Читать книгу Emergency Incident Management Systems - Mark Warnick S., Louis N. Molino Sr - Страница 18

While the Revolutionary War may have played a role in helping to shape and form modern‐day IMS methods, later military campaigns, plus research, and trial and error implementations have also been a contributor to modern‐day IMS methods. Since the days of caveman, different countries and different regions have had disagreements. Those disagreements have (in some instances) grown into fights; some of those fights have gone even further and developed into wars (Molino, 2006).

As more wars developed, those who were leading and managing their assigned troops had a seemingly endless mission. That mission was to better their ability to actively engage in, and effectively win the battle, or the entire war. In the furtherance of that mission, the science of war has evolved. In some modern‐day circles, it has become known as the Art of War, and it is often steeped in the writings of Sun Tzu. In the book The Art of War, written during fifth century, Tzu (republished 1772) talks about various facets that are needed to win a war. Many of those facets have traversed their way into modern combat and into the modern‐day IMS methods.

Much of the art of war used today is loosely based on, and revolves around, four distinctive elements that assist in a war's management. Those elements are command, control, coordination, and communications, often known in the US Military as C4. As is common with the military, many acronyms are related to C‐classifications that are often used. Included in these classifications are

 C2: Relates only to Command and Control

 C2I: Command, Control, and Intelligence

 C2ISR: C2I plus Surveillance and Reconnaissance

 C3: Command, Control, and Communication

 C3I: Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence

 C4: Command, Control, Communications, and Collaboration

 C4I: Command, Control, Communications, and Collaboration plus intelligence

 C5I: Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Collaboration, and Intelligence

As can be seen from the C classifications above, some military officials also use the acronym C4I. The I in this acronym represents the element of intelligence. Intelligence is an important aspect that is often overlooked in public safety. This holds especially true when a crime was committed, or the incident involved a terrorist attack. Many would argue that in the post 9/11 era, this element is also an emergency services/public safety function and concern, which it is. However, the intelligence aspect of IMS methods, more specifically the ICS method, will be discussed in Chapter 12.

In looking at the military connection to IMS, the same C‐classifications are equally important to the military as they are to first responders. In most instances, the C4 and the C4I are applicable in most modern‐day IMS method situations. Suffice it to say that the same elements are needed to tackle and conquer nearly any type of emergency response situation. Consider the fact that public safety, whether fire agencies, law enforcement agencies, or EMS agencies are paramilitary organizations.

As we look at the military connection, we need to realize that the US military has evolved from men with French Muskets and swords (often marching by foot or on horseback) to the most sophisticated military force on the planet. These substantially more agile military units and branches now manage major wars that cover a multitude of geographical locations, sometimes even in different countries. The same concepts loosely apply to public safety.

Public safety agencies of the past would often tackle one incident, or one disaster, at a time. In more recent years, public safety agencies have evolved, and most are capable of monitoring, responding to, and making a difference through operational response for multiple ongoing incidents at the same time.

If you look at the organizational chart of a military organization, you can plainly see that there is a clear and apparent chain of command. When we talk about chain of command in this sense, we are talking about an official ladder of authority that declares who is in charge, and who a subordinate must approach to obtain permission for nearly anything they want to do in an official capacity. This chain of command creates leadership accountability.

While still writing about leadership accountability, it is important to realize that having leadership accountability is important in both the military and in public safety. Knowing who gave what order can be critical in correcting mistakes, and the military has known this since military conflicts have existed. It is critical to remember that no matter who we are, there is always a chain of command. Everyone has someone to report to, and that person usually holds them accountable for their actions.

Even if we look at the top dog in the military, the generals report to higher‐ranking generals, the higher‐ranking generals must report to the Secretary of Defense, who in turn reports to the President. You may think that the President reports to nobody, but you would be wrong. The President reports to the people of the United States, and he/she also reports to other world leaders when it comes to actions that may destabilize a region and various other issues. This is a basic example of the chain of command and that everyone has someone they report to.

If we put this chain of command in context to public safety, we can see that it holds true in all paramilitary organizations. In a fire department organization, firefighters report to lieutenants, who report to captains, who report to the fire chief (or another officer between themselves and the fire chief), the fire chief reports to the mayor, and the mayor reports to the city council and the citizens. Similarly, officer report to the shift commander in a law enforcement agency, who reports to the police chief. The police chief reports to the mayor who reports to the city councils and the citizens they serve.

In a military organizational chart, you can also see that there is a centralized command that directs “area” commanders to undertake tasks based on the conditions they are facing. They plan, and they call for mutual aid from another branch (or even the same branch) of military, and they work in teams, accomplishing different tasks that all lead to the greater good of the mission for which they are on. In some instances, they may even coordinate with foreign entities, in an effort to command, collaborate, coordinate, and communicate so that they can meet the goal of an agreed‐upon outcome.

We only need to think about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to prove the point that the 4CI is needed. Whenever a ground team falls under heavy enemy fire, they call for assistance. The type of assistance they may receive can vary, but there is definitely a multitude of resources at their disposal. If a group of infantrymen are pinned down by small arms fire and/or mortar shells, they make a radio call to their command and advise them of their situation, possibly even identifying the resources that they think are needed. When these infantrymen request help, they give the location (coordinates) of where they are, and the location of where the enemy is. With that information, the commander can look to all branches of service and decide who is best suited to support the mission and provide support to these infantrymen. The command officer may determine that airstrikes from fixed wing aircraft are needed, so they may look at resources from the Navy, the Marine Corp, or the Air Force. They may decide that helicopters with airstrike capabilities are needed, so they may look to the Army, the Marine Corp, or the Navy may be needed. Perhaps the fixed wing and helicopter resources of the United States are stretched thin, and they need to ask for assistance from an ally such as the British, the Australians, or the French. Then again, the command officer may believe that ground troops are needed, and they need to be brought in by helicopter. In some instances, this may require multiple agencies (or even countries) because the individuals being brought in may be Army Rangers being brought in by Marine Corp or Navy Helicopters, or perhaps another country has the needed resources closer. In all of these instances, organizing the response from multiple entities, or perhaps even multiple countries can and does save lives. What if the response is a combination of field artillery, ground troops being brought in by helicopter, and air strikes, all delivered to the same incident? In thinking about the mutual aid, including the coordination, cooperation, and communications, we can begin to imagine how the military connection has played a role in the IMS methods that emergency services use.

