Scout’s Obsession with the GAO: Why plan here for what’s over there

The GAO released a report titled “Actions Needed to Identify National
Guard Domestic Equipment Requirements and Readiness”
in which we learn
that planning to use the National Guard domestically in large-scale terrorist events
and natural disasters is lacking as well as the National Guard’s
equipment readiness for such domestic events.

Here is what the GAO said regarding planning…

 The Homeland Security Council has developed 15 catastrophic

 scenarios to guide federal and state governments in planning their

 response activities.While DOD is responsible for equipping the Guard

 for its federal missions and states plan for the National Guard’€™s

 activities within their borders, neither is comprehensively planning

 for the Guard’€’s role in responding to events like the national

 planning scenarios that may involve more than one state and be

 federally funded.Such planning has not been completed primarily

 because there is no formal mechanism for facilitating planning for

 the Guard’€™s role in large-scale events.

That’s reassuring.

The GAO recommended that the the National Guard Bureau’€™s charter and its
civil support regulations be revised to define its role in facilitating
state planning for multistate events.

However the DoD did not concur
claiming the function already exists in the Charter and that it is
inappropriate for the Chief of the NG Bureau to “coordinate directly
with other Federal agencies” as that is the responsibility of the
Secretary of Defense and Combatant Commanders.

So much for planning.

And related to that is the readiness issue given
if you don’t know what you need well you go to the disaster with what ya
got.

As regards the NG’s readiness the GAO reported…

 DOD does not routinely measure or report to Congress the equipment

 readiness of nondeployed National Guard forces for domestic

 missions.DOD’€™s legacy readiness reporting system and its annual

 National Guard equipping report to Congress address warfighting

 readiness but do not address the Guard’€™s domestic missions.

On average, states and territories had about 50 percent of their
authorized inventory
of dual-use equipment available for domestic
missions. (dual use=authorized for warfighting missions but could be
highly useful in responding to domestic events). The map below shows the
percentage for each state and territory. Note that Washington D.C. is
one of the lowest at 35.6%
gao map 3

(for larger image go to page 31 of Pdf linked above)

The GAO recommended…

 

One thought on “Scout’s Obsession with the GAO: Why plan here for what’s over there

  1. pansypoo says:

    well now, i guess the non-existant guard(what percentage of them are in iWaq?) will have to do it old school. like Clara Barton had to. without her organization skills. better hope the big one doesn’t hit CA before 08′.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: