There are a few things that I have a tough time understanding. One is the insatiable and inexorable drive built into the political beast to make hay at the expense of one's opponents, and to make the assignment of blame a higher priority than solving the problems that disasters, such as Katrina, have presented.
Here's just a sampling of blame-related headlines:
- New Orleans Paper Rips Federal Response
- New Orleans Local Government Criticized
- Race An Issue In Katrina Response
- After Failures, Government Officials Play Blame Game
- Killed by Contempt, from former Enron advisor Paul Krugman
Several weeks ago I wrote in relation to the then-new information on the Able Danger intelligence unit that I was not interested in fixing blame for missing their insights. What I was interested in was recognition that the information was available, if, as it appears, it indeed was, and modifying the system so that such oversights could be eliminated if possible.
Look, it's fairly simple. I don't believe in looking back and pointing fingers, and using blame of someone as an excuse for someone else. It does no good whatsoever to assign blame to an individual or group when something goes wrong. But the process that led to the failure, the process that needs to be changed - and was, in the Patriot act - needs to be understood fully if the problems are to be solved, and to sniff out other problems before disaster strikes.
If the wall constructed between the intelligence and prosecutorial branches of justice was the problem the solution was not to pillory Ms. Gorelick or anyone else, but to recognize the wall as the problem and to eliminate it. Similarly if there's a problem in FEMA nationally and in local emergency response systems for natural disasters, well, analyze them and fix them.
This is the engineer/physician in me speaking. I don't want to know, other than for documentation purposes, who is at fault when a problem crops up. What I want, instead, are three things.
- A way to deal with the problems as you find them as quickly, efficiently, and completely as possible with the resources you have at hand, or can rapidly obtain.
- An ability to identify the pitfalls that may have led to or exacerbated the problem with thorough and scientific analysis, eschewing fingerpointing and blame. If those who really are to blame bust their hump to correct their mistakes and help to solve the problems, rather than covering their own backsides, then that is a huge contribution that can be weighed well against their failures.
- The will and ability to make the changes or corrections, or institute new systems that can help prevent such problems in the future.
It astonishes me how some minds work in this regard. There are a lot of people out there who seem to think the highest priority is to assign the blame, preferably for their partisan political advantage. Mr. Krugman is obviously one of these, and his irrational screed in today's NY Times is taken apart over at Right Wing Nut House by Rick Moran. The assumption that follows is that if everything had been done perfectly virtually no one would have been hurt, virtually no one would have died, and virtually no human tragedy would have occurred. This is best referred to as poppycock. It's not true in medicine, and it's not true in this situation either.
People were advised to evacuate. For New Orleans evacuation was mandatory. Some didn't leave. A Category 4/5 hurricane packs 150 mph winds, and with the rain, the ocean surge, and the low lying topography of the area the disaster was fairly widespread and by its very nature placed a large number of people, even relatively far inland, in significant jeopardy. Even as a weaker storm as it passed South Florida Katrina was associated with nine deaths. With no power, limited transportation and limited communication, continued flooding of areas, breached levees, and so on, the difficulties were substantial. Add to that the lawlessness of looting and street gangs, and you have what we have seen.
So should we be fingerpointing and assigning blame, or should we be identifying the problems (not the person(s) to blame for the problems) and the causes, and looking at the ways to ameliorate them in the future? Can we be sure that the police in a future disaster will not abandon their posts or join the looters? Can we be sure that mandatory evacuations will be heeded. Can resources like unused school and city buses be sure to be used. If they were, before the hurricane, where would they go? What about hospitals and the power system, and a plan for patient transfers? Where could they be taken?
Some will call me an apologist, but if you read above I make no apologies for anyone. What I've done is recognize that in a tremendous and unpredictable natural disaster there will be problems. Humans are involved in devising and implementing the systems that are used in such situations, and humans are fallible. The systems may not be adequate, or even if adequate may not be implemented properly or promptly.
After all, we're only human.
9/5/05 2345: Just found this essay from Bill Whittle, and though long it should be read. Similar points well made.
