Emergency Management Response

Introduction

Hurricane Katrina remains one of the most disastrous storms in modern history. Response to the tragic incident also remains an activity that is worth revisiting. The initial response is especially a matter of interest, owing to the gravity of the matter and the possibility of learning from the failures and successes of the disaster management activities. VOA News’s article titled ‘Hurricane Katrina: Plans, Decisions and Lessons Learned’ provides an overview of the event and majors on the initial response. Evaluation of the initial response to Hurricane Katrina explains the mission’s effectiveness and its viable alternatives.

Initial Response

The first response to the disaster after its incidence was redirecting the pre-positioned troops and supplies. The federal government embarked on a plan to reposition the emergency response teams and supplies after the hurricane hit New Orleans instead of affecting where it was expected. The authorities had positioned the rescue teams and supplies two days before the unfortunate event (VOA News, 2009). The persons, food, water, and medicine had been deployed earlier after declaring the State of Emergency. The redeployment efforts started immediately after the storm hit New Orleans. However, it took a long time to conduct the activity, owing to the resultant barriers. The felled trees, ruined roads, and demolished communication delayed the operation. It made it hard to coordinate the activities involved, especially relocating the rescue team to the locations of the affected persons. The inability of the local and state resources to assist in the disaster also elongated the period it took to redeploy the persons and supplies. Only the federal forces were left to proceed since the other resources could not operate against the severe hurricane.

 

Critique of the overall outcome of the responses

The initial response was largely a failure. Repositioning both supplies and the rescue teams proved to be a long and hard exercise, which meant suffering for the people trapped in New Orleans (VOA News, 2009). The inability of the response to achieve the desired effectiveness contributed a lot to a large number of fatalities and elongated suffering. One condition that pointed to this weakness was the failure of the troops to supply water, food, and medicine using air-borne methods. The people trapped in the city needed fast delivery of the supplies to minimise the chances of death triggered by the lack of the three essential supplies. Scores of people suffered physical and mental torture due to the lack of the three, after which some could not survive.  It should have been part of the plan to deliver them immediately after the hurricane hit. The response’s inability to safeguard people’s lives and welfare makes it unworthy of praise.

Another perspective is that the response was ineffective since it suffered drawbacks that should not have affected it. The severity with which the initial response mission was affected means that it was ineffective. The activity fell victim to communication breakdown and minimised navigability. The drawbacks affected both the people in trouble and the rescuers. For the former, it minimised their ability to ask for assistance and move away from the affected region. The latter suffered failure and long-term criticism instigated by various parties. Overall, it was an almost total failure since it left more harm than the good for which it had been enacted. The emergency management response hardly achieved anything positive, except serving as lessons for improvement. The activities deserve dismissal for poor performance.

 

 

Logical Argument for Alternative Courses of Action

Dropping supplies using helicopters and deploying the military are viable options for initial response. Delivering medicine, food, and water is a good disaster management response since humans need the three to survive under disastrous conditions. However, the response is subject to criticism since it is limited. State and local authorities may not have the requisite helicopters for such operations, as seen during Hurricane Katrina, whereby the severity of the incident overwhelmed their resources. Although good, the response is limited to the federal government. The second variant is also good but limited. Deploying the military can mean fast reestablishment of infrastructure and saving many lives. Soldiers are well trained to restore order and have the equipment needed to restore a disaster-stricken area within short periods. However, the process may take long, owing to the bureaucracy of deploying soldiers for inland missions. Despite their faults, dropping supplies using helicopters and deploying the military is worth consideration in disaster management.

Conclusion

Analysis of the initial response to Hurricane Katrina portrays it as an engagement that was below average. The emergency management response majored on the redeployment of troops and supplies to New Orleans, where the hurricane hit. The response took long and almost succumbed to the severity of the storm. Its dismal performance in rescuing people from suffering and death placed amongst the least ranking disaster management responses. Responses like dropping supplies from helicopters and seeking military intervention can perform better during such events. A deeper analysis of the emergency management response can offer more lessons and viable solutions.

Emergency Management Response

1. Intro
2. Examples of initial responses within first 24 hours

The first response to the disaster after its incidence was redirecting the pre-spositioned troops and supplies. The federal government embarked on a plan to reposition the emergency response teams and supplies after the hurricane hit New Orleans instead of affecting where it was expected. The authorities had positioned the rescue teams and supplies two days before the unfortunate event took place. The persons, food, water, and medicine had been deployed earlier after the declaration of a State of Emergency. The redeployment efforts started immediately the storm hit New Orleans. However, it took long to conduct the activity, owing to the barriers that the storm had created. The felled trees, ruined roads, and demolished communication delayed the operation. It made it hard to coordinate the activities involved, especially relocating the rescue team to the locations of the affected persons. The inability of the local and state resources to assist in the disaster also elongated the period it took to redeploy the persons and supplies. Only the federal forces were left to proceed with the operations since the other resources could not operate against the severe hurricane.

Another response was the

3. Critique of the overall outcome of the responses- assess impact of emergency management

The initial response was largely a failure. Repositioning both supplies and the rescue teams proved to be a long and hard exercise, which meant suffering for the people trapped in New Orleans. The inability of the response to achieve the desired effectiveness contributed a lot to the large number of fatalities, and elongated suffering. One condition that pointed to this failure was the failure of the troops to supply water, food, and medicine using air-borne methods. The people who were trapped in the city needed fast delivery of the supplies to minimise chances of death triggered by lack of the three essential supplies. Scores of people suffered physical and mental torture due to the lack of the three, after which some could not survive.  It should have been part of the plan to deliver them immediately the hurricane hit. The response’s inability to safeguard people’s lives and welfare makes it unworthy of praise.

Another perspective of the same is that the response was ineffective since it suffered drawbacks that should not have affected it. The severity with which the initial response mission was affected means that it was ineffective. The activity fell victim to communication breakdown and minimised navigability. The drawbacks affected both the people in trouble and the rescuers. For the former, it minimised their ability to ask for assistance and move away from the affected region. The latter suffered failure and long-term criticism instigated by various parties. Overall, it was an almost total failure since it left more harm than the good for which it had been enacted. The emergency management response hardly achieved anything positive, except serving as lessons for improvement. The activities deserve dismissal for poor performance.

4. Logical argument for 2 alternative courses of action

Dropping supplies using helicopters and deploying the military are viable options for initial response. Delivering medicine, food, and water is a good disaster management response, since human beings need the three to survive under disastrous conditions. However, the response is subject to criticism, since it is limited. State and local authorities may not have the requisite helicopters for such operations, which limits the response to the federal government.