Much like the military, emergency services in the United States has also evolved. The days of a single constable patrolling, or a bucket brigade to extinguish fires in a large city have developed into modern‐day police forces with state‐of‐the‐art equipment. We also see that many fire departments can do more with the state‐of‐the‐art equipment that floods the market every year. This equipment allows firefighters to go beyond what was ever imagined in the early years of our country. These entities along with other contemporary delivery systems have provided a multitude of emergency response services to the citizens they serve.

Both the military and public safety utilizes new technological advances in their work, which in turn provides a safer and more complete response. In both the military and in emergency services, the technological revolution has begun to positively affect what these entities can do, at an amazing rate. The fact remains that technology by itself does not win a war, nor does technology physically respond to everyday emergencies. If we do not have a basic foundation to manage an incident, then all of the technological advances in the world may as well be rendered useless. Without humans to work alongside that technology, it is nothing more than a boat anchor.

The same holds true to major events like the 11 September 2001, Hurricane Katrina, or the tornado that devastated Joplin, MO. It was not technology that made a substantial difference, but rather men and women who use that technology and who perform the tasks that mitigate the incident. It does not matter if individuals are fighting a war or responding to a public safety emergency, without the human aspect of response, the technology is useless. On the other hand, in order for those men and women to do their jobs safely, efficiently, and effectively, they need these advanced tools and technology. The pair goes hand in hand, and the tools are part of the resources that both the military and public safety must manage during an incident.

When we talk about tools in public safety, we think of items like handcuffs, Kevlar vests, axes, hose, and protective gear, but not all tools are forged out of steel. Some tools are concepts and operations systems that allow the military and first responders to provide control in the midst of chaos. This is necessary whether they are engaged in war or a responding to a disaster.

Their primary tool to respond to any incident is not a weapon, nor is it a fire engine, but rather the concepts that has become known as an IMS. If we deliver equipment and the people to a war (or disaster), we need to realize that if we do not manage the response to the incident, that response may be reminiscent of the Keystone Cops. No matter how many individuals and/or how many millions or billions of dollars of equipment that arrives, it would be a futile attempt if we do not provide an organized response that manages the human responders.

To prove the utility of the IMS, a modern‐day comparison is in order. Thinking about the military, if the management of ground troops and airstrikes are not properly managed, the ground troops could move into enemy territory only to suffer losses due to airstrikes from their own country. These ground troops could be accidently killed by those trying to reach the same objective. The same holds true in modern‐day policing. If a building is being entered and there is not resource management to cover all exits, the perpetrator could escape through an exit that has no police presence. Only through organizing all aspects of a response will the commanding officer know that every exit is properly guarded.

Looking at the United States, we have proven repeatedly that our military might is one of the best on the planet. We have both the tactics and the technology that leave other nations envious of our power, yet the true reason for the United States' military success is not technology. The success that we enjoy is based on a mission‐oriented, goal‐driven mindset that is instilled in our leaders. This mindset is also reflected in the workers of the emergency services community in the United States (and abroad).

Technology is only a tool in a collective toolbox for our military. Much of that same technology is used on a daily basis in emergency response activities. The military of the twenty‐first century has had to deal with technological leaps that are unprecedented in history. These leaps have undoubtedly caused many headaches and unseen problems that were unknown.

These same technological advances have been the cause of many problems to military leaders of the past. Modern warfare requires technology to become bigger and better, faster and stronger, but the warrior on the ground remains the most important part of war. Technology will allow him to win war with greater speed and ease, provided that the technology is managed and integrated into the plan of attack. Even with technology, it is the soldier on the ground fighting, and sometimes dying, in war that makes the true difference.

The same holds true in respect to emergency responders. It is not the soldier, but the firefighter, the police officers, the emergency managers, and the paramedic or Emergency Medical Technician's (EMT's) that serve their country on the home front. Technology will not, and cannot, do their jobs for them; it does however allow them to do their jobs in a more proficient manner and to undertake their tasks more efficiently. The men and women of emergency services make up the front line of Homeland Defense.

As we look back over time, it is plain to see that many of the fathers of incident command and incident management system had military backgrounds. They could see the obvious and sometime the unobvious needs of their emergency response agencies. They began to mold and modify military command and control structures learned while serving their country and developed those tools into systems that would allow their agencies to better respond to individuals who needed assistance during a time of crisis.

These individuals first adopted, then adapted, military command philosophy to be used in their day‐to‐day response activities as first responders. This adaptation process was not seamless nor was it an overnight success. Even after many years of honing these systems, incident management systems are still evolving, which creates a never‐ending process. The emergency services community looks to the military for guidance in ever‐increasing demands for response to incidents, and they rely on lessons learned in their own responses. The concepts that drive both emergency services incident management theory and military theories of tactical responses are still evolving. Often, those changes and improvements are on similar tracks, and for the most part, they always have been.

The beginnings of the modern‐day Incident Management Systems for public safety were born almost simultaneously in vastly different areas. They were developed for a wide and somewhat diverse array of reasons with one common goal. That goal was to better serve the needs of the community and to save lives and protect property in superior ways. Where each of these individual principals originated is still in question.