It's 9/11... again...

[Judy G. Russell]

Every year my website (http://www.jgrussell.com/) changes on 9/11. Here's the four-year essay (http://jgrussell.com/wtc/fouryears.htm)...

[Mike Landi]

Every year my website (http://www.jgrussell.com/) changes on 9/11. Here's the four-year essay (http://jgrussell.com/wtc/fouryears.htm)...

I can't believe it was four years ago. Seems like yesterday, and yet it seems like it is already 'history'.

I keep thinking that some day, 9/11 will be one of those 'big events' in history that high school kids study, but they have no memory of. I picture that day when some kid asks me if I 'was around for 9/11', the way my kids ask their grandfather if he was around for WWII.

[Judy G. Russell]

I picture that day when some kid asks me if I 'was around for 9/11', the way my kids ask their grandfather if he was around for WWII.That won't be too far in the future, either. Think about it: kids born after that attack will be entering college by 2019.

[Lindsey]

Every year my website (http://www.jgrussell.com/) changes on 9/11. Here's the four-year essay (http://jgrussell.com/wtc/fouryears.htm)...
You know, I hate to say this, but I have found it very hard to think more than marginally about 9/11 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I didn't think anything would soon eclipse 9/11 in the national consciousness, but for sure Katrina has, at least for the moment, eclipsed 9/11 for me.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

Thanks, Judy. There are a lot of people who need to read your words.

[Judy G. Russell]

My position is that the way we have wasted the four years since 9/11 -- as demonstrated by our utter inability to respond to the kind of catastrophe we fear and have feared as the result of 9/11 -- is yet another slap in the face to the 9/11 victims. (Along with, and more particularly, our absolute failure to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice.) So I see the two as linked in the worst and saddest kind of way.

[Judy G. Russell]

I wish I thought anything was going to make any difference. Those responsible for this mess won't be held accountable (brought to justice) either.

[Mike Landi]

That won't be too far in the future, either. Think about it: kids born after that attack will be entering college by 2019.

That will be hard to get used to. I can remember everyy moment of that morning. I hope those "kids" will listen. History says they won't.

[Mike]

Indeed. Those who supported the people responsible for this mess will still support them. After all, the people affected deserved it.

[Lindsey]

My position is that the way we have wasted the four years since 9/11 -- as demonstrated by our utter inability to respond to the kind of catastrophe we fear and have feared as the result of 9/11 -- is yet another slap in the face to the 9/11 victims.
That's a good point.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

That will be hard to get used to. I can remember everyy moment of that morning. I hope those "kids" will listen. History says they won't.It seems like every generation has to go ahead and repeat some mistakes of prior generations just so it won't have to (gasp) listen and learn...

[Judy G. Russell]

After all, the people affected deserved it.I'm starting to hear that more and more often. And it's infuriating. Nobody, but nobody, deserves this. Nobody.

[Mike]

You and I and most others here know that. Unfortuantely, there are too many small minds that are allowed near voting apparatus. :-(

[Judy G. Russell]

You and I and most others here know that. Unfortuantely, there are too many small minds that are allowed near voting apparatus. :-(In a country built by grand dreams and grander efforts, it's a crying shame that what we see so often is closed minds.

[Mike Landi]

It seems like every generation has to go ahead and repeat some mistakes of prior generations just so it won't have to (gasp) listen and learn...

Tragic, and sad.

[Mike Landi]

In a country built by grand dreams and grander efforts, it's a crying shame that what we see so often is closed minds.

That may be the epitath of his generation.

[ndebord]

You know, I hate to say this, but I have found it very hard to think more than marginally about 9/11 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I didn't think anything would soon eclipse 9/11 in the national consciousness, but for sure Katrina has, at least for the moment, eclipsed 9/11 for me.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,


Can't agree with you there. 9/11 is a defining moment, just like Pearl Harbor. And it has shaped the national consciousness and the political landscape to help return a weird combination of Republicans masquerading as Wilsonians to absolute power and the limits of their competence. New Orleans was handled as badly as it could have been and the scary thing is that in the great flood of 1927, the American consensus was that government had no role to play. An atitude changed by the sheer magnitude of that disaster and by the ruthless and effective leadership of Herbert Hoover who managed to marshall supplies and relief quickly for a large geographic area underwater. Far larger than NO under Katrina. And he did it with flooded roads and railroads and without planes. The response time then was far faster than the response time now. A sad commentary on the swing in Washington by the ruling party against the concept of using government to do anything outside of national defense and homeland security.

[Lindsey]

Can't agree with you there.
What's to agree or disagree with? I was describing how I felt. But I don't think I'm alone; the government didn't release any official figures about how many people showed up for the "Freedom Walk" that Cheney was organizing, but it would appear to have been rather lightly attended as those things go.

As for the rest, I would agree that Hoover, for the most part*, did a better job of handling the Mississippi flood of 1927 than any of the parties in charge seemed to do with Katrina, but I'm not sure how that ties in with the rest of your message.

--Lindsey


* I say "for the most part," because in 1927, too, the bulk of the suffering fell on the African-American community, though with more deliberate intent. As David Brooks wrote in a recent column:


Then in 1927, the great Mississippi flood rumbled down upon New Orleans. As Barry writes in his account, "Rising Tide," the disaster ripped the veil off the genteel, feudal relations between whites and blacks, and revealed the festering iniquities. Blacks were rounded up into work camps and held by armed guards. They were prevented from leaving as the waters rose. A steamer, the Capitol, played "Bye Bye Blackbird" as it sailed away. The racist violence that followed the floods helped persuade many blacks to move north.

Civic leaders intentionally flooded poor and middle-class areas to ease the water's pressure on the city, and then reneged on promises to compensate those whose homes were destroyed. That helped fuel the populist anger that led to Huey Long's success. Across the country people demanded that the federal government get involved in disaster relief, helping to set the stage for the New Deal. The local civic elite turned insular and reactionary, and New Orleans never really recovered its preflood vibrancy.
Now, a good bit of the mistreatment of the black sharecroppers happened before Hoover was put in charge of the recovery, but once he was in charge, he didn't seem to do an awful lot to change the situation. See the timeline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flood/timeline/timeline2.html) posted on the pbs.org "American Experience" website.

[rlohmann]

It's trite learning to cite Sir Winston's reference to democracy as the worst form of government imaginable, except for the alternatives. I do so only because your thoughtful essay compels a discussion of the bad parts.

We're where we are because we no longer hold anyone accountable.

Slightly more than half of the eligible American voters cast their votes in the 2004 election. While many criticized Mr. Bush in letters to the editor or internet rants, they did not carry that resentment to the voting booth. They were annoyed enough to rant, but not sufficiently annoyed to mark a ballot.

Nobody holds the Congress accountable, either. Legislators channel tax revenues to pork-barrel expenditures that yield reelection; not condemnation. The tax revenues that fund the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska are not available for the costs of national security. Legislators who vote for pork, regardless of the downsides of those votes, are not booted out.

Elected officials establish the priorities for the appointed. A supervisor in the career civil service does not fire a "minority or person of color" (this is a mantra, articulated as a single word without a thought for its meaning) lest he hazard his own career. To insist that such an individual might be corrupt, stupid, incompetent, or all three is politically incorrect and thus in a very real sense not career-enhancing. Consequently, disciplinary actions in the career civil service are approached with due regard for "racism," "sexism," and even "ageism." "Due regard" means that disciplinary actions for such individuals don't happen. (And of course, the supervisors that protect such incompetents aren't nailed to the wall themselves.)

The corrupt, stupid, and incompetent are, consequently, drawing civil-service salaries in the quadrillions. It costs much less time and aggravation--forget expense; that's a taxpayer problem--to keep those people on the payroll than to fire them.

(For what it's worth, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was considered within the career civil service to be a zoo--the difference between a circus and a zoo is that in a zoo, the animals are trained--long before anybody ever heard of George W. Bush. I wasn't paying attention when the horse-show-arranger-somebody's-college-roommate was appointed as FEMA Chief, but I wouldn't have been surprised. Certainly nobody protested)

Bush fired the FEMA horse-show guy, but he did nothing about the peculiar governmental construct that let an appointment like that slide by.

The Democrats didn't, either.

The solution to the situation you described is that we Americans get off our recliners, decide what our elected and appointed government officials are supposed to do, assess the extent to which they do it, and get rid of those who don't.

Until we do, you're going to write essays like that every September.

[Judy G. Russell]

Bush fired the FEMA horse-show guy, but he did nothing about the peculiar governmental construct that let an appointment like that slide by.No, he didn't even fire the horse-show guy. He let Chertoff "recall" him to Washington where he was allowed to resign.

The solution to the situation you described is that we Americans get off our recliners, decide what our elected and appointed government officials are supposed to do, assess the extent to which they do it, and get rid of those who don't. There we are in complete agreement.

Until we do, you're going to write essays like that every September.And #$%@# it, we are in complete agreement about that too.

[Lindsey]

No, he didn't even fire the horse-show guy. He let Chertoff "recall" him to Washington where he was allowed to resign.
And even that appeared to take him by surprise. When a reporter asked him about it shortly after Brown's resignation was announced, Bush's response was, "Maybe you know something I don't know."

On the subject of Chertoff, check out this Knight-Ridder piece (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12637172.htm). And then check out this follow-up post (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_09_11.php#006536) on talkingpointsmemo.com. Though I've seen an awful lot written about how wonderfully competent Chertoff is, and how it's been his mission to improve disaster response since 9/11, it appears from the K-R piece that he may be as deserving of firing as Brownie. (How long, I wonder, before we hear Bush call him by a patronizing nickname and tell him he's doing a heck of a job? Nah--I guess we've had our "accountability moment.")

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

The solution to the situation you described is that we Americans get off our recliners, decide what our elected and appointed government officials are supposed to do, assess the extent to which they do it, and get rid of those who don't.
In principle, I agree with you. Unfortunately, it's not so easy to get rid of elected officials who aren't doing what they were sent to Washington to do. The overwhelming majority of Congressional races are uncontested. Which means something more fundamental than going to the polls in November is called for.

