Other Countries Are Mobilizing Militaries Against the Coronavirus Epidemic: The United States Is Not

This is the tenth in a series of blog posts beginning on February 4, 2020 focused on judicial systems’ response to the coronavirus pandemic -- SARS-CoV-2 is its technical name; Covid-19 is the disease it causes --and the justice systems’ active participation in a whole-of-society-approach (WOSA) to national security and safety threats such as Covid-19.


The United States today passed the grim milestone of 1,000 deaths from the Covid-19 pandemic. Conspicuously absent from the battle are the United States armed forces in a whole-of-society response.


Militaries Marshalled Around the World


Countries around the world are marshalling the capabilities of their armed forces to combat the coronavirus epidemic including China, Italy, Spain, France, Israel, Hungary, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, and Peru (see the Economist online edition of March 23rd). Other countries are likely to follow suit. Armed forces  are being deployed to quarantine whole cities, patrol the streets, and enforce lockdowns; build temporary hospitals; tap their stockpiles of vital medical supplies and equipment including ventilators, respirators, and personal protective gear; manage large logistical operations; deploy its  manpower and ground and air transportation  to move quickly large amounts of provisions  from one place to another (in the United States, the Pentagon’s Transportation Command conducts more than 1,900 air missions and 10,000 ground shipments in an average week); and deploy  military doctors and nurses for more routine cases to free up hospitals for treating Covid-19 cases. 


Lack of Clear and Coordinated U.S. Federal Response


As I decried in the last blog post on March 23 (Absence of the U.S. Military in the Fight to Mitigate the Covid-19 Pandemic), the federal government of  United States is not following suit. It generally defers to states for emergency responses in matters of public health and policing. On a telephone call with state governors, President Donald Trump recently urged them to try getting desperately needed medical supplies themselves. Commentators on news shows called the lack of clear and coordinated federal response to the pandemic reckless and irresponsible.  

Yes, National Guard units in at least six states have been deployed to combat the pandemic.  But the designation “national” for these units may be misleading, however. There is a difference between the National Guard and the “state” National Guard – particularly, who funds them and who controls them. The state guard is completely funded and controlled by the states. The National Guard is both state and federally funded but commanded by the federal government.


A Huge Gap Left Open


Again, the absence of the U.S. armed forces leaves a huge gap in a whole-of-society response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The obvious deficiency is the lack of needed resources the regular armed forces could bring to the frontlines to combat the epidemic. Another troubling development  is the frantic search and competition among states that has created a bidding war that is likely to drive up prices for provisions and potentially squeeze out of immediate assistance for areas around the country hardest hit, like New York City, the epicenter of the pandemic.

In a news conference yesterday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo appealed to other states not yet affected as severely as New York City, the epicenter of the epidemic, to send ventilators and other supplies to New York. He promised to reciprocate as the pandemic spreads to those states. Uncoordinated and difficult to track supply chains of medical equipment and provisions with lots of sellers and buyers, including the federal and state governments, private hospitals, and universities, leave officials charged with giving health care workers the tools to combat the epidemic are left short and empty handed, thwarted by competing uncoordinated interests.

____________________

All this cries out not only for a clear and coordinated response by the White House, but the immediate deployment of all five branches of the U.S. military -- the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. 


Copyright CourtMetrics 2020 or rights reserved.

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro
Read more

The “What Ifs” Along the Road in the Quest of a Justice Index

What if we could draw an indicator of the “health” of the justice systems throughout the United States – a Justice Index - from readily available public data that is impartial, reliable, objective and comparable, let’s say the amount of time that criminal defendants spend in custody without a trial, or even without any access to legal or justice services? Or the bail amounts imposed on misdemeanor defendants?   This kind of a measure would not be perfect – no measure is – but it would be something, better than nothing. It would address questions of fairness and efficient use of public resources. That is, a criminal defendant languishing in jail awaiting trial suffers, at the least, a delay in justice. He or she is also occupying a jail bed and spending taxpayers’ money. What if we then join this measure with another meaningful indicator of the health of our justice systems in counties and states, let’s say the degree to which jurisdictions prosecute domestic violence cases.
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1
Read more