Send in the Marines

Oliver North wrote in Townhall "Send in the Marines." For more than two centuries, those words -- or something similar -- have been uttered hundreds of times by our nation's leaders when it became necessary to protect American lives, property, interests and security. But in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, "Send in the Marines," may take on a whole new meaning.

This week, while hundreds of square miles of storm-devastated Louisiana and Mississippi are still inhabitable, the House Government Reform Committee began hearings into what went wrong in responding to Katrina. Unfortunately, before we have even determined what went wrong, "official Washington" -- meaning the Bush Administration and Congress -- seems to have already come up with the answer. For future disasters, send in the Marines -- and the Army, Navy and Air Force.

Actually I dont think he expects to be given that authority, nor do I think he wants it, or that it is a good idea to give the President that authority, regardless of who is in the White House.

But he was being blamed for the poor response in New Orleans, when as the former head of FEMA testified, the local and state officials were the problem. The governor would not authorize the President to send in aid, but he was being blamed for not sending in the aid, so he raised the question about whether he should have the power to send in forces to get everyone to pause and think about that that would entail.

What should happen, and what did happen in Mississippi with Katrina, and in Texas and even in Louisiana with Rita, is that the governor should request the feds to send in forces and aid immediately.

In response to reporters' questions, President Bush said, "I want there to be a robust discussion about the best way for the federal government, in certain extreme circumstances, to be able to rally assets for the good of the people." He went on to ask, "Is there a natural disaster of a certain size that would then enable the Defense Department to become the lead agency in coordinating and leading the response effort?" The Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Virginia's "Senior Senator" -- who ought to know better -- has said, "I believe the time has come that we reflect on the Posse Comitatus Act," in urging that the president and secretary of defense be given "correct standby authorities" to manage natural and perhaps man-made disasters.

Actually I believe Posse Comitatus only prevents him from sending in the Army and the Air Force. The Navy, the Marines, and the Coast Guard is legal now.

These are the reactions of national leaders -- and many in the public -- who were misled by the hyperventilated claims of local politicians and authorities that "more than 10,000 are probably dead," that "rapes and murders" were occurring in the Superdome and that "all law and order have broken down" in New Orleans. We now know that the death toll is a fraction of that forecasted by state and local officials. And while there were well-documented cases of looting, the homicides and rampant sexual assaults that were reported -- but never verified -- by the mainstream media were, for the most part, untrue.

The men and women of our Armed Forces were efficient and effective. They did a great job in New Orleans -- as they have done on every operation in which I've been a participant or observer for the last forty years. They did what they were ordered to do and did it well. As one young soldier told me, quoting one of our FOX News slogans -- "This is what we do." But is this what we want our military to be doing? Before we decide to rescind the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, put the Secretary of Defense in charge of disaster relief and give this -- or any other president -- more federal power over our state and local governments, serious questions need to be answered and the facts should be known.

First, neither this president nor any other needs more "legal" or legislated authority to send U.S. troops into the teeth of a disaster. Every president's aide carry PEADs -- Presidential Emergency Action Documents -- which draft Executive Orders giving the Chief Executive broad authorities in the midst of a declared national emergency. In May of 1992, President George H. W. Bush issued such an order at the request of the California governor during the "Rodney King riots" in Los Angeles. His Executive Order 12804 suspended the proscriptions of Posse Comitatus to allow Army and Marine units to "restore law and order."

The operational term there was "at the request of the ... governor". In the case of Louisiana and Katrina, Governor Blanco refused to sign the request.

Second, the military is already tasked to provide -- under the provisions of the "Stafford Act" -- significant material support to governors and other jurisdictions which make such requests of the president in the midst of a declared emergency. Understandably, the Commander-in-Chief does not relinquish control over the federal troops being used in such circumstances.

Again, the operational phrase is "at the request of the governor". Do we want the President to have the power to send in troops and aid without the request of the Governor. I say NO, but if he does not have that power, you should not blame him for not sending in troops and aid.