The Dual Status Arrangement Of The National Guard

This case summarizes events preceding the Hurricane Katrina, which was one of the worst natural catastrophes in the modern history of the USA. It raises questions about the lack of reasonable prevention and preparation actions due to flimsy structure and management of the responsible organizations and persons, invalidity and inconsistence of their actions and incapability of making the decisions in a timely manner. As a result of the unstructured and incoherent activities, we could observe several ineffective and costly attempts to mitigate floods and hurricanes. In the beginning the local officials, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and “White Houses past and present always seem penny-wise and pound-foolish” because of the chain of the wrong

As Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma successively lashed the gulf coast starting in late August 2005, nature’s fury exposed serious weaknesses in the United States’ emergency response capabilities. Not all emergencies pose this magnitude of challenge. In the United States, the initial—and usually major—responsibility for disaster response rests with local authorities. This “bottom-up” system of emergency management has a long history and continues to make sense in most circumstances. Core Challenges for Large-Scale Disaster

By understanding the steps to prepare for countering and responding to a terrorist, the well-being of US national security interests can be promoted and the exposure to risk and susceptibility to experiencing harm can be efficiently managed for communities, families and individuals in the event of a terrorist incident. The welfare of US national security, citizens and property can be effectively safeguarded through the understanding of protection strategies administered collectively by local communities, families and individuals. Local emergency operations planning, family disaster planning, as well as self-protection planning each represent important protective measures, which serve to educate the nation and its citizens how to

Hurricane Katrina caused a great deal of destruction, death, and human suffering. Research from this event brings to light the limitations of both the National Guard and active-duty forces response capabilities, and whether changes in the roles and responsibilities of the National Guard and active-duty forces during emergencies would enable them to respond better. It is likely that the primary responsibility for national disasters will continue to be handled by local and state officials. They have the best understanding of situations, have the capability to handle the case, and can respond quickly. Hurricane Katrina generated the need to examine the federal response and to make any changes that are needed for the preparation of National Guard and active-duty Army during major domestic emergencies. Both the National Guard and active duty Army are changing to smaller modular and interoperable combat and support brigades that can provide the foundation for an expedited force that can deploy units to threats quickly. The Army

Many Americans watching the Government response to Hurricanes Rita and Katrina as it play out in the media could not believe the finger pointing that was going on between our elected leaders as many victims struggled to get their life in order. With the National Response Framework initial responsibility remains with the local elected officials and each level of the government above that will monitor and remain ready with assistance if requested. This will allow needed resources to get where they are needed without the internal bickering of the past. The Emergency Support Function Annexes within the National Response Framework ensures multi-agency interoperability and encompasses the other components of the NRF.

The response to Hurricane Matthew was the largest National Guard response to a hurricane since 2012, when Hurricane Sandy struck New York and New Jersey. Nevertheless they stood firm and ready to take on what Hurricane Matthew had in store. Standing true to their motto “Always Ready Always There”. The events following October 6, 2016 would put the National Guard to the test. The National Guard response consisted of three phases: training, preparation, and execution. The stage was set for the National Guard’s plan to go into action.

National Response Plan Howard L. Hayes Saint Leo University Abstract Why is it necessary for our country to have an effective emergency plan in place? Why does it matter how the country responds to emergencies when every part of our country, including cities and states, face emergency situations on a daily basis all over? Some are bad to worse, and some horrific to deadly. Well, this paper explains the importance of the National Response Plan and why it is necessary for our country to have it in place. It explores several articles that have been published to show the results on the effectiveness and response of the National Response Plan. The National Response Framework, previously called The National Response Plan, is a plan that the United States put in effect to organize the way the country and the community handles attacks, disasters, as well as all events looked at as an emergency. The Response Plan relays and describes all the information in order to avoid catastrophic damages and to protect and save lives. The plan focuses on how the country as a whole can work together to prepare for damaging events. Morover, the plan doesn 't always seem to be effective as it is expected to be. Issues arose at the time it is most needed, which causes necessary changes to take effect immediately. Sometimes the damage is already done and that could be due to economic collapse, being unprepared, and failure to respond appropriately. The National Response Framework replaced the National

Throughout the course of the United States, the Army National Guard (and to some extent, the United States Army Reserve) has been a bedrock of support to both the President, Congress, and the Governors of the fifty-four states and territories. During times of national emergency, civil upheaval, natural disasters, and most recently, during times of war, the National Guard has been counted on to fill capability gaps that exist in the Active Components ranks. In addition, the National Guard had the additional mission of being at the call of the Governors should they choose to utilize that resource, a claim the Active Component cannot make (strictly by law). As such, the National Guard should continue to be utilized as both a resource for governors to use during times of crisis and, perhaps more importantly, should continue to be used, funded, and trained as an operational reserve as well. During this

