COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

From the New York Times:

The morning Hurricane Katrina thundered ashore, Louisiana National Guard commanders thought they were prepared to save their state. But when 15-foot floodwaters swept into their headquarters, cut their communications and disabled their high-water trucks, they had their hands full just saving themselves.

Ooh, yeah. Let's preposition even more supplies in the storm area right away!

For a crucial 24 hours after landfall on Aug. 29, Guard officers said, they were preoccupied with protecting their nerve center from the waves topping the windows at Jackson Barracks and rescuing soldiers who could not swim. The next morning, they had to evacuate their entire headquarters force of 375 guardsmen by boat and helicopter to the Superdome.

Not sure I trust the timeline here. The levees I understand didn't break until the next day. Love the dangling participle, though. How many soldiers did the window-topping waves rescue?

It was an inauspicious start to the National Guard response to the storm, which ultimately fell so short that it has set off a national debate about whether the Pentagon should take charge immediately after catastrophes. President Bush has asked Congress to study the question, and top Defense Department and Guard officials are scheduled to testify on the response before a House panel on Wednesday.

No, the federal government should not take charge immediately after catastrophes. Actually, that doesn't even seem to be a matter of serious debate among military people I know. I mean, why turn the concept of federalism on its head and micromanage every little storm from Washington when it's far simpler NOT TO PUT YOUR HEADQUARTERS IN A FLOOD ZONE IN A CITY VULNERABLE TO FLOODING!

In interviews, Guard commanders and state and local officials in Louisiana said the Guard performed well under the circumstances. But they say it was crippled in the early days by a severe shortage of troops that they blame in part on the deployment to Iraq of 3,200 Louisiana guardsmen. While the Pentagon disputes that Iraq was a factor, those on the ground say the war has clearly strained a force intended to be the nation's bulwark against natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

You know, the New York Times ought to do a bit more homework and exercize a bit more common sense before they start yapping about what the Guard is intended for.

The National Guard is intended to temporarily supplement the regular army as it fights and wins our nation's wars. It has always been that way. People who think that the Guard is not supposed to be a deployable, battle-ready force need to get that idiocy out of their minds.

I mean, what the hell am I doing with a mortar platoon? What's with those hundreds and hundreds of M1 tanks in the inventory? What am I going to do with those Mk 19 40mm automatic grenade launchers in my supply room?

The National Guard spends 11 months out of every year training to close with and destroy the enemy in the field, or support the effort of others to do the same. The Guard spends one month of every year on its state mission.

Yes, the nation does not need us all the time. Meanwhile, the governors can make effective use of the guard for local and home defense and missions in support of civil authorities. But when the ignoramuses at the Times try to play down the primacy of the federal mission, I'm here to crush that idea.

By spreading this meme, the Times is insulting the Guard and its soldiers.

Yet the very effectiveness of the eventual military response - which climbed to 35,000 guardsmen and active-duty troops - only underscored questions that will long haunt Louisiana guard officials: Should commanders have moved their headquarters to higher ground before the storm?

Does the Pope wear a funny hat?

Check out the whole thing, though.

My favorite part: The article chastises the LA Guard for not confronting the crowd at the Superdome:

At the convention center, 222 soldiers trained in levee repair, not police work, locked themselves into an exhibit hall at the convention center rather than challenge an angry and desperate crowd of more than 10,000 hurricane victims at the center.

So why is it we have to wait until the very end of the article, a dozen paragraphs later, before we learn that many of the troops didn't even have weapons?

Don't you think the Times owes the officers and men involved at least that much consideration? What the f*ck, over?!?!?

Did the Times have a better idea? Would it have been better to capitulate? What happens when the crowd moves to seize their weapons, too? You'd have a massacre on your hands.

As far as I can tell, the Colonel's decision was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances. And those men sure as shit don't need to get slimed by a couple of halfwit reporters who weren't at the scene and who clearly have no idea what is involved in a use-of-force decision.

Splash, out

Jason