I've declined to post much on Katrina or the aftermath. We don't get to debate the merits of a hurricane attack, where or when it should strike, reasons, possible alternatives, etc. In addition, most of the news and information coming out is chronological in nature, and there are many other bloggers who do that. I have always focused more on commentary.

One of the things that irked me was the shrill partisanship directed towards the president. Is there anyone who doesn't think that if the president had federalized all local and state resources that the left would have let loose a torrent of venom? Consider this: the governor is a woman, the mayor of New Orleans black. Both of them are democrats. So, he is really boxed in, he acts forcefully, he'd be attacked. He doesn't act forcefully, he's attacked. Damned if you do...

The press, shamefully it should be noted, jumped right into the fray and allowed the "Bush's fault" meme to persist. Thankfully, we have the Captain to the rescue here, here, and here.

In a nutshell:

• contrary to popular myth, the president was never out of touch. He was in constant contact with Gov. Blanco the whole time


• contrary to popular myth, the president declared the area a disater before the hurricane hit


• the local officials completely failed to follow their own Emergency Response Plan


• the local officials refused federal assistance


• local officials and resources completely failed


• incompetence of the highest degree was demonstrated with Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco


• the democrats have no remorse about exploiting the tradegy for fundraising

This is not to exonerate the federales either. FEMA has never, at least to my knowledge, made a good account of itself, be it the '94 Northridge quake or the Andrew aftermath in Florida. Somebody high up had to be able to bypass the red tape and would not. Why was Mike Brown in charge of FEMA in the first place? Why was FEMA wrapped up into the DHS anyways? If we get another 9/11 commission, I'll just scream.

But as I noted earlier, chronolgy is not my thing around here, but the Captain nicely fills in the details. Now is not the time to point fingers and lay blame. In fact, there is not a time ever for that. We cannot beat mother Nature, she'll always kick our ass. We can respond better, and we must find out how we can do that.

(Note: Been very busy last few days, not as much time to post.)

Fred Kaplan has an interesting piece at Slate titled How do we win in Iraq?. He addresses three recent proposals from General Wesley Clark, Professor Juan Cole, and Major (ret) Andrew Krepinevich Jr. All three have presented a way which we can "win" and get out without it looking like we cut and ran.

I've no idea about Mr. Krepinevich's position on the war. However, he is the Executive Director for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. A quick perusal through their website finds the topic of Iraq and this summary analysis by James Jay Carafano:

If a military confrontation erupts between Iraq and the United States, the US homeland could be part of the battleground. While there is much uncertainty over the state of Iraq’s offensive capabilities, there is sufficient information to suggest potential threats to American soil.

-The fact that Iraq did not employ chemical and biological weapons during the Persian Gulf War is cold comfort. Iraqi actions during the conflict and the results of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspections demonstrated: 1) Iraq was willing to expend tremendous resources to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; 2) the Iraqis were adept at concealing the extent of their weapons programs; and, 3) they considered virtually any means of offensive action justified to protect the continued existence of the regime.

-It is likely that Iraq has, or may develop in the near future, the means to conduct attacks on the United States, including catastrophic strikes with nuclear or biological weapons.

-Iraq is unlikely to garner significant aid in attempting to attack the United States, though some terrorist groups may conduct strikes that could coincide with a US-Iraqi conflict.

-While Iraq may have both the means and motive to attack the US homeland, strategic and operational issues may make undertaking major offensive efforts highly problematic.
...
There is evidence to suggest, that if Saddam has the means and opportunity, he might employ any of these weapons against the United States, and that if American forces attempt to oust the Iraqi regime that the likelihood of attack might increase significantly.
...
Al Qaeda, which envisions itself as an “Islamist International” has expressed widespread sympathy for Iraq, though pointedly not the Iraqi leadership. Osama bin Laden’s February 23, 1998, Fatwah cited “Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people,” and the “the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people.”57 While there have most likely been contacts between the Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda and some al Qaeda agents may have fled to Iraq in the wake of US military operations in Afghanistan, bin Laden and Hussein have never trusted one another. Hussein’s secular, nationalist regime is ideologically and politically at odds with bin Laden’s clericalism.58 These differences suggest there is little likelihood of a long-term alliance between the Iraqi and al Qaeda leadership. It would also seem unlikely that Iraq would share nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons with al Qaeda, or any group, over which it did not exert significant control, unless it were truly desperate. Yet, cooperation between the Iraqis and al Qaeda for specific operations is not out of the question, particularly if al Qaeda views these actions as contributing to removing the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia, a cherished bin Laden goal.

