No Enemies for Emergency Managers
Counterpoints to the idea of expanding civil defense against a foreign threat.
We recently read and reviewed a piece on expanding the U.S. National Preparedness frameworks, proposing to add a sixth framework for civil defense. Actually, the proposal was for a newer version of civil defense that what the United States has historically experienced. This framework, as designed by author Dr. George M. Schwartz, would potentially:
Describe core capabilities needed to defend the homeland during war;
Align key roles and responsibilities for defending the homeland and delivering civil defense capabilities;
Develop coordinating structures that will enable cooperation among stakeholders;
Lay a foundation for further operational planning and coordination to synchronize defense efforts within the whole community and across the other mission areas, particularly prevention.
As professional Emergency Managers, we have some major reservations about this idea, especially in the context of application by any local emergency manager and emergency management entity. In this same spirit, the idea of an expanded civil defense could be part of an independent Homeland Security entity, but it also bolsters the argument to separate the Emergency Management (EM) roles, responsibilities, etc. from the Homeland Security ones. In other words, we are not against the concept as a whole (expanding capabilities within the homeland for homeland security), just that it does not fall into the roles and responsibilities of professional Emergency Management, as we understand it to be today.
And let’s be clear about two major points, up front:
