Haiti and better solutions from military?

If this would have been treated like a military situation (ie send Combat Engineers, establish forward base, etc), it could have been under control a lot sooner.
 
Cdt Matteo said:
If this would have been treated like a military situation (ie send Combat Engineers, establish forward base, etc), it could have been under control a lot sooner.
Click to expand...

Since it was and is not a military situation that could not be accomplished.

I take it you mean combat engineers come in to clear a forward base area. Using massive air strikes and level the area they need to clear. Then use heavy airlifted equipment to clear rubble and bodies from for their base.

Very quick and effective, sounds like problem solved.:)
 
Well, if they think it's a conspiracy, they can always ask us to leave right now and we should then. Let them pick up what's left of their civilization by themselves.
 
I have no doubt that the Castro's and Chavez would happily step in to 'help' :wink: if the airport was cleared!

ROME -- Italy's top disaster official called the Haiti quake-relief effort a "pathetic" failure Sunday, criticizing the militarized approach of the U.S. as ineffective and out of touch for the emergency at hand.

Guido Bertolaso, Italy's well-respected civil protection chief, said what was needed was a single international civilian coordinator to take charge, and for individual countries and aid agencies to stop flying their flags and posing for TV cameras and get to work.

"Unfortunately there's this need to make a 'bella figura' before the TV cameras rather than focus on what's under the debris," said Bertolaso, who won praise for his handling of Italy's 2009 quake in Abruzzo.

In particular, he criticized what he called the well-meaning but ineffective U.S.-run military operation. The U.S. military has more than 2,000 troops on the ground, helping to deliver humanitarian aid.....

Citing the botched U.S. response to Hurricane Katrina, he said the Americans "tend to confuse military with what should be an emergency intervention that cannot be given over solely to the armed forces. We're missing a leader, a coordination capacity that goes beyond military discipline." "It's a truly powerful show of force, but it's completely out of touch with reality," Bertolaso said. "They don't have close rapport with the territory, they certainly don't have a rapport with the international organizations and aid groups," leading everyone do their own thing without any coordination.....

While many have lamented the slow pace of the relief effort, Bertolaso joined several allied leftist Latin American presidents — Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Bolivia's Evo Morales and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega — in voicing such criticism of the U.S. military effort

Former Cuban President Fidel Castro also wrote an op-ed piece saying the U.S. military presence was hindering international cooperation and accusing Washington of sending troops "to occupy Haitian territory."
Click to expand...

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/01/italian_official_calls_us_reli.html
 
Last edited:
How does Haiti differ from post-tsunami Aceh?

Some isolated scenes of looting and the sound of occasional gunfire reinforced the view of security advisers that the streets of Port-au-Prince were a war zone, and it found itself re-categorised into the same bracket of cities that included Baghdad and Kabul. That kept many aid workers firmly behind the safety fence at the UN compound.

Another problem came in the sheer scale of the US military deployment.
An aid official from a major and reputable international organisation told me last week that when he had tried to secure landing rights for a relief flight from Europe, he was told by the US authorities that the next available landing slot "was on 9 February". The airstrip is filled instead with US transport planes bringing in troops and military equipment. The problem is that this bottleneck means that the threat of worsening security could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they do not deliver the aid fast, they will need all those troops.But because of the enormous need and failures elsewhere in the system they need to spend far more time negotiating security issues than they otherwise might.




The third major issue in Haiti was in the lack of coordination of aid. One reason for this was the huge loss of life in the UN system - 200 dead, including the head of mission. But there was similar dislocation to the staff of aid agencies in Aceh, and there the system recovered far more quickly, so that a new co-ordination network could deliver aid across a far wider area than was affected in Haiti.

The biggest difference between the two countries was their starting point. Indonesia is a rapidly developing nation, while Haiti is the only country in the western hemisphere on that unenviable UN list of those defined as Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Corruption and the legacy of colonial interference have conspired against good governance. At the best of times, water and power are unreliable, and the streets are filled with rotting refuse.
Click to expand...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8479494.stm
 
Basically there is not enough infrastructure to have aid come in sufficiently.
There just isn't a whole lot you can do about that.

As for saying that military presence is not necessary, those guys are idiots. They don't realize that having the US military in country reduces the liklihood of attacks against foreign aid workers. I agree, it may not be a very military scenario right now but it can be a week from now when criminal elements in the country realize there's more food and medicine in the country than ever before and no force protecting it. Then it becomes a LOT harder to deploy troops and lives will be lost as a consequence.
 
Last edited:
the_13th_redneck said:
Basically there is not enough infrastructure to have aid come in sufficiently.
There just isn't a whole lot you can do about that.