I was pondering your message earlier, and some words of Abraham Lincoln came to mind: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

In principle, I agree with you. Unfortunately, it's not so easy to get rid of elected officials who aren't doing what they were sent to Washington to do. The overwhelming majority of Congressional races are uncontested. Which means something more fundamental than going to the polls in November is called for.

I was pondering your message earlier, and some words of Abraham Lincoln came to mind: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

I can just see Bush trying to wrap his brain around the word "disenthrall."

<sigh>

[Judy G. Russell]

As I've said in other threads, Chertoff's entire career has been spent as a prosecutor and a judge. He doesn't know emergency management from ... from ... from running a horse show. While I understand the theory of bringing all of the "homeland security" matters under one roof, it has created a bureaucratic nightmare where nobody is capable of accomplishing anything, except maybe the investigative and prosecutive arms (since those, at least, Chertoff basically understands).

[Lindsey]

I can just see Bush trying to wrap his brain around the word "disenthrall."

<sigh>
LOL!! Yes; it would result in something like "misunderestimate".

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

While I understand the theory of bringing all of the "homeland security" matters under one roof, it has created a bureaucratic nightmare where nobody is capable of accomplishing anything, except maybe the investigative and prosecutive arms (since those, at least, Chertoff basically understands).
Those Robert Reich calls "the Radcons" -- radical conservatives -- are comfortable with investigation and prosecution. It fits their world view of a sharp dichotomy between the evil "THEM" and the virtuous "US", and their conviction that to make the world safe for the good US, you need to root out and destroy the evil THEM, whether foreign or domestic.

FEMA's mission, on the other hand, is to bring government resources to bear to help people, and that's something the Radcons are not at all comfortable with. As they see it, help should be provided by private charity and not by government. (At least, that's the way they think it's supposed to work for ordinary private individuals. If you're a big business, like an airline, or a defense contractor, or an oil producer, then of course you should get federal subsidies.) As Joe Allbaugh himself expressed it in the spring of 2001, "Many are concerned that federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an oversized entitlement program and a disincentive to effective state and local risk management. Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level." And so he set out to strip the agency down. The result is the post-disaster disaster we saw two weeks ago.

--Lindsey

[rlohmann]

On the subject of Chertoff, check out this Knight-Ridder piece (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12637172.htm).That piece lends support to one of my other major rants, to the effect that lawyers, by virtue of their training, make lousy managers. The primary focus of four years of law school, attention to detail, is a recipe for sheer disaster in the context of organizational management.

This is particularly disastrous--Judy and I are in rare agreement on this--in the case of "day-school lawyers," who went from undergraduate school to law school and never spent a day in the adult world as anything other than lawyers.

[ndebord]

LOL!! Yes; it would result in something like "misunderestimate".

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

I'm seriously impressed. Three syllables. I was under the impression that two syllables was the absolute max you could expect from this week reed.

<sigh>

[ndebord]

That piece lends support to one of my other major rants, to the effect that lawyers, by virtue of their training, make lousy managers. The primary focus of four years of law school, attention to detail, is a recipe for sheer disaster in the context of organizational management.

This is particularly disastrous--Judy and I are in rare agreement on this--in the case of "day-school lawyers," who went from undergraduate school to law school and never spent a day in the adult world as anything other than lawyers.

R,

Just like generals who didn't mustang their way up to the top. Same principle. Case in point, Tommy Franks...the hero of Tora Bora.

[ndebord]

That piece lends support to one of my other major rants, to the effect that lawyers, by virtue of their training, make lousy managers. The primary focus of four years of law school, attention to detail, is a recipe for sheer disaster in the context of organizational management.

This is particularly disastrous--Judy and I are in rare agreement on this--in the case of "day-school lawyers," who went from undergraduate school to law school and never spent a day in the adult world as anything other than lawyers.

R,

Just like generals who don't mustang their way up to the top. Case in point, Tommy Franks...the hero of Tora Bora from his CENTCOM hdqtrs in FL.

[Lindsey]

That piece lends support to one of my other major rants, to the effect that lawyers, by virtue of their training, make lousy managers. The primary focus of four years of law school, attention to detail, is a recipe for sheer disaster in the context of organizational management.
Attention to detail, and cautious avoidance of missteps. Now that you mention it, it's exactly the wrong kind of training for dealing with a catastrophe, when there is no time for dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s. The emergency medical team at the Louis Armstrong Airport had difficulty getting in restocks of medical supplies because FEMA insisted they fax in requests on the the proper forms, and there were no FAX machines available at the airport to enable them to do that.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I'm seriously impressed. Three syllables. I was under the impression that two syllables was the absolute max you could expect from this week reed.
Ummm--"misunderestimate" is six syllables. And I think you meant "weak reed" rather than "week reed" ;)

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Just like generals who don't mustang their way up to the top. Case in point, Tommy Franks...the hero of Tora Bora from his CENTCOM hdqtrs in FL.
I can't quite decide from that just what you're saying about Tommy Franks, but I heard him speak several months ago, and to be quite honest, I was not terribly impressed. He's no Norman Schwarzkopf, that's for sure.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Ummm--"misunderestimate" is six syllables. And I think you meant "weak reed" rather than "week reed" ;)

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Hmmm, looks like my Bush genes are making a comeback!

