact, that the president suggested that Congress look at the possible use of the military as a first responder, including, presumably, a role in maintaining law and order, always an urgent initial priority when catastrophic disasters overwhelm local law enforcement.

The news media and police departments across the land joined in a chorus of dissent, proclaiming that this was a terrible idea since the military is not trained in law enforcement. This argument is disingenuous. Military police are. And why is it that police departments increasing try to imitate the military from special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams to the ostentatious displays of military rank insignia that adorn the uniforms of even small town police forces, each one boasting its four-star chief? The police are largely interested in guarding their turf and maintaining their jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding the usual reflexive objections to using the military in a law enforcement role, the idea merits some objective discussion. By all accounts, the military performed superbly as soon as storm conditions and bureaucratic impediments permitted them to bring personnel and rescue vehicles into the area. Those who complained about the perceived slowness of the initial response need to understand that aircraft have to first be gotten out of the way of severe weather before they can begin rescue operations. It is senseless to risk losing the rescue forces before they can be effective.

Several military police battalions, the 82nd Airborne, and other regular, reserve, and National Guard units started arriving in the area the day after the hurricane passed through. The amphibious ships Iwo Jima (LHD-7), Bataan (LHD-5), Tortuga (LSD-46), and Shreveport (LPD-12), plus the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), with their fixed and rotary wing aircraft, were sent to the area. The USS Iwo Jima was berthed pierside in New Orleans where she provided invaluable command and control facilities for military and civilian officials and hotel and medical services for rescue workers. Those helicopters, which seemed to fill the skies over southern Louisiana and coastal Mississippi, were mostly military helicopters. Navy amphibious boats played a huge part in rescue operations as well.

It is not unfair to say that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state, and local authorities were foundering until the military arrived. Four-star police chiefs posing before TV cameras appeared clueless. In contrast, Coast Guard Vice Admiral Thad Allen was a model of competence and composure. Civilian authorities could neither communicate nor coordinate with each other. The military services, trained in joint operations and employing reliable satellite communications systems, functioned smoothly. Military police units and other troops, in addition to National Guard forces, restored law and order while the New Orleans Police Department went into meltdown.

So tell me again, what are the arguments against use of the military in a law enforcement role in catastrophic emergencies when, and only when, the president authorizes such use? Notice I didn't say when requested by state authorities; Louisiana Governor Blanco didn't seem to think she needed them even as her state authorities appeared to be in a trance. Oh, yes, there is the Posse Comitatus Act, that Civil War-era relic that prohibits use of federal troops in law enforcement, designed to keep Union soldiers from enforcing laws in the South (some say to prevent them from acting to enforce the rights of recently freed slaves).

The law can be overridden by the president by declaring that an insurrection exits, but it shouldn't have to be that difficult. It should just be scrapped. Does anyone really believe that this would be a step toward establishment of a police state, as critics warn? For one thing, it's a role that the military doesn't even want. They will insist that they already have a full plate and that they aren't funded for it. The president would have little incentive to authorize it anyway except in dire emergencies. But arguments that they are not trained to do this are bogus. What do you think they are doing in their peace-keeping roles overseas?

With respect to suggestions that the military act as first responders, the armed forces certainly cannot be everywhere and, again, they aren't currently funded for this role. Local police and fire departments must of necessity be first responders, because they are already close to the scene. But the military has the equipment, the transportation, the command and control, the discipline, and the structure to take charge in catastrophic emergencies that overwhelm local authorities.