As for saying that military presence is not necessary, those guys are idiots. They don't realize that having the US military in country reduces the liklihood of attacks against foreign aid workers. I agree, it may not be a very military scenario right now but it can be a week from now when criminal elements in the country realize there's more food and medicine in the country than ever before and no force protecting it. Then it becomes a LOT harder to deploy troops and lives will be lost as a consequence.
Click to expand...

I've read through a good portion of this thread and I am in total agreeing.

Aside from the fact that the 82nd and MEU are the only units capable of staging with 72 hours with the amount of equipment and amass multi-branch personnel, but for security alone, I've seen Katrina used as an example, well them it certainly should be an example of how animal like and gang mentality humans get, we know Haiti was a hot bed lacking any form of established government before hand, it's become down right feudal, and that in no way is an "exaggeration".

500 tons of UN for stores was seized within hours by the leftovers of the Tonton Macoutes. So it is safe to assume that an airdropped material would be intermediately seized and stored for militia use.

I've seen complaints on forums from not moving fast enough to moving too fast.

In addition to some members using Katrina as an example of poor response and management, may I also remind them certain laws and requirements must be met before the deployment of anything short of a Boy Scout troop on US soil.

Blanco hadn't even bothered to put the National Guard of alert, didn't give the "OK" for Federalized troops to enter Louisiana until after the fact, neighboring states waited for the "OK" to send in their National Guard units, FEMA had just finished adapting and shifting all it's doctrine and training to address largely terrorist threats so rather than having the facilitation to adapt to the situation most FEMA/EM personnel are sitting around with IC books and plan charts designed for a major terrorist threat, and there was no cooperation between FEMA, the State government or the states EMO. So I am lacking to see where Bush fits into any of this, and saying he does then begs the question is Clinton to blame for 9/11?


Besides who the hell builds a city inside a bowl? Your asking for trouble down the road.
 
Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. George W Bush was President since 2001.
There's no excuse.
If the toilets in a hospital are a mess, the President of the hospital is responsible. The fact that he doesn't go cleaning toilets himself is irrelevant.
The uncoordinated nature of all these different branches is ultimately the President's responsibility.
I'd say if all these agencies can't work together, I'd have them reorganized under one leadership and one agency.
 
FO Seaman said:
In addition to some members using Katrina as an example of poor response and management, may I also remind them certain laws and requirements must be met before the deployment of anything short of a Boy Scout troop on US soil.

Blanco hadn't even bothered to put the National Guard of alert, didn't give the "OK" for Federalized troops to enter Louisiana until after the fact, neighboring states waited for the "OK" to send in their National Guard units, FEMA had just finished adapting and shifting all it's doctrine and training to address largely terrorist threats so rather than having the facilitation to adapt to the situation most FEMA/EM personnel are sitting around with IC books and plan charts designed for a major terrorist threat, and there was no cooperation between FEMA, the State government or the states EMO. So I am lacking to see where Bush fits into any of this.
Click to expand...

the_13th_redneck said:
Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. George W Bush was President since 2001.
There's no excuse.
If the toilets in a hospital are a mess, the President of the hospital is responsible. The fact that he doesn't go cleaning toilets himself is irrelevant.
The uncoordinated nature of all these different branches is ultimately the President's responsibility.
I'd say if all these agencies can't work together, I'd have them reorganized under one leadership and one agency.
Click to expand...
Still have that little problem that the Law says the Feds have to be asked, yeah they could have/should have been ready to go when asked, but they still have to be asked.
 
You'd think that the Federal agencies could have been ready to mobilize when Katrina hit. If the state is late to call, I'd think that the President of the United States of all people could give the governer a phone call to remind him (read: tear the governer a new assh0le for not being prepared).

perseus said:
I missed that bit, where did they say that? they just don't don't think an 'invasion force', hogging the entire airport capacity is appropriate
Click to expand...

Explain the difference.
And what about a military deployment to maintain order and to provide security to aid material and personnel hogging the entire airport capacity because it's such a small POS?
 
the_13th_redneck said:
You'd think that the Federal agencies could have been ready to mobilize when Katrina hit. If the state is late to call, I'd think that the President of the United States of all people could give the governer a phone call to remind him (read: tear the governer a new assh0le for not being prepared).



Explain the difference.
And what about a military deployment to maintain order and to provide security to aid material and personnel hogging the entire airport capacity because it's such a small POS?
Click to expand...

You have to understand the way the EMS works.

State Emergency Management (SEMA) is operational controller. They are the ones that are supposed to have the playbook for their state. They tell FEMA what they need, where to divert the equipment supplies etc.