Conclusion
Iraq has, or may soon develop, the means to strike at the United States. On the other hand, it faces enormous strategic and operational obstacles in conducting a major attack. In addition, strikes on the US homeland are extremely unlikely to materially affect the outcome of a US-Iraqi conflict. Yet, undeniably the United States does have vulnerabilities. Americans can not be confident that the US nuclear deterrent will be sufficient to dissuade Saddam from attempting to strike at the United States.

There is no question that Iraq presents the United States with some profound strategic issues. Saddam Hussein appears committed to developing offensive means to ensure the continued maintenance of his regime, particularly biological and nuclear arms. These capabilities are likely to grow significantly in the next decade. Commensurately, the risks to the US homeland in the event of a military confrontation between the United States and Iraq will only grow as well. Furthermore, the divergence of US and Iraqi interests in the region as well as Saddam Hussein’s penchant for “adventurism” make the potential for conflict ever present.

So let's assume that Mr. Krepinevich is an honest broker, understood clearly the nature of Saddam and his barbaric regime, and the very real long term threats that we faced.

Now for the General. I have the utmost respect for his service, however, I am only addressing his political activities. I in no way impugn or criticize his service. His advocates highlight his conduct of the war in Kosovo. However, he originally thought that he could deal with Milosevic, and later assumed only a few days bombing would be enough. He waged the war in over Bosnia for almost 3 months, refused to use a single ground troop, and was forced to bomb infrastructure such as electricity and water plants. Later, he had to be fired as NATO commander by Clinton's Sec Def Perry, an act without precedent.

During the campaign he wouldn't even distance himself from Michael Moore and his AWOL comments. Later, he couldn't even decide when or why he became a democrat. He was for the war, against to the war, in short he was for whatever the crowd wanted to hear. General Clark fancies himself a McClellan or MacArthur. Unlike MacArthur who never ran...

Next comes the professor, a man who reaches Krugmanesque levels of journeys from the truth. For him to suddenly decide we need to win in Iraq after 2 plus years of hoping for, praying for, and declaring our defeat is, how shall we say it, magnanimous.

Mr. Kaplan does yeoman's work dissecting the general's arguments:

his Washington Post piece of Aug. 26, titled "Before It's Too Late in Iraq," is stunningly nebulous.
...
The problem is that none of Iraq's neighbors has displayed any inclination to get involved in such matters. It is unlikely that Iran or Syria would agree to sit on any committee organized by the United States—or, if they did, that their interests would coincide or that they'd be interested in compromising with each other as well as with Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the others. It is at least as likely that discussing these issues at formal meetings could harden their disputes and conflicts.

Clark's military proposals are, surprisingly, no less vague. "The vast effort underway to train an army must be matched by efforts to train police and local justices." (This is under way.) "Canada, France, and Germany should be engaged to assist." (Oh? How?) "Military and security operations must return primarily to the tried-and-true methods of counterinsurgency: winning the hearts and minds of the populace through civic action, small-scale economic development and positive daily interactions." (How, if insurgents continue to sabotage all such efforts?) "Ten thousand Arab-Americans … should be recruited to assist as interpreters." (Good idea for the CIA, FBI, and military intelligence, but would so many want to join the Army? Why haven't they already?) "A better effort must be made to control jihadist infiltration into the country by a combination of outposts, patrols and reaction forces reinforced by high technology." (Isn't that what we're doing already?) "Over time U.S. forces should be pulled back into reserve roles and phased out." (What does "over time" mean? At what bench marks?)

If Gen. Clark is thinking about running for president again, he needs to do better than this.

Ouch.

He compliments the "honesty" of Cole and Krepinevich, but concludes that the solutions are unworkable or impractible. Either the political situation here or the ground situation in Iraq is untenable.

Either way, I think the political will is better here than he thinks, and we're already seeing Iraqi troops taking control of towns. We're far from the time when the Iraqis can patrol alone, and there are internal problems about the makeup of the Iraqi army. However, eighty percent or more of Iraq is peaceful, the political process is proceeding, the constitution is complete, the elections are scheduled, the government is functioning, and almost every international organization has recognized a new, sovreign Iraq and its new government.

