According To Sylves 2015, Emergency Management Services Shou

According To Sylves 2015 Emergency Management Services Should Be Han

According to Sylves (2015), emergency management services should primarily be handled by local agencies and governmental organizations. These entities play a crucial role in assisting citizens before resorting to outside agencies, including but not limited to the National Guard. Sylves advocates for the use of the Posse Comitatus Act to support local and state government agencies in domestic emergencies. The National Guard's services may be mobilized when necessary to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate significant property damage. The Guard responds under state control when directed by appropriate state authorities.

Upon declaration of an emergency, the National Guard serves local, state, and federal agencies in managing natural and man-made disasters (Sylves, 2015). It is vital for the Guard to coordinate efforts with the Incident Manager, as this cooperation helps to solidify mutual aid agreements and promote cohesiveness within the National Incident Management System (NIMS) framework. Establishing a collective mission between agencies reduces vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure and enhances leadership effectiveness. Sylves emphasizes that understanding and prioritizing risks are essential assets for emergency managers in recovering from damages and disruptions during disasters.

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there has been a significant shift in protocols, positioning the National Guard as America's first line of defense against homeland threats and disasters related to terrorism. Homeland Defense (2003) highlighted that the global landscape changed post-9/11, compelling the United States to modify its strategies to protect its citizens and homeland. President George W. Bush stated, “We should be protected against terrorist threats both within our homelands and abroad,” underscoring the importance of military support in preserving sovereignty. Consequently, the Department of Defense (DOD) has developed strategic initiatives focusing on homeland security.

Goss (2006) underscored the need for the military to prepare to counter threats domestically and internationally. The Department of Defense has been tasked with training for various scenarios, including drug interdiction, safeguarding nuclear materials, and responding to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The National Guard remains prepared for deployment to assist during natural disasters or man-made events. The Guard plays a critical role within the National Response Framework, coordinating among federal, state, and local agencies to ensure a unified response to any crisis (National Response Framework, 2008, p. 51). An illustrative example of military involvement in domestic emergencies was during the Ebola outbreak in 2014.

The Ebola outbreak in West Africa prompted a swift U.S. military response, with approximately 3,000 personnel deployed to assist in homeland health efforts. These steps aimed to mitigate the crisis at local and state levels, with early prevention efforts allowing health professionals to maintain and strengthen public health priorities. Siedner (2015) emphasized that early intervention not only supports response efforts but also helps conserve limited resources during catastrophic crises. This underscores the importance of integrating military and civilian agencies in preparedness and response plans to enhance overall resilience against emergency threats.

Paper For Above instruction

Emergency management services are a critical component of national safety infrastructure, playing an essential role in mitigating, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters. Historically, local agencies and governmental organizations have been prioritizers of emergency response efforts, largely because they are most familiar with local hazards, resources, and needs (Sylves, 2015). Sylves (2015) advocates that these local entities should lead initial emergency responses, with external agencies like the National Guard providing supplementary support when required. This approach ensures a rapid, coordinated, and efficient response geared toward saving lives and minimizing property damage.

Central to this coordination is the legal and operational framework established by the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of federal military forces in domestic law enforcement but allows for the National Guard to be mobilized under state control for emergency purposes (Sylves, 20115). The Guard's ability to respond under state authority offers flexibility and immediacy, crucial in the early stages of disaster management. When an emergency is declared, the National Guard collaborates with local, state, and federal agencies, emphasizing the importance of integration within structures like the National Incident Management System (NIMS). Such collaboration enhances mutual aid, resource sharing, and strategic planning, which are vital for comprehensive emergency response (Sylves, 2015).

Furthermore, understanding and managing risks are essential for effective disaster recovery. Sylves underscores that recognizing vulnerabilities within infrastructure and leadership allows emergency managers to prioritize actions, allocate resources efficiently, and develop resilient recovery strategies. Proper risk assessment informs decision-making, minimizes potential damage, and expedites recovery efforts. The integration of local agencies and the National Guard under a unified command structure reduces redundancies, enhances communication, and facilitates a swift response (Sylves, 2015).

The role of the National Guard expanded significantly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, reflecting a shift toward viewing the Guard as a frontline defense mechanism against homeland threats, including terrorism. Homeland Defense (2003) posited that the global security environment had fundamentally changed, necessitating adaptations in U.S. security policies. President George W. Bush emphasized the importance of military strength in safeguarding sovereignty and protecting the homeland, both domestically and abroad (Homeland Defense, 2003). This perspective led to a strategic realignment within the Department of Defense (DOD), focusing more on homeland defense missions alongside traditional military operations.

Goss (2006) elaborated on this strategic shift, stressing the importance of preparing the military to counter diverse threats, including WMD, drug trafficking, and other homeland security issues. Training programs now incorporate scenarios for domestic military operations, emphasizing readiness for incidents like nuclear threats and biological attacks. The National Guard remains an integral element of this strategy, poised to deploy quickly in response to disasters or security threats (Goss, 2006). Such rapid deployment capabilities are vital for maintaining national resilience and ensuring that the U.S. can respond effectively to both natural and human-made crises.

The importance of a cohesive and prepared force was demonstrated during the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. The U.S. government deployed approximately 3,000 military personnel to assist in domestic health crises related to Ebola, reflecting a conscious strategy of leveraging military resources in public health emergencies (Siedner, 2015). Their involvement ranged from logistics and transportation to medical support, illustrating how military readiness enhances civilian response capabilities. Early preventive actions and resource allocation by the military and civilian agencies minimized the impact of such health crises, setting a precedent for future integrated emergency responses.

In conclusion, effective emergency management in the United States relies on a layered approach that emphasizes local agency leadership supplemented by the strategic deployment of the National Guard and military assets. Sylves (2015) advocates for strong coordination, risk management, and legal frameworks to optimize response efforts. The evolution of homeland security post-9/11 underscores the importance of preparedness, inter-agency collaboration, and rapid deployment capabilities. These components are essential for protecting citizens, infrastructure, and national sovereignty against a broad spectrum of threats, ensuring that emergency responses are swift, cohesive, and effective in safeguarding public safety and promoting resilience.

References

• Goss, T. (2006). "Who's in Charge?" Homeland Security Affairs, 2(1).
• Homeland Defense: Old Force Structures for New Missions? (2003). National Response Framework. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
• Siedner, M. J. (2015). Strengthening the detection of and early response to public health emergencies: Lesson from the West African Ebola epidemic. PLoS Medicine, 12(3).
• Sylves, R. (2015). Disaster policy and politics: Emergency management and homeland security (2nd ed.). CQ Press.
• National Response Framework. (2008). U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
• Additional scholarly sources on emergency response, military deployment, and homeland security strategies.