(Or my fingers are typing ahead of my brain again.)

<g>

[ndebord]

I can't quite decide from that just what you're saying about Tommy Franks, but I heard him speak several months ago, and to be quite honest, I was not terribly impressed. He's no Norman Schwarzkopf, that's for sure.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Tommy Franks at Tora Bora decided to go with two special forces teams and a ragtag army of Pushtans, who were more than willing to take cash from Bin Laden when he decided to bail. Other lower-ranked generals were of the opinion that with a decent American troop strength we could have trapped him there instead of letting him get into Pakistan. I mean when he did decide to leave Tora Bora, the locals lit campfires all along his mountain smuggler path to help ease his journey.

Franks was also the architect of our feckless leader's grand plan (or should I say Rummy's plan?) in Iraq. I short: "we don't need no more stinkin' troops."

To give the General some credit. His invasion plan for Iraq was brilliant, his occupation plan dismal or perhaps I should credit Rummy for parts of the former and for most of the later.

[Judy G. Russell]

Joe Allbaugh himself expressed it in the spring of 2001, "Many are concerned that federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an oversized entitlement program and a disincentive to effective state and local risk management. Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level." And so he set out to strip the agency down. The result is the post-disaster disaster we saw two weeks ago.If I had presided over the disintegration of FEMA the way Brown and Allbaugh (and Chertoff) have, I wouldn't be able to sleep nights.

[Judy G. Russell]

That piece lends support to one of my other major rants, to the effect that lawyers, by virtue of their training, make lousy managers. The primary focus of four years of law school, attention to detail, is a recipe for sheer disaster in the context of organizational management.

This is particularly disastrous--Judy and I are in rare agreement on this--in the case of "day-school lawyers," who went from undergraduate school to law school and never spent a day in the adult world as anything other than lawyers.Yep... bad manager generally and horrible managers when they've never done anything in their lives except lawyering.

[Judy G. Russell]

Attention to detail, and cautious avoidance of missteps. Now that you mention it, it's exactly the wrong kind of training for dealing with a catastrophe, when there is no time for dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s. The dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s is more the bailiwick of the bureaucrat. Understand that no-one, no-one, in the civil service at any level ever lost his or her job because of adherence to the rules. The fact that the rules were stupid, inappropriate and/or downright catastrophic in a particular situation makes no difference. The only time a civil servant -- an in-the-trenches bureaucrat -- ever gets in trouble is by bending or (gasp) breaking the rules.

[Lindsey]

Tommy Franks at Tora Bora
Ah, OK. I thought that might be what you meant, but I wasn't entirely sure whether you were using Tommy Franks as a positive example of someone who rose up from the ranks, or a negative one.

I've been readling Michael Scheuer's Imperial Hubris and he, too, is quite critical of the approach that was taken in Afghanistan in general, and at Tora Bora in particular.

Franks was also the architect of our feckless leader's grand plan (or should I say Rummy's plan?) in Iraq. I short: "we don't need no more stinkin' troops."
In all fairness to Franks, I think the "small footprint" approach should be laid at Rumsfeld's feet. My understanding (I think from reading Seymour Hersch's Chain of Command) is that Franks's original plan had called for far more troops, but Rumsfeld sent him back to the drawing board several times, each time demanding that the troop levels be cut further still. Franks played the good soldier and gave the Secretary of Defense what he wanted. But he probably should have resigned.

Hersch says (I think it was Hersch) that there is a general blueprint for troop deployments that has been developed over the years by the US armed forces. That's what Franks was following in the beginning, and the blueprint called for more troops. Rumsfeld thought he knew better than the collective experience of a couple of centuries worth of trained military professionals. Hubris indeed.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

If I had presided over the disintegration of FEMA the way Brown and Allbaugh (and Chertoff) have, I wouldn't be able to sleep nights.
I suspect that Allbaugh puts himself to sleep at night counting all the dough that is rolling in from reconstruction contracts for his clients...

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

The only time a civil servant -- an in-the-trenches bureaucrat -- ever gets in trouble is by bending or (gasp) breaking the rules.
Too true, unfortunately. :( In fact, there was a good example of that early on in this thing, come to think of it, not involving the civil service, but the military: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9246651/

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I suspect that Allbaugh puts himself to sleep at night counting all the dough that is rolling in from reconstruction contracts for his clients...Sigh... I wish I could offer some reason to think you weren't exactly right...

[Judy G. Russell]

Too true, unfortunately. :( In fact, there was a good example of that early on in this thing, come to think of it, not involving the civil service, but the military: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9246651/ Oh good grief...

[rlohmann]

Your sympathy for the pilots appears to result from a preference for the perceptions of Joan Baez over those of Thomas Hobbes.