FEMA is a clearing house and an procuring agency that greases the ways and finds the resources and logostics for getting the "stuff" there. Based on SEMA requests, and SEMA plans.

The above did not happen in NOLA, mainly because SEMA was shot the **** out.
 
IIRC '03 isn't FEMA there to preserve the functional capability of government in such cases, not as much to provide aid to the people?
From my experience it's like this (maybe I was taught wrong, I dunno)-

1. FEMA- Federal remains functional/authority, provides assistance to SEMA.

1a. SEMA- State remains functional/authority, accepts aid from FEMA and commonplace milsurp reciept, provides assistance to county/city Emergency Management agencies.

1a1. County Emergency Management Services- retains county control over county entities and provides assistance to fire departments, public/quasi-public ambulance services, search and rescue, CERT, etc.

1a1a. Law enforcement- provides secuurity for the scene and community to preserve safety for the community and the accompaning rescue workers.

1a1b. Fire departments, volunteer fire departments, public/quasi-public ambulance services, search and rescue, CERT, etc. provide rescue services to the communities.

2a. American Red Cross- provides stabilization and logistical assistance to the community.

2b. Sister's of Charity- provides stabilization and logistical assistance to the community.

2c. Salvation Army- provides stabilization and logistical assistance to the community.


It's like a pyramid of authority for group 1. And group 2, while still separate from FEMA and SEMA and EMS, still cooperate with all three to protect their volunteers and paid staff.

Such as with NOLA or Haiti. If FEMA says it's bad, we suggest you pull out, they'll pull out. National guard and military typically fall under temporary authority of FEMA, IIRC, and sometimes even the police will. Except in Colorado that is unconstitutional, and FEMA respects that, as technically while they are civilian government, they are military oriented, thus per state constitution all military falls under civilian authority, which then places the liability for inappropriate conduct by such forces on the shoulders of the civilian leaders, who do not have absolute authority.

Which is one of the biggest reasons why you won't hear very much about FEMA being active in Colorado. No one wants to be held accountable for mistakes FEMA or SEMA (who is a civilian-oriented agency) makes.
 
Last edited:
Kinda sorta, but......In CONUS FEMA does this gig.

FEMA: Hey SEMA WHAT DO YOU NEED?

SEMA: CASEVAC, Med teams, food, clearing teams, food water and security , aircraft support, comm support and utility repair.

FEMA: Okay standby.

Then FEMA thru Federal and interstate compacts starts mobilizing and aquiring the needed assets and dispatching them.
 
Yep. Same gig, different view. You see it from the .mil side it seems. Ideally what should happen is what we were taught in our classes.
 
[QUOTE Perseus]Another problem came in the sheer scale of the US military deployment.
[/QUOTE]

the_13th_redneck said:
As for saying that military presence is not necessary, those guys are idiots.
Click to expand...

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]


Straw man arguments often arise in public debates.
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.

Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants".[1]
 
I don't know how I can make it any more clear.
More food and aid flowing in than ever before and inadequate security. If you were a gang faction would you not want to take advantage of this? Often people don't make the connection but the militias you see in Africa are in many ways just like these gangs. They can use the suffering and hunger of Haitians as bait for theft, extortion and funding for equipment, training and other things required to make their position stronger and the viscious cycle continues.
Posters and stickers of wide eyed, starving Haitian kids go up, people donate, aid continues to flow into the country and the only way to get that aid to the starving kid is to pay off and supply the militia that control the port, road, town, territory or what have you. I don't think anyone really wants another Somalia, especially one so close to the US mainland.
 
Not according to Perseus. He thinks the US is preventing democracy by sending a occupying force. The US is taking over Haiti for it's oil.:lol:
Click to expand...


Strange you should sat that!

There is evidence that the United States found oil in Haiti decades ago and due to the geopolitical circumstances and big business interests of that era made the decision to keep Haitian oil in reserve for when Middle Eastern oil had dried up. This is detailed by Dr. Georges Michel in an article dated March 27, 2004 outlining the history of oil explorations and oil reserves in Haiti and in the research of Dr. Ginette and Daniel Mathurin.

There is also good evidence that these very same big US oil companies and their inter-related monopolies of engineering and defense contractors made plans, decades ago, to use Haiti's deep water ports either for oil refineries or to develop oil tank farm sites or depots where crude oil could be stored and later transferred to small tankers to serve U.S. and Caribbean ports. This is detailed in a paperabout the Dunn Plantation at Fort Liberte in Haiti.
Click to expand...

http://www.margueritelaurent.com/pressclips/oil_sites.html#oil_GeorgesMichelEnglish
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top