The US Military's Role in Domestic Disaster Response - Research Paper Example

Running head: DISASTER RESPONSE Military use in domestic disaster relief: Is it an effective use of resources or a danger to civil liberties? (school) (date) The US militarys role in domestic disaster response: Is it an effective use of resources or danger to civil liberties? Introduction In almost every disaster which has afflicted the United States and other countries, the US military has been at the forefront of providing disaster relief and assistance. During and after Hurricane Katrina, the military was on hand in rescuing victims, securing them into evacuation centers, treating their injuries, and distributing relief goods. This same pattern was seen in other disasters which the US has encountered, and has been repeated in other countries requesting for aid. In the aftermath of the Japan earthquake and tsunami, the US military was also deployed to assist in rescue operations and disaster relief. This same assistance was provided during the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the 2009 typhoon which flooded the streets of Manila, the Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake, and other global disasters. The utilization of military disaster relief has not however been welcomed by some politicians, with most critics defining such relief as an ineffective use of military resources and as an interference with the civil liberties of citizens. Others have been quick to point out however that providing disaster relief is not a waste of military resources and in fact is a necessary function of the US military, an adjunct to their peace and order function. This paper shall now review this issue, specifically on the US military’s role in domestic disaster response and whether or not it is an effective use of resources or a danger to civil liberties. Body Disasters are significant and widespread events which involve the loss of life and which cause significant damage to property and infrastructures (Weeks, 2007). Accidents on the other hand are at a smaller scale with less lives and property lost. In these situations, failure of communication seems to be one of the more persistent issues often faced, along with the inability to establish clear links with other agencies. Disasters imply the significant loss of life and it usually occurs without warning (Weeks, 2007). It also has a significant impact on society, including its culture and geography. These events are difficult to assess because of the widespread impact they cause. The major challenges which first responders often face are difficult areas to evaluate. Much preparation must be carried out in order to evaluate disaster situations because they involve a significant amount of elements which cannot be easily controlled and observed (Weeks, 2007). Marret and Brimmer (2008) discuss that the military has increasingly found itself managing disasters and complex emergencies. These situations have posed various challenges for individuals involved. Some military leaders believe that providing relief during disasters distracts them from duty of defending their country (Marret and Brimmer, 2008). Others however believe that providing humanitarian aid and relief during disasters is a duty which helps support and advance military goals. Military personnel do understand that they would likely be deployed to assist in disaster management (Marret and Brimmer, 2008). As a result, they often understand that they need to participate in training for disaster relief and rescues. The United States military has been an active player in disaster management as it has assisted in establishing critical assistance in the management of disasters. The military has provided resources in disaster management and this role remains persistently one of its most effective application of resources (Weeks, 2007). Military units have desirable qualities which make their resources ideal for disaster relief. The various combat units are highly mobile and speedy in their actions making it possible to bring military equipment in almost any part of the world, in any terrain, and under any conditions (Weeks, 2007). The National Guard’s primary responsibility is to act on any domestic crisis, however other active duty units are also expected to respond to disaster operations in any part of the world. Even with their resources, military units also struggle during disaster relief operations; one of their issues seem to revolve around inexperience in effectively dealing with civilian issues (Weeks, 2007). The President and the Congress has the constitutional right to regulate and organize the military forces based on Article I, paragraph 8, cls 11-14 (Elsea and Mason, 2008). These provisions do not specify how the Congress may use these armed forces; however such forces may be used in order to support constitutional goals. The Congress also has the power to recall the military to implement federal laws and to control domestic disturbances. Once the military is raised, the President has the responsibility to ensure that all laws are properly executed (Elsea and Mason, 2008). The Congress has assigned the President with the power to use the armed forces to fulfill various domestic needs. Under the Constitution, states are responsible for providing civil order and for protecting their citizens. However, the Constitution mandates that the federal authorities are responsible for protecting the state against invasion, insurrection, and domestic violence (Elsea and Mason, 2008). No state may have its own army, but each state may call on their militia to control insurrections; these militias are however subject to