Why is it that a critic such as Cole or a political gadfly such as Clark would now, two and half years later, be coming to the front with plans for victory? I can't read their minds but I would offer this conjecture. Perhaps they see that progress is being made in Iraq and they want to be in on the success. The president's critics has cried that he never admits a mistake. Without doing as much, victory plans out of the blue sound a similar theme: mea culpa.

If Iraq was never worth winning then why is it so important that we win now? Again, maybe, just maybe, Iraq was worth it all along. Yes, mistakes have been made. Yes, it has been a tougher nut to crack than most thought. Yes, we still have a long way to go. And yes, victory is not certain.

But we are seeing major transformations in the middle east. Moderate Islamic leaders are emerging and being taken seriously. Mubarak would never have even held an election, the fact that he must to validate his rule further evidence of the Iraq effect. Lebanon is free from Syrian troops and municipal elections have been held in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Palestinians finally have a "homeland", now it is time to govern or prove themselves incapable. Even sentiment for terrorists and their brutal form of terrorism has dramatically declined in Arab lands.

Compare the middle east today to just ten years prior. Nobody could have predicted anything remotely close. Did it all spring from Iraq? No. But Iraq provided the catalyst, the tipping point from which there can be only one of two paths. We know now that the middle ground is no longer occupiable, that of petro-tyrants paying their fealty to the feudal (in every sense) landlords. Either the middle east will modernize or descend into the abyss. Either democracies will emerge, consentualism and liberalism will prevail, or the Taliban's Afghanistan will.

Not much of a choice.

It was said that all roads lead to Rome. Today, for the middle east, all roads lead from Iraq.

Mickey Kaus (hat tip Glenn) throws out a new meme to use against the Bush administration: federalism.

Sure, the Bushies are using the federalism issue, and Louisiana's potentially bruised feelings, as an excuse--especially when they talk about how "it would have been perceived" if Bush had seized control of the relief effort "from the female governor of another party." (It would have been perceived as such a power grab that ... people would have put their heads out their windows and cheered.) Maybe there are other, more permissive intepretations of the relevant laws. But why should the Bushies even have the federalist excuse? Why should there be any doubt that the President can take command of a relief effort within our own country? Other countries, I suspect, don't have this hangup. Nor does private industry. Again, does UPS need to meet a special legal standard in court before it can take control of one of its branch offices? ...

Please, name me one other instance when this administration has actually acknowledged the principle of federalism. Not gay marriage, certainly not education, not ever. Save for his foreign policy and tax cuts, (and maybe federal funding or religious charities) he has run his administration far more as a moderate democratic one than a conservative Republican one. At least under Clinton we had budgetary restraint.

I'm sorry here folks, but the left, as I've mentioned earlier, is shooting but coming up with no bullets, only smoke. Let's take a counterfactual historical look at this:

Bush recognizes early the nature of the disaster, orders full mobilization of the Guard, an evacuation, and commandeers all local authorites. I am sure the left would just cheer this one. Or would we hear "greatest power grab", "fascist regime", and various assorted attacks.

A few days ago, Ralph Peters wrote (and I meant to post this sooner)

Which brings me to the second problem the Bushies routinely have: The unwillingness to impose law and order (emphasis mine), to promptly take on looters and criminals. We failed to do it in Baghdad and the results plague us to this day. By allowing a small minority of the people remaining in New Orleans to terrorize the storm's victims for days without interference, we betrayed our fellow Americans and shamed ourselves in the eyes of the world.

The singular problem of the administration has been its unwillingness to act forcefully enough, not the opposite. He nails it completely. And yet, anything he does is protrayed as heavy-handed and often much worse.

As we are finding out, Louisiana officials were reluctant, and in many cases refused, to allow federal officials to assume control and private relief organizations to enter the diaster areas. What would have happened if, for instance, the administration had said "We're violating federal law, but we're going in anyways?" Or is that a rhetorical question?

Kaus notes of course that the governor of Louisiana is both a democrat and female. But I'm sure those would never have come up as human tradegy would have trumped petty partisanship. Well, one can dream can't they.

I was looking for the right words to describe the last few days in New Orleans. Here they are.

We are either going to rise as a nation, like the Phoenix, or sink into the abyss. Either we are going to restore the America of old, the values, traditions, and beliefs, or we are going to find ourselves the Roman Empire.

When people say of the chaos, "That's not America", they are right. That's not America. Yet it is in America. That's the problem.