The Navy, which does not have disaster relief as its primary mission, was ordered to do certain things. Those with the responsibility for getting those things done drew up appropriate orders which were, at lower organizational levels, translated into missions for specific individuals. The individuals in the news item you cited were not assigned rescue duties.

However attractive that rescue mission may have appeared to those particular pilots at that particular time, the Navy had ordered them to do something else.

Your civil service may indeed dissolve into chaos routinely. While the military has its own problems, it pretty much knows what it's doing.

Had some Navy people decided to strike out on their own in the summer of 1942, as opposed to doing what they were told to do, your Japanese would be considerably better than it is.

In the real world, Joan Baez doesn't count for a lot.

[ndebord]

Ralph,

RL> Had some Navy people decided to strike out on their own in the summer of 1942, as opposed to doing what they were told to do, your Japanese would be considerably better than it is.

Huh? To what Naval battle or non-battle are you referring to do in the summer of 1942 that would have resulted in the Japanese winning the war? (If I understand your cryptic aside here properly.)

[Jeff]

You like fiddling on the roof?

[rlohmann]

Midway, June 1942.

Any schematic representation of the maneuvering in that battle makes it clear that what it was quite complicated. "Feelgood" deviations from orders could well have resulted in a very different outcome in World War II.

[rlohmann]

You like fiddling on the roof???

[Lindsey]

Your sympathy for the pilots appears to result from a preference for the perceptions of Joan Baez over those of Thomas Hobbes.
Huh?

I always thought that the great strength of the US military, as opposed to that of, say, the Soviets, was that a certain degree of innovation was encouraged. No, officers an enlisted men can't operate completely independently of the command structure, but neither, I thought, are orders to be construed so rigidly that when unexpected situations arise, no response is allowed that hasn't been specifically ordered.

They picked up an SOS for assistance from any quarter. They were close enough to respond, and they were too far away from their command center to be able to call in for permission to respond. And rather than be rigidly bureaucratic and ignore a call for help with lives at stake, they answered it. They had already completed the mission for which they had been sent out, one of the pilots did phone in to get permission to continue what they were doing when they stopped to refuel in New Orleans, and they returned to their base before dark, as required by flight rules.

I think they deserve praise for showing some initiative rather than a reprimand. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Any schematic representation of the maneuvering in that battle makes it clear that what it was quite complicated. "Feelgood" deviations from orders could well have resulted in a very different outcome in World War II.
They weren't in the middle of a battle, Ralph, they were just delivering water to a base in Mississippi. And they had completed that task and were on their way back to base.

--Lindsey

[rlohmann]

I always thought that the great strength of the US military, as opposed to that of, say, the Soviets, was that a certain degree of innovation was encouraged. No, officers an enlisted men can't operate completely independently of the command structure, but neither, I thought, are orders to be construed so rigidly that when unexpected situations arise, no response is allowed that hasn't been specifically ordered. [...]I think they deserve praise for showing some initiative rather than a reprimand. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.Not necessarily a bad person, but one willing to make assumptions without a full understanding of the facts and circumstances.

You don't know what the Navy had in mind for those individuals once they had accomplished the mission they had been assigned. You--and apparently the news media whose report you uncritically accepted--assumed gratuitously that their workday was over; that it was playtime and they were free to do whatever they felt like doing in the government's aircraft.

I can find no basis for that assumption.

The initiative that differentiates the American military from the Russians is the kind that finds ways to accomplish a mission when circumstances change too quickly to call the headquarters for guidance. In the American way of doing things, "initiative" does is not involve looking around and selecting one's own mission. We don't give people guns and leave it up to them to look around and decide what to do with them.

On the facts set forth in the news report that you cited, there was no military necessity for the pilots to have done what they did. They had radios, and the news item does not suggest that these were not functioning. The pilots could have notified their superiors of the situation and let them decide what to do.

The Navy was right to be mad.

Once again, in the real world, the feelgood approach to decisionmaking is at best counterproductive. At worst, it's downright dangerous.

[Lindsey]

You--and apparently the news media whose report you uncritically accepted--assumed gratuitously that their workday was over; that it was playtime and they were free to do whatever they felt like doing in the government's aircraft.
No, I did not assume that. But I am hard pressed to imagine what job the Navy might have had for them that was more important at the time. (The Navy has not claimed that there actually was anything.)

On the facts set forth in the news report that you cited, there was no military necessity for the pilots to have done what they did.
No, no military necessity--only a human one. Forgive me for thinking the military isn't supposed to be completely inhuman.

They had radios, and the news item does not suggest that these were not functioning. The pilots could have notified their superiors of the situation and let them decide what to do.
The article did, however, plainly state that they were out of range of Pensacola and therefore could not ask permission. And the article goes on to say that they did notify their superiors when they refueled in New Orleans (at which point I presume they were on the ground and using something besides their radios) and received permission to continue. So apparently, the Navy didn't have anything else for them to do at that point. If the Navy was mad, why didn't anyone say so then and tell them to come back immediately?

Sorry, I still think the Navy handled it badly.

--Lindsey

[rlohmann]

Military elements don't freelance. This is so because without discipline, you have nothing more than an armed mob running around loose. These guys got in trouble because they freelanced.