the provisions of the constitution and to the mandates of the Congress. The Department of Defense provisions declare several exceptions in its activities, and some of these are not based on statutory authority, and some are available under limited considerations. Actions which are carried out under the inherent right of the US government – that of preserving public order and implementing governmental functions within its territory is one of these exceptions (Elsea and Mason, 2008). Based on the emergency powers, it is necessary to protect federal property and functions and to support efficient federal actions, including the use of military resources. The end goal in these instances is to prevent deaths, destruction of property and to secure governmental functions and public order during unexpected civil issues, disasters, calamities, and other incidents which seriously threaten the life and property of citizens (Elsea and Mason, 2008). Normally, implementing these operations must be supported by an executive order, however the Department of Defense officials may carry out emergency actions without seeking initial authorization in instances where sudden civil disturbances occur. Based on the Robert Stafford Disaster Relief Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), the President has the power to authorize the release of federal aid to states which are stricken by disasters (Winthrop, 1997). This act also supports the use of armed forces for domestic disaster relief. Operations include removal of debris, clearing roads, search and rescues, emergency medical transport and shelter, delivering water and food, delivering medical supplies, dissemination of public information, and providing technical support to the local authorities (Elsea and Mason, 2008). In instances of disaster which results to the deterioration of civil law and order, the power to deploy active duty troops to carry out law enforcement duties are to be rooted elsewhere. The Act does not give power for the federal deployment of forces to ensure law and order (Elsea and Mason, 2008). The Federal forces in these instances would have no authority to enforce traffic rules or provide security for facilities which provide relief, except where the activities serve military goals. They are also not allowed to patrol the civilian areas in order to provide security from looting; but they can patrol to provide humanitarian relief including rescue efforts and delivering food (Winthrop, 1997). The military may be validly deployed in order to render essential assistance, to provide resources assistance, assist during major disasters, and respond under the immediate response authority (Elsea and Mason, 2008). Under the authority of the governor, the President may ask the Department of Defense to render emergency assistance in order to preserve life and property after any disaster. This assistance would be necessary for up to 10 days before the president would declare an emergency or disaster. Emergency assistance in these cases would include road clearing from wreckage and the resumption of public services and facilities (Buchalter, 2007). The military assistance would therefore be essential in instances where there are communication problems and these problems interfere with the authorities and their ability to deliver emergency relief and care. Through the Stafford Act, the President also decides that a disaster threatens federal interests and calls for the governor of the affected state to establish the status of the state and its federal needs. The National Guards would then be alerted and the necessary military assistance would be given to the state (Elsea and Mason, 2008). During major disasters, the governor of the affected state must first note whether the disaster qualifies for military assistance. An emergency plan must also be formulated, including an assessment of the state’s ability to handle the emergency (Buchalter, 2007). The National Guards would then be called in to assist and to control the impact of the disaster. Their role is however directed only towards providing disaster relief (Elsea and Mason, 2008). Under the Immediate Response Authority, the Department of Defense is allowed to deploy its troops to provide assistance to local authorities without prior declaration under the Stafford Act. This action is based on the provisions which basically declare their functions “to prevent human suffering, save lives, or mitigate great property damage” (Department of Defense, 2008, p. 4). Efficient responses would include various activities included under the Stafford Act, including the restoration of public services, the rescue and evacuation of civilians, the removal of debris, and providing emergency medical treatment. Distributing food and essential supplies as well as setting up emergency communication services are functions which are expected of the military in these instances (Tkacz, 2006). The Immediate Response Authority provides for the emergency functions which would help the local authorities and the affected areas the necessary mobility in terms of disaster mitigation. Since the military has the necessary resources to ensure disaster mitigation and emergency responses, they are the best agency and resources which can be mobilized (Department of Defense, 2008). There are various events in history which featured significant military involvement. One such incident was that of the Berlin Airlift of 1947 where a city was supplied from the air (Cuny, 1989). Military involvement in disaster relief was seen in other disasters mostly with calls for assistance from the United Nations and other regional organizations. The military leaders also