Paradigm Shift: Training the Military for Emergency Relief
By Ron Kuban, PhD
Canada’s military has a long tradition of responding to natural calamities in
support of local (i.e., civil) authorities. During the last decade alone, the military
responded to many natural disasters and at the same time worked to enhance its
response capacity to such disasters outside Canada’s boundaries. To its credit,
whenever it responded its contribution was significant. Nevertheless,
occasionally its ability to operate at full capacity was limited by its out-of-date or
inappropriate operational paradigm. Many reasons, including the growing
complexity of emergency management, require the military to review and adapt
its emergency-response paradigm.
Research conducted during the last two decades and across many disciplines,
confirmed time and again that our world is confronting disasters with greater
intensity and frequency. On an average, the number of fatalities per disaster is
declining, but the extent and cost of other damages (i.e., property, infrastructure,
or the environment) are escalating exponentially. Not surprisingly, interest and
activity regarding hazard prediction and mitigation, emergency preparedness,
disaster management, and recovery have intensified.
The events of September 11, 2001, accelerated the evolution of emergency
management. Security is now a significant component of emergency planning or
response, sometimes surpassing the traditional preparedness of civil authorities
for natural or technological disasters. That change alone, is bringing military and
paramilitary services greater visibility within the emergency management
community and the public.
The continuing (and escalating) demand for military services is understandable.
The military delivers a relative wealth of resources - many of them unique,
through a disciplined organization that often reacts with speed, precision, and
dogged commitment to stated objectives. The credibility and “presence” of
military personnel is often a welcome sight at times of chaos, operational fatigue
by others, and loss of hope by the general public. Nevertheless, these same
operational strengths also serve as potential barriers to the integration or
adaptation of military operations to meet evolving conditions or needs at local
level.
Generally speaking, military forces represent a well defined and closed system,
whose members operate within hierarchical organization structure, with clearly
defined roles and expectations. They often prefer to operate independently and
are understandably reluctant to lose control over their resources, activities, and
information. In a way, one may make the same claim of non-military (i.e., civilian)
organizations. However, the intensity or emphasis of these characteristics is
