In our NATO CMDR course (offered through theUniversity of California Irvine), we have had vibrant discussions with ourstudents on a number of topics. One concerned the use of militaryforces in responding to emergencies. This discussion revealed a growingexpectation of increased and systematic military involvement in responding to disasters(natural or human-induced) and threats to security. With their efficiency andorganization, military forces can contribute effectively to response efforts.Yet such intervention is not without its issues, which need to be carefullyweighed against its necessity and effectiveness.  

In many nations, the military has anestablished role in responding to emergencies. As one Italian 
white paper puts it, "The armed forces contribute to the safeguardingof free institutions and perform specific tasks in circumstances of publiccalamity and in other cases of extraordinary need and urgency." Ofcourse, the same document also states that the military’s most important tasksare "The defense of the national territory and work for the achievementof international peace and security.” That said, military forces are viablemeans for responding to emergencies. The problem is that in countrieswhere a culture of emergency prevails, this ends up becoming anorm.  

In recent years, potential terroristtargets, such as city streets, railway stations, airports, subway stations,embassies and public buildings, have become sites of permanently deployedmilitary resources and soldiers as part of "safer society"operations; in sum, it has become a norm. This has occurred amidst defensebudget cuts over the last decade, leaving many military leaders perplexed abouthow they were to meet increased demands (the extent of which they did not evenforesee) with fewer resources. They have pointed out that emergenciespresuppose, according to international standards, "exceptional eventsnot foreseeable by the authorities" and, therefore, the use ofmilitary forces in such operations should be temporary. They also voiced manyother concerns. They worried that presenting the military to the public assubstitutes for civilian emergency personnel would risk damaging thedevelopment of a national defense culture. In turn, military personnel mightperceive this role as a demotion, which could negatively affect recruitment andmorale. Furthermore, responding to civil emergencies requires specific trainingthat military forces might not have. Even if they do, their training is moreexpensive than that of civilian personnel and their deployment more costly;this raises the specter of having to convince the public and policymakers tofinance such operations. Unfortunately, despite these points, such counsel hasgone unheeded.  

In addition to these points, there isa real danger to using the military in any peacetime emergency. One, it mightresult in civilian resources being underutilized, which might bolster themilitary at the expense of a civilian capacity. Worse, if the military gainspower vis-à-vis civilian authorities, it could underminedemocracy.   

There are additional issues. In manynations (particularly those most affected by terrorism), military personnel arebeing employed to strengthen internal security (e.g. the police). Yet suchefforts are clearly affected by the unbalanced training, equipment and use ofmilitary versus civilian personnel. Besides these, there