note how relief agencies actively sought their assistance in terms of logistical support during their relief operations (Cuny, 1989). In the 1950s, the relief system included other developing states, mostly on individuals who were displaced from their freedom fight and challenges, as well as those who were victims of calamities (Cuny, 1989). This system also applied the same processes used during the post-war period and adjusting these based on the needs of the developing states. However, this system was often not appropriate because of the differences between war-torn Europe and civil war and famine sufferers in developing states (Cuny, 1989). This meant that providing tents to victims of earthquakes caused delays for reconstruction. Moreover, building refugee camps for victims of famine drew these victims away from their lands, delaying agricultural recovery and even bigger issues in the delivery of relief goods (Cuny, 1989). The massive immunizations carried out also reduced the natural immunity of the people, thereby actually increasing their risk to other diseases. The military which have been deployed for the relief operations usually applied the same doctrines they applied in their other operations. Planes are used to transport goods and people, as well as supplies, and various engineers have been assigned to build relief camps (Ehrhart and Quille, 2007). Due to these applications of military resources, issues have been raised on the costs involved in the use of such resources. Issues of civil-military relations stemmed from varying complications. Some of these issues revolved around the problem of civil-military cooperation which combined different concepts in relation to doctrines, plans, and other circumstances, namely humanitarian support and civilian security (Marret, 2008). Humanitarian support is based on material and logistical support given for humanitarian reasons, mostly during a humanitarian crisis. The main goal of this assistance is to save the lives and alleviate the suffering of victims. It is therefore different from developmental support which considers the socioeconomic issues causing the crisis (Marret, 2008). Civil security is considered as a solid effort by public and private elements in protecting a certain area from internal and external damage, whether man-made or natural. Issues among disaster response teams relating to preparedness have been raised throughout the years, and for which reason, the military has been considered for various disaster relief activities (Marret, 2008). The tensions in the US which have been founded on military disaster relief seem to be based on the morality in US government humanitarian efforts. In some instances, humanitarian relief has been considered as an interference of civil rights. In foreign regions, US humanitarian involvement has been criticized as tantamount to military interference (Congressional Research Service, 2008). Situations in Somalia, Bosnia, and Afghanistan were cited as examples. In these scenarios, US humanitarian aid has been activated to impact on the conflicts where the US itself was involved. This trend has increased in other military interventions carried out by the US since 9/11. USAID has in fact been mobilized based on security concepts and considerations. It has also supported economic assistance facilities through micro and small-scale industries for various people while also providing support for their credit and urban expansions (Marret, 2008). For which reason, the actions of the military in providing disaster relief has been met with suspicion from various quarters – foreign and domestic. Due to issues with the utilization of military resources for disaster relief, the government has repeated its emphasis on the usage of military resources for military needs first (Mener, 2007). The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) may establish tools and resources which can be useful for disaster relief, however, the actual and real purpose for these tools would still be military. For example a technology built to find soldiers in collapsed buildings can also be used to find earthquake survivors; and when these needs conflict with each other military needs are prioritized by the Department of Defense (Mener, 2007). With this prioritization, the utilization of military resources for disaster relief has been tipped towards the military. However, there remains an acknowledgement of the applicability of the military resources for effective disaster relief. The main issue in the use of military resources during disaster relief operations seems to stem from the applications of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court emphasizes the role of civil rights in an organized society where public order is maintained and without which liberty would be discarded through excesses and abuses (Cox v. Hampshire, 1941). The negative rights are considered part of the larger system of moral considerations; their purpose is to establish organization in order protect human liberties. They control governmental liberties and powers in order to ensure that these powers are used within the bounds of legality and freedom. The Third Amendment is the only right which is directly concerned with the rights of individuals in relation to military during peace and war times. This amendment supports individual freedom when the government’s power manifests during military occupation. Douglas (1963) believed that the Third Amendment did not play any modern functions because when the country is in the midst of a disaster, the government often takes a greater license in invading the homes and the privacy of its citizens. This practice is