Along with deployments over seas the National Guard has state mission. These state missions comprise of multiple parts. Part one of the mission is to respond to the natural disasters of their state and country. Most everyone has heard of the National Guard going out and battling fires, helping general public deal with all aspects of the floods, tornadoes and civil unrest. In these situations the governor of the state, territories or district, places his province in a state of emergency. This allows him to control the National Guard until the crisis is exerted and in which case the National Guard is returned to its normal state as the protector of freedom and safety of their state and country. The second part of this mission is to

The Oregon National Guard in the last three years has gone through great changes that have challenged the senior leaders throughout the organization. These changes started with the retirement of The Adjutant General (TAG), Major General Raymond F. Rees, who has run our organization for four terms since 1987. MG Rees did not just command the Oregon National Guard for the past twenty-nine years; he created the culture of the organization and his vision carried the ORNG through numerous mobilizations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom. Famous for his pointy finger, no one ever wanted to be in the general direction of his pointy finger, and if you were, you knew he did not agree with your thinking, or your

As discussed in lesson 5, the concept of DSCA is a complex provision that authorizes DOD assistance based on DOD Directive 3025.18 in the event federal, state, and local resources are exhausted. In order to improve DSCA and the domestic relationships between federal, state, and local partnerships, the DOD introduced initiatives to clarify the framework for providing military support. This includes the creation of the Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer (EPLO) to facilitate the allocation of DOD resources in support of civil authorities upon a declared disaster/emergency. Moreover, ambiguity found within the IRA provision undermines the ability for commanders to provide assistance in lieu of DSCA approval methods. Thus, Hurricane Katrina sparked the DOD’s review of the IRA provision, in order to close the federal response gap for providing immediate disaster support by identifying current legislative barriers. For instance, military leadership did not fully comprehend the authority obtained under the IRA provision, which delayed military aid and assistance during Hurricane Katrina (Leshinsky, 2006). For example, the military responded under the provision of the National Response Plan (NRP), which required the formal DSCA requests from FEMA. This delayed the response of the surrounding military units and is one of the aforementioned barriers that spawned from the bureaucratic nature of requesting military

compared the ready availability of funds for disaster recovery to the paucity of funds for mitigating the effects of disasters before they strike (Roberts, p. 133). The review asserts, “mitigation has been called the most neglected aspects of emergency management” (Roberts, p. 133). The criticisms resulted in a professional consensus of reforming the emergency management goals—part of the consensus resulted in the creation of a mitigation directorate, and one year after the 1993 reorganization of FEMA caused by the ineffective response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992 (Roberts, p. 133). A directorate that defined mitigation as reducing the impact of natural hazards, is one of the key elements for FEMA’s reinvented organizational structure.

Therefore, COOP or BCM will play a significant role during the response and recovery efforts and it will also help maintain the NEFs during those difficult times. However, continuity planning is a coordinated effort that must be in sync with all levels of government, from the Federal Government to the Local Government, as well as with the private sector (Homeland Security Council, 2007). In those efforts, the Federal Government plays a key role in coordinating and executing COOPs within the different agencies and departments that exist within the Federal Government ((Homeland Security Council, 2007). Moreover, the Federal Government assist State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) Governments as well as private sector owner and operators of Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR). The Federal Government’s assistance could be financial help in the form of grants or helping them develop their own COOPs or BCMs ( (Homeland Security Council, 2007). SLTT Governments and the private sector share the responsibility of identifying the essential needs of their communities as well as identifying the vulnerabilities that could prevent them from maintaining their PMEFs (Homeland Security Council, 2007). Moreover, they are also responsible for creating strategies and effectively allocating resources to reduce those vulnerabilities (Homeland Security Council,

Preparedness may be described as a state of perpetual readiness. Just with any state training, equipment, resources and personnel must continuously be evaluated for serviceability, availability, and trained. In accordance with the national preparedness system flood risks and areas have been identified. Additionally, resources, assets and capabilities have been observed.

The lack of National guidance from Congress, the Bush Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Army Corps of Engineers greatly exacerbated Hurricane Katrina’s damage. National Guidance fundamentally remains a process of direction and influence; how and when National guidance is applied determines the safety and the stability of the United States. The National guidance responsible for national preparedness, integrated use of military capabilities, and communications failed during Hurricane Katrina.