Assuming that time isn't critical--and you note quite accurately that this wasn't a combat situation--an individual who perceives a need for action outside the scope of his mission brings that perception to his commander, who has a broader perspective and may in fact have had other asssignments in mind.

Again, you assume that because the individual mission had been accomplished, the Navy had nothing more to do, and its units were released to wander around looking for dragons to slay.

That's not how the military works.

[Dan in Saint Louis]

Military elements don't freelance.And I have this bridge for sale.......

[ndebord]

Military elements don't freelance. This is so because without discipline, you have nothing more than an armed mob running around loose. These guys got in trouble because they freelanced.

Ralph,

Sometimes, the rules are made to be broken. Even in the military. Ever been in it?

[Jeff]

??

Where do you think most of the people were while those Navy choppers were overhead, and would you have liked to have been with them? Which? On the roof or in the chopper? Or maybe on the roof and waving goodbye to the chopper? Did Dumbsfeld really declare war on New Orleans?

[Lindsey]

Again, you assume that because the individual mission had been accomplished, the Navy had nothing more to do, and its units were released to wander around looking for dragons to slay.
No, as I said, I was not assuming that; the Navy more or less admitted it. And those guys didn't go out looking for a new mission; they intercepted a generally directed distress call when they were out of radio communication range with their base.

You're saying they should follow the letter of their orders, ignore anything the orders didn't anticipate, return to base, and let the rest of the world look out for itself. Nothing to do with them. Fair enough; but isn't that the very thing you are decrying? Doing only exactly what you are told and nothing more no matter what, because nobody in a bureaucracy gets punished for sitting on their hands?

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

No, as I said, I was not assuming that; the Navy more or less admitted it. And those guys didn't go out looking for a new mission; they intercepted a generally directed distress call when they were out of radio communication range with their base.

You're saying they should follow the letter of their orders, ignore anything the orders didn't anticipate, return to base, and let the rest of the world look out for itself. Nothing to do with them. Fair enough; but isn't that the very thing you are decrying? Doing only exactly what you are told and nothing more no matter what, because nobody in a bureaucracy gets punished for sitting on their hands?

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

If the Navy had been truly bent out of shape by those Navy pilots little freelance rescue mission, they would have done far more to them than make them kennel masters for the day. That was a little slap on the wrist and if they're anything like my old friends from 'Nam, a private "Attaboy" was attached.

[Bill Hirst]

Midway, June 1942.


There were no civilians clinging to rooftops at Midway, and there were no enemy aircraft over New Orleans. I submit the two missions are in no way comparable.

[Lindsey]

If the Navy had been truly bent out of shape by those Navy pilots little freelance rescue mission, they would have done far more to them than make them kennel masters for the day. That was a little slap on the wrist and if they're anything like my old friends from 'Nam, a private "Attaboy" was attached.
Ah. OK, if that's the way it is perceived by the Navy rank and file, then that's the message I think should be conveyed.

--Lindsey

[Dick K]

Ah. OK, if that's the way it is perceived by the Navy rank and file, then that's the message I think should be conveyed.
Actually, how the disciplinary measures are perceived by the Navy rank and file is irrelevant; these men are pilots and are therefore officers. In a volunteer military, the presence in an officer's file of an incident requiring "counseling" can make the difference between being promoted and being passed over for promotion. The latter can be a career-ender.

Showing initiative in the accomplishment of a mission is one thing. Unilaterally assigning new missions to oneself is another.

[rlohmann]

Where do you think most of the people were while those Navy choppers were overhead, and would you have liked to have been with them? Which? On the roof or in the chopper? Or maybe on the roof and waving goodbye to the chopper? Did Dumbsfeld really declare war on New Orleans?Depends on your perspective.

The Navy and Coast Guard have a finite number of helicopters. Someone--presumably Admiral Allen's operations chief--is responsible for planning the use of those helicopters in such a fashion as to maximize their effectiveness in search-and-rescue efforts. There is no reason to doubt that those plans have been translated into operations orders and that that the pilots in question received corresponding assignments.

Lindsey has noted that the news article quotes the pilots as alleging that their aircraft were "out of radio range" of their headquarters.

Yeah. Sure.

Maybe we should do things like the Israelis: If everybody had to be in the military, everybody would know that "my radio was on the fritz," or "there was static on the command net" are excuses that first appeared about 5 minutes after Marconi issued the first radio to the first military unit.

When you're trying to do what the Navy and Coast Guard are trying to do in the Gulf, you don't permit what's vulgarly termed "organized grabass." You hold everybody's nose to the op order.

Those guys had a job to do. Once they had done it, they were required to report that. Their superiors would have told them what to do next. If rescuing those people on that roof was the next mission, they would have received it.

Let's take your hypothetical one step farther: Suppose you were the guy on the other roof, the roof that those pilots' commander had identified as next in line to for them to drop a rescue line to.

Of course, they didn't rescue you because they were "out of radio range" and had decided to hot-dog it elsewhere.

Too bad.

[rlohmann]

Let me modify my averment: Military units that do freelance had better not get caught.

