The Department of Defense has prepared a guide (large pdf) for military personnel who are engaged in foreign disaster relief operations, an endeavor which arises with some frequency.
“The U.S. Government (USG) responds to approximately 70-80 natural disasters across the globe each year. In approximately 10-15 percent of these disaster responses, the Department of Defense (DoD) lends support to the overall USG effort.”
“DoD disaster assistance can range from a single aircraft delivering relief supplies, to a fullscale deployment of a brigade-size or larger task force. Though the overall percentage of disasters requiring DoD support is relatively small, these disasters tend to be crises of the largest magnitude and/or the greatest complexity.”
The new guide “offers an overarching guide and reference for military responders in disaster relief operations.” See “Department of Defense Support to Foreign Disaster Relief,” GTA-90-01-030, 13 July 2011.
While it seems that the current political climate may not incentivize the use of evidence-based data sources for decision making, those of us who are passionate about ensuring results for the American people will continue to firmly stand on the belief that learning agendas are a crucial component to successfully navigate a changing future.
In recent months, we’ve seen much of these decades’ worth of progress erased. Contracts for evaluations of government programs were canceled, FFRDCs have been forced to lay off staff, and federal advisory committees have been disbanded.
This report outlines a framework relying on “Cooperative Technical Means” for effective arms control verification based on remote sensing, avoiding on-site inspections but maintaining a level of transparency that allows for immediate detection of changes in nuclear posture or a significant build-up above agreed limits.
At a recent workshop, we explored the nature of trust in specific government functions, the risk and implications of breaking trust in those systems, and how we’d known we were getting close to specific trust breaking points.