A festering ideology has metasticized, revealing a lingering malignancy. We are truly infected with a disease of malaise and dependency. This has nothing to do with racism, the civil war, Jim Crow, or any of the other futile attempts at amelioration. No, this has everything to do with a set of policies that for forty years has stolen the soul and spirit of people, destroyed their will and their drive. It is a policy which says "we'll take care of you, because you can't take care of yourself." And we see the results.

The left will burn in hell, for that which they've created on earth, and that which they've condemned people to live in. Ripped of their humanity by a self-beatified elite, infused with helplessness and consigned to the narcotic of largesse, they descend into a Dante-like inferno when the paternal keepers are washed away.

I can't feel hatred and anger towards those who run wild, but rather feel my seething intensify for those who, in all their purported benevolence, created this hell on earth. They dwell in their gated communities, rule safely perched in their ivory towrs, spared from the apocalypse below.

Hopefully New Orleans shines an everlasting light on the destruction bestown upon our land by the left and their social welfare state. It didn't happen in Europe, they already sheep willingly led. But America was not a European colony, not in the least. We were Europe's cast-offs, wayward souls, errant children. We were not sent to America, we left Europe.

They were the reckless, the free-spirit, the individual, the rule-breaker, the dreamer, the builder, the iconoclast. They crossed seas, mountains, and great plains. They built railroads, skyscrapers, and an industrial monolith. We could, and would, do anything. We would go anywhere, anytime - to the moon if we wanted. And we did it because we knew we could. Why? Because, simply put, we're Americans. It's in our genes, it's in our blood.

But, destroy that, and we're left with nothing. We're left with New Orleans.

The left just can't resist getting in cheap shots about "global warming" or other Bush caused problems that led to the disaster in Katrina's wake. One of the upcoming, if not already recurring themes will be the funding, or lack thereof, of levee reconstruction in New Orleans. We've already heard how stretched the National Guard is, what with deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now we're going to be hearing about how the war in Iraq costs too much for us to take care of necessities here.

I'm sure we'll hear how we're building firehouses in Baghdad while closing them here. Oh wait...

First, let's address the levee meme. Wretchard notes that according to that as early as 2001 people were warning about about possible flooding of New Orleans. Further, he links to a wonderful article from Civil Engineering Magazine writen in 2003 thoroughly going over the enormous problems with the levees, which should also thoroughly debunk the "levee funding" claims.

The simple truth is that a) the levees were not built for a category 5 storm and b) the reconstruction was still in the planning stages. It was far from a simple one year patch job. In addition, patching up unsuitable levees does not guarantee their durability in the event of a siable enough storm.

The Chicago Tribune reportsCorps officials: Funding levels not to blame for flooding:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Thursday that a lack of funding for hurricane-protection projects around New Orleans did not contribute to the disastrous flooding that followed Hurricane Katrina.

In a telephone interview with reporters, corps officials said that although portions of the flood-protection levees remain incomplete, the levees near Lake Pontchartrain that gave way--inundating much of the city--were completed and in good condition before the hurricane.

However, they noted that the levees were designed for a Category 3 hurricane and couldn't handle the ferocious winds and raging waters from Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 4 storm when it hit the coastline. The decision to build levees for a Category 3 hurricane was made decades ago based on a cost-benefit analysis.

Not that the left would ever let something as simple as facts would ever stop them.

Powerline ask an interesting question, "Why was New Orleans evacuated?"

A number of our readers have been highly critical of state and local authorities in Louisiana. However, it must be acknowledged that they did one important thing that saved countless lives: they ordered the mandatory evacuation on Sunday that caused most people to leave the city. This mandatory evacuation order was a departure from past practice, when evacuations in the face of approaching hurricanes have always been voluntary.

They link to a nola.com article which notes a small fact seemingly not mentioned in most coverage (hmmm...)

Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding. (my emphasis)

Intersting to note is that Governor Blanco is a democrat, and certainly has nothing to gain by giving credit to the president.

The depleted National Guard meme is thoroughly debunked here. We have 75 percent of our guard currently at home, Louisiana only has one third of it's gurad units deployed overseas, and according to an agreement with the Defense Dept., no state will have more than 50 percent of its guard units deployed.

So the truth is that there are ample indigenous forces available. Were they mobilized soon enough? That's a tougher question which hopefully will be answered by sober post-traumatic analysis. (Sadly, my hopes are not high there.)

But what about the next great myth of the left that "the Iraq war depleted funds for (fill in the blank) ." First, let me commend the left on their new found fiscal responsibility, on the relevation that funds, even federal funds, are limited. I should hope that in the future, if a democrat gets elected, they will remain so enlightened. (Though again, my hopes are not high here either.)

Accorinding to the National Priorities Project, the cost of the Iraq war as of Sept. 4 is around $193 billion. Following the depleted resourcves thread, they list the cost compared to things such as pre school, kids' health, immunization, public housing, world hunger, college scholarships, etc. So let's just assume that they're slightly left of center. Since they're "just slightly" left of center, let's take their numbers then so as not to be accused of bias.

The aforemention ChiTrib article also reports that:

In recent years, funding has dropped precipitously, which some officials attributed in part to the escalating costs of the Iraq war. Funding for a drainage project in New Orleans went from $69 million in 2001 to $36.5 million in the current fiscal year, while funding for such hurricane-protection projects as levees around Lake Pontchartrain declined from $10 million in 2001 to $5.7 million this year, according to figures provided by the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

This almost deifes logic. The Iraq war so thoroughly drained the treasury that they couldn't find $5 million dollars? And, if the reporters had bothered to use something I like to call the interent (thanks, Al), they could just as easily have learned that the money was earmaked for a study which was several years long.

Also from the article, another bit of trivia. "Funding for these projects has generally trended downward since at least the last years of the Clinton administration." But again, it's all Bush's fault.

In two and one half years, the war has cost almost $200 billion. According to the OMB (pdf), the federal budget in 2003 was $1.8 trillion, in 2004 $1.8 trillion, and in 2005 estimated at $2 trillion. So, in the last three years, the federal government has spent $5.6 trillion dollars, of which (hmmm...5.6 X 10^12, 2 X 10^9, subtract the exponents, 2/(5.6X10^3) ) 3.5 percent has been spent on the Iraq war. Now, this is entirely innacurate as much of that is defense authorization which would have been spent on defense matters anyways. So let's cut it in half, call it $100 billion extra that we've spent on Iraq that we wouldn't have spent otherwise. I'm sure in the left's perfect world, we'll hold bake sales to buy bombers, but that's fodder for bumper stickers.

So, the Iraq war has been at most, 2 percent of federal outlays the last three years. At best, that reduces the deficit by a third. I won't wastemy server's storage space, my bandwidth, or your time chronicling the (hundreds of) billions of dollars wasted by the government every year. Hey, we could start with that tunnel in Massachusettes. Or how about the $400 billion, $600 billion, $1 trillion dollar prescription benefit bill? Or how about the latest transportaion bill?

There is one last salient point that seems lost in the chaos, that New Orleans was basically spared the wrath of the storm. Viewing the news the last few hours, I saw overhead shots of the Mississippi coast, place like Pascagoula where it looks like more like Ypres ca. 1917 than a Gulf resort town. As a Powerline reader noted:

As for the response post-Katrina, on Monday everyone was breathing a sigh of relief that New Orleans was spared. Rescue efforts were being geared to the Mississippi and Alabama coasts where the population densities were higher than the marsh lands south east of New Orleans. It wasn't until the levies failed late Monday night and early Tuesday morning that there was a need for more extensive planning in New Orleans. After that it was the failure of the Mayor to quickly order a total evacuation, and the Governor's failure for not over-stepping him and ordering it herself that caused a crisis to turn into a catastrophe. Once the flooding was complete there was no way for the people left in the city to escape. Furthermore, it was the Mayor's and the Governor's fault for not mobilizing the Louisiana National Guard as early as Tuesday when it became apparent that the city was going to totally flood, and it was their fault that they also did not give orders to shoot-to-kill any looter stealing more than food, water, or shoes. In Mississippi the Governor almost immediately gave shoot-to-kill orders for looters. How many looting stories have made the news from Mississippi?

No matter how sad the story is, we must still recognize that the New Orleans tradegy occurred after the storm. This neither diminshes the pain and suffereing nor lessens the failures in responding, whatever they might prove to have been. But, save for the levees that broke, the story would be farther down the coast and the Big Easy would have been spared.

The left keeps on shooting, but all we get is smoke and no bullets. (Perhaps they should rethink their gun control theories, they might be more accurate!!) Hopefully when the smoke clears we'll see a little clearer.