<coming to parade rest and sneering>

[rlohmann]

Sometimes, the rules are made to be broken. Even in the military. Ever been in it?To answer your last question first, yes. (About three-and-a-half years in the Army and about 35 years as a civilian employee of the Defense Department.)

In the real world, rules are what keep us from sinking back into Hobbes' State of Nature. Some rules, made by fallible--and sometimes stupid and sometimes positively malign--human beings, may be flawed. However, as I've pointed out in my responses to Lindsey's and Jeff's notes, there is no evidence to indicate that this particular rule--that the pilots report the accomplishment of their mission through command channels and be guided by whatever orders came back down--was in any way deserving of being broken.

As I noted earlier, the assertion that "I was out of radio range" is as old as Marconi.

[Lindsey]

Actually, how the disciplinary measures are perceived by the Navy rank and file is irrelevant;
Well, no, I wouldn't say it was entirely irrelevant; the purpose of discipline is not just to punish wrongdoers, but to send a message to everyone else about the consequences of the behavior in question.

In a volunteer military, the presence in an officer's file of an incident requiring "counseling" can make the difference between being promoted and being passed over for promotion. The latter can be a career-ender.
And if that's the message the Navy wishes to send in this case, I think that's a shame.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Let's take your hypothetical one step farther: Suppose you were the guy on the other roof, the roof that those pilots' commander had identified as next in line to for them to drop a rescue line to.
What "next roof"? The commander in Pensacola wasn't sending anybody to any roof. You're overlooking that when they called in from New Orleans, the commander was content to tell them to continue with what they were doing. And as I recall the articles I've seen about it, the commander has also said that nothing went undone that should have been done as a result of the pilots answering that distress call. As opposed to people who may not have been rescued in time if they hadn't.

--Lindsey

[rlohmann]

No, as I said, I was not assuming that; the Navy more or less admitted it.I'll wait for a statement from the Navy as to the veracity of that assertion; it's hearsay as to you.

And those guys didn't go out looking for a new mission; they intercepted a generally directed distress call when they were out of radio communication range with their base.See my note to Jeff about the soulful cry, "I was out of radio range." After you read that, I have a house in Avenel to sell you. I own it in fee simple. The owner left it to me after joining a Mormon nunnery.

You're saying they should follow the letter of their orders, ignore anything the orders didn't anticipate, return to base, and let the rest of the world look out for itself.Not at all.

In the first place, you concede that they had accomplished their assigned mission. Consequently, whether the orders anticipated the situation they encountered after having done so is irrelevant.

In the second place, I've never suggested that they "return to base." My concern is that they never notified their superiors (or anybody else) of the situation they noticed. Again, particularly given the radios they had, the "out of radio range" argument is unconvincing in the extreme.

Nothing to do with them.Your summation; not mine. They had a real and immediate obligation: assuming they really were out of radio range--if anyone at all believes they were--they could have contacted anyone within range and asked for a patch to Admiral Allen's people. That isn't hard to do. They should then have reported their situation. This they did not do.

Fair enough; but isn't that the very thing you are decrying? Doing only exactly what you are told and nothing more no matter what, because nobody in a bureaucracy gets punished for sitting on their hands?No.

Sometimes sitting on one's hands is the least of numerous evils, but that's not what happened here.

It is clear to me, as to anyone who spent more than a month in the military, that these pilots saw a chance to be media heroes. I do not for a minute believe that, even if they were totally out of radio contact with their own headquarters (and I doubt even that) that they had no contact whatever with any English-speaking radio operator on the planet.

They were hotshot cowboys who saw a chance to get their names in the papers. The Navy sat on them. Justifiable.

Keep in mind that if they themselves feel as you do about the rampant injustice they suffered, they have a right to demand an inquiry, either by demanding nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or, if they really want to push it, a court-martial.

So far, the news media have not reported any such demands.

Wake me when they do. :)

[rlohmann]

I respectfully dissent.

The mission at Midway, as at New Orleans, was to carry out orders, both standing and specific. Neither at Midway nor in New Orleans were individuals directed to invent their own missions if they felt like it.

(See my note to Jeff about the hypothical situation that might follow from both his assertions and yours.)

[rlohmann]

What "next roof"?And as I recall the articles I've seen about it, the commander has also said that nothing went undone that should have been done as a result of the pilots answering that distress call.There are clearly some loose ends here. As I indicated earlier, we haven't heard from the Navy yet.

Also, of course, if everything you say is true, I would, as I also said earlier, expect the two persecuted pilots to demand a court-martial to vindicate their noble actions.

Now, about that house in Avenel.... :D

[Dick K]

Well, no, I wouldn't say it was entirely irrelevant; the purpose of discipline is not just to punish wrongdoers, but to send a message to everyone else about the consequences of the behavior in question.It is irrelevant in the sense that there is no applicability to the rank and file of the Navy; we are talking about the behavior of pilots (who are officers) here. Individual sailors are extremely unlikely to have the autonomy to go off on their own missions during duty hours.