dangerous in instances of domestic disasters because people would be more likely to give up their civil rights in order to feel more secure; and during disasters, laws often fail in application, and the military seems to be the only authority which can secure a semblance of security for the people (Douglas, 1963). Negative rights are meant to prevent the military from stripping citizens of their rights. The Hurricane Katrina disaster exemplified that there are situations which exist in the current context where the Third Amendment may be applicable. During disasters, citizens, including civilian governments, are often incapacitated (Rogers, 2008). Consequently, they may not be opposed to the government’s application of military force in order to ensure the protection as well as the peace and order of the communities involved. The Third Amendment in these instances is supposed to protect individual rights and prevent the expansion of military power (Rogers, 2008). During emergencies, state authorities expand their powers in order to use private property and punish those who do not comply with their regulations. The executive department as well as the military practices these powers through the National Guard and the federal troops. The danger in supporting expanded executive power includes the issue on the temporary increase in executive power which can cause the individual civil rights to shrink and be reduced (Issacharoff and Pildes, 2005). Although the suspension of civil rights may be temporary, its effects may linger. Moreover, officials may often make poor decisions in relation to military deployment during disasters (Rogers, 2008). Another danger associated with the utilization of military assistance during disasters is on the risk it places on the exercise civil liberties. There are not many models in the world where the use of military tools for law enforcement supports democratic goals (Rogers, 2008). Soldiers undergo training in order to fight and not to function as peace officers, and their activities must be seen during their training. In maintaining peace and order, they may be too aggressive and abusive of their power. This was apparent where military in question were also civilians serving part-time duties with the National Guard (Rose, 2006). After Hurricane Katrina, some National Guards troops and civilians in New Orleans were reported to have carried out burglaries, larcenies, and trespassing into abandoned business institutions. Many of these incidents were unpunished by the government and many of these military troops committed numerous incidents of thievery and public disturbance (Rogers, 2008). The National Guard did not have the tools to supervise over their troops and often carried out their actions without clearing these with military officials (Rose, 2006). A federal soldier commented that the National Guard seems to weave in and out of areas, often doing what they wanted and then vacating the place without telling anyone of their actions (Rogers, 2008). In one instance, the National Guard commandeered an area affected by the hurricane. More often than not, they took over an area in order to control looting and violence. However, when civilians returned to their homes, small groups of National Guards were found to have accessed areas where they were not authorized to occupy. In another case, doctors returned to the hospital only to find that it was converted into a command post for the Louisiana National Guard (Martin, 2007). Many guards also invaded homes. One security form actually ransacked an apartment and took clothes, mattresses, and appliances without apparent reason. These abuses were unnoticed and remain unpunished by the government due to the generally chaotic situation in the area at the time due to the failure of communication and the lack of law enforcers. The communication was so poor at that time that the military and the relief workers relied on news outlets for any information about the disaster (Rogers, 2008). The National Guard did not have enough supplies and resources in order to secure communication and to deliver the needs where it was needed. In this scenario where supplies were low and the troops were unsupervised, violations of civil liberties were apparent (Rogers, 2008). Avoiding violations of the Third Amendment would have to be considered in the event of disaster management if only to avoid incidents of military troops abusing their authority. Even with the dangers linked to military troops being deployed during disasters, their functions can still be suitably secured to meet the people’s needs. It is important however to define the specific qualities which would ensure the favorable management of disasters as well as the appropriate use of state resources. Despite the dangers that the use of military resources and troops in disaster relief and management poses, it still potentially brings about much needed benefits which would not be apparent in any other setting. As was apparent during the management of Hurricane Katrina, authorities expressed how the military had the major capability, which was beyond the ability of any other organization, in responding to the national disasters. The Department of Defense and its response to the hurricane was widespread, fast and unprecedented in size and scale (Weston, 2006). The military was able to provide a strong defense of the US, however more importantly, it was able to provide progress in a variety of functions which were hugely essential and significant during and after the hurricane. It was able to provide interagency cooperation, command and control, as well as central and united command of the relief operations (Weston, 2006). Even as the Congress established laws which reduced the applicability of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), it still serves as a restriction for the military in direct law enforcement activities. Once again, the Hurricane Katrina situation is to be cited where the military troops did not act on issues involving law enforcement in accordance with the provisions of the PCA (Weston, 2006). As a result, periods of lawlessness which endangered the public safety were seen. Allowing the strict application of the civil and constitutional laws would allow the status quo to apply. The status quo currently limits the actions of the military and it endangers the life and the property of civilians who are already victims of disasters. When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in August 2006, the disaster brought about much flooding, damaging property, and drowning many citizens caught in its waters. Injuries were also reported (Samaan and Verneuil, 2008). This disaster affected over 1.7 million individuals. After the hurricane hit, the Louisiana Army and Air Guard troops were deployed in order to remove debris from the streets and to clear the roads; they were also assigned to provide shelter, distribute goods, and provide medical care for the injured victims (Samaan and Verneuil, 2008). The number of Guardsmen increased in the days following the incident. A task force was set-up with the military and relief agencies; the guardsmen were under the control of the governors. This control allowed them to order the guardsmen to provide law enforcement support in the affected areas. However, these acts were actually expressly prohibited by the PCA (Samaan and Verneuil, 2008). During the management of the disaster, it was apparent that the National Guard was there in order to provide support during the anticipation up to the normal phase of the disaster management; it was also there to provide support links between the different authorities and the civilians. With the restrictions placed on the National Guard as mandated by the PCA, they were still not adequately prepared to meet the needs of the people (Samaan and Verneuil, 2008). They did not have adequate supplies and manpower to ensure the delivery of much needed water and food to deliver to the people. The legal restrictions presented by the PCA on the governors also prompted them to integrate the military units away from law enforcement activities (Samaan and Verneuil, 2008). As the National Guard deployed and secured first aid as well as law enforcement for the affected areas, the federal administrators reacted effectively in order to implement its essential activities. The Coast Guard was also mobilized and it became the primary federal actor responding to Katrina (Samaan and Verneuil, 2008). The Coast Guard allowed the deployment of helicopters to affected areas; it also called on the services of about 500 reservists. It was saving lives before other federal agencies were deployed and even when half of their troops already died during the hurricane. They evacuated about 34,000 citizens and were the only agency which showed much experience in rescue operations (Samaan and Verneuil, 2008). Under these considerations, repealing the provisions of the PCA seems to be an even more ominous need. As the arguments above provide a strong case for the repeals of the PCA, there are important constitutional considerations which must also be considered. The PCA, as declared by conservatives, provides the necessary prevention against the unconscionable deployment of troops by the President (Chipman, 2003). The PCA serves to protect the people from military dictatorship and even if an actual military leadership in the US is unlikely, the PCA is still essential in order to maintain the historic gap between the military troops and the civilians. Repealing the PCA would likely compromise the civilian power over the military, posing challenges in maintaining the subordinate role of the military over civilians (Hammond, 1997). The PCA is an important tool of civilian superiority, one which must still be protected even during disasters. Military involvement in law enforcement has a serious impact in the infringement of civilian rights. Military capabilities do not run towards law enforcement and they are not trained to protect privacy and observe due process of laws (Hammond, 1997). As a result, it would be unwise to allow these troops to carry out more than their functions during disasters. Law enforcement during disasters can sometimes reach levels where the military would have to use force; when military troops are involved, deadly force may be employed in order to manage these law enforcement issues. Local law enforcers are trained to search and rescue, but the military troops are trained to search and destroy (Isenberg, 2002). In a 1997 incident in the Texas-Mexico border, a demonstration of the risks involved in deploying military troops during a counter-terrors drug mission. In this incident, an 18 year old tending goat because the troops felt threatened by the boy and shot him in the process. Making the military vulnerable to domestic law enforcement can reduce the main goal of the military. “The domestic law enforcement mission would take resources and training away from preparing primary mission” (Weston, 2006, p. 16). Overly relying on the military to ensure homeland security would likely diminish the military’s goals of improving the capability of the US in supporting foreign policies. Moreover, it can also reduce the warrior mentality needed among the military; reduction of this mentality would lead to a diminished respect from the citizens (Bock, 2005). Conclusion The US military’s role in domestic disaster response has been considered a major issue among politicians and citizens alike. The issue of the appropriate allocation of resources and the dangers it poses to civil liberties is the main consideration in these instances. The actions of the military pose a risk on civil liberties and a diminished control of the civilians over its military. However, it is important to note also that military assistance is able to gain major progress and achievements in disaster management which the local enforcers cannot achieve as efficiently. In instances where the lives of the people are put at risk, speedy and efficient action is crucial, and local authorities are often not equipped to deliver these essential services as effectively as the military can. The current safeguards on possible military belligerence and power are in place and these safeguards can also be reinforced. However, totally preventing the use of military resources and services would exacerbate the impact of natural and man-made disasters. Therefore, although the use of military resources may not effectively serve military goals of the country, it is important to keep gaining their assistance because they are also able to serve more important goals of national order, security, and safety. References Bock, A. (2005). Posse Comitatus: Remembering Why. Retrieved 22 February 2012 from http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=7468 Buchalter, A. (2007). A Report Prepared by the Federal Research Division. Library of Congress under an Interagency Agreement with the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. Retrieved 22 February 2012 from http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/CNGR_Milit-Support-Civil-Authorities.pdf Chipman, D. (2003). Countering Terrorism in the Heartland – Can We Afford Posse Comitatus Any Longer? Carlisle Barracks: U.S. Army War College. Retrieved 22 February 2012 from http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA415647. Congressional Research Services. (2008). International crises and disasters: U.S. humanitarian assistance, budget trends, and issues for Congress. Report RL33769. Cox v. New Hampshire, 1941 312 U.S. 569 Cuny, F. (1989). The use of the military in humanitarian relief. PBS. Retrieved 22 February 2012 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cuny/laptop/humanrelief.html Department of Defense (2008). Department of Defense Support to Domestic Incidents. FEMA. Retrieved 22 February 2012 from http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/DOD_SupportToDomesticIncidents.pdf Douglas, W. (1963). The Bill of Rights Is Not Enough, in The Great Rights (Edmond Cahn, ed). Ehrhart, H. & Quille, G. (2007). Civil- Military Co- Operation and Co- Ordination in the EU and in Selected Member States. Policy Department External Policies. Hammond, M. (1997). The Posse Comitatus Act: A Principle in Need of Renewal. Washington University Law Quarterly 75. Retrieved 22 February 2012 from http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-2/752-10.html Isenberg, D. (2002). Posse Comitatus: Caution Is Necessary. Center for Defense Information. Retrieved 22 February 2012 from http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/pcomitatus-pr.cfm. Issacharoff, S. & Pildes, R. (2005). Between Civil Libertarianism and Executive Unilateralism: An Institutional Process Approach to Rights During Wartime, in The Constitution in Wartime, 161. Marret, J. (2008). Complex Emergencies: Disasters, Civil- Military Relations, and Transatlantic Cooperation. Disaster Governance. Retrieved 22 February 2012 from http://www.disastergovernance.net/fileadmin/gppi/RTB_book_chp18.pdf Marret, J. & Brimmer, E. (2008). Concept Paper: Civil-Military Relations in Disaster Response. Retrieved 22 February 2012 from http://www.disastergovernance.net/fileadmin/gppi/JLM_Esther_Brimmer_RTB_Concept_Paper_draft_JeanLuc_web.pdf Martin, Z. (2007). Disaster Recovery, Health Data Mgmt., 30. Mener, A. (2007). Disaster Response in the United States of America: An Analysis of the Bureaucratic and Political History of a Failing System. University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved 22 February 2012 from http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=curej&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A% Rogers, J. (2008). Third Amendment predictions in domestic disasters. Cornell University. Retrieved 22 February 2012 from http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/JLPP/upload/Rogers.pdf Rose, C. (2006). Shootin From the Hip. Times-Picayune (New Orleans), Living, at 1. Samaan, J. & Verneuil, L. (2008). Civil–Military Relations in Hurricane Katrina: A Case Study on Crisis Management in Natural Disaster Response. Disaster Governance. Retrieved 22 February 2012 from http://www.disastergovernance.net/fileadmin/gppi/RTB_book_chp22.pdf Tkacz, S. (2006). In Katrinas Wake: Rethinking the Militarys Role in Domestic Emergencies. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 15(1), 301-334 Weeks, Michael R. (2007). Organizing for Disaster: Lessons from the Military. Business Horizons. Retrieved 22 February 2012 from http://www.weeks2000.com/Files/Weeks%20-%20Organizing%20for%20Disaster%20-%20Business%20Horizons%20-%20Pre-press%20version.pdf Weston, M. (2006). Review of the Posse Comitatus Act After Hurricane Katrina. USAWC Strategy Research Project. Retrieved 22 February 2012 from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA448803 Winthorp, J. (1997). The Oklahoma City Bombing: Immediate Response Authority and Other Military Assistance to Civil Authority (MAC), Army Law, 3. Read More