And if that's the message the Navy wishes to send in this case, I think that's a shame.Perhaps you misunderstood me. That is not "the message the Navy wishes to send in this case"; the message is that the Navy is a disciplined military service, where initiative is encouraged and welcomed in the accomplishment of the mission, but that what Ralph so accurately calls "freelancing" is not.

[Judy G. Russell]

Now, about that house in Avenel.... :DWake me after you pay off the mortgage.

[Lindsey]

It is irrelevant in the sense that there is no applicability to the rank and file of the Navy; we are talking about the behavior of pilots (who are officers) here.
Oh, OK. In that case I amend my previous statement to "If that's the way it is perceived by the other pilots..."

Better?

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

To answer your last question first, yes. (About three-and-a-half years in the Army and about 35 years as a civilian employee of the Defense Department.)

As I noted earlier, the assertion that "I was out of radio range" is as old as Marconi.

Ralph,

Three and 1 1/2 years in the Army and 35 years in the Defense Department. I suppose the former might provide absolution for the latter. MOS (05C here and it ain't out of the ordinary for the radio to be on the fritz, though I will agree that the dodge is as old as Marconi).

<g>

[rlohmann]

Shhh! I'm preying on Lindsey's amiable willingness to believe anything!

[Judy G. Russell]

Shhh! I'm preying on Lindsey's amiable willingness to believe anything!And I'm praying not to have to pay my mortgage!

[Jeff]

As I noted earlier, the assertion that "I was out of radio range" is as old as Marconi.

You keep harping on that. When did the Navy dispute that assertion?

- Jeff

[ndebord]

Shhh! I'm preying on Lindsey's amiable willingness to believe anything!

Ralph,

As an aside: I have a good friend, ex-slick pilot from 'Nam who said that in Iraq, only the Guard pilots on (I guess Cobras??) had any idea of how to evade RPGs. It seems the lessons we learned in 'Nam did not survive into "modern" training manuals.

<sigh>

[Lindsey]

Shhh! I'm preying on Lindsey's amiable willingness to believe anything!
I wasn't the one who swallowed Bush's WMD claims...

--Lindsey

[rlohmann]

Did the VC have RPGs in NAM?

[rlohmann]

I wasn't the one who swallowed Bush's WMD claims...Bush may well have believed what he wanted to believe--he's not the only person ever to have done that--but there also exists among certain citizens a certain propensity to believe anything that disparages Bush or the military.

Suppose I told you that I truly wanted to sell you my house in Avenel, but that Karl Rove had told me I couldn't do it.

Then would you be interested? :p

[rlohmann]

When it administered a mild punishment to the pilots, in lieu of the Navy Cross.

[Judy G. Russell]

there also exists among certain citizens a certain propensity to believe anything that disparages Bush or the military.I don't know very many people who would disparage both in the same breath. There's been a very careful effort to distinguish between the civilian leadership and the military this time around which is very fundamentally different from the "baby-killer!"-type cries of the Vietnam era (which, I suspect, colors your thinking more than a little).

Not to mention the fact that the military leadership has tried, repeatedly, to warn against a war-on-the-cheap and has been told by the likes of Rumsfeld to sit down and shut up.

And, finally, for every person I hear who has a propensity to believe anything that disparages Bush there is at least one other who wouldn't believe that Bush ever did anything even mildly wrong or foolish in his entire life and, probably, should be given sainthood, or at least a knighthood, immediately if not sooner.

[Lindsey]

there also exists among certain citizens a certain propensity to believe anything that disparages Bush or the military.
If you are making an accusation, I plead "not guilty."

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Did the VC have RPGs in NAM?
Ralph,

Hell, the Ruskies had RPGs during WWII! And yes, RPGs were as effective in 1967 as they are now and we still haven't learned our lessons in military procurement. Instead of using Gavins, we're using those ill-suited, flat-bottomed Humvees and armored cars instead of tracked vehicles (like the Gavin). We just don't learn. I've got one of my best friends whose back looks like craters on the Moon thanks to RPGS (but then nobody told him to do 3 tours). Personally, it's mortars I can't stand.

[ndebord]

Ralph,

RL> there also exists among certain citizens a certain propensity to believe anything that disparages Bush or the military.

Actually, I disparage any relationship between Bush and the military. Too many chicken hawks making foreign policy. When you look at foreign policy and realize that not so long ago (if say you were looking at time with a Chinese perspective), the Turkomen were hammering at the gates of Vienna. And Iran was a major power. The point being that what in the hell do we think we are doing in the heart of Islam at a point in time when their cultural and/or religious fervor is peaking and ours seemingly declining.

[Jeff]

When it administered a mild punishment to the pilots, in lieu of the Navy Cross.

Oh, so Dumbsfeld really did declare war on New Orleans?

- Jeff

[Dick K]

When it administered a mild punishment to the pilots, in lieu of the Navy Cross.Ralph -

No chance of the Navy Cross for that action:

The Navy Cross may be awarded to any person who, while serving with the Navy or Marine Corps, distinguishes himself in action by extraordinary heroism not justifying an award of the Medal of Honor. The action must take place under one of three circumstances: while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or, while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict in which the United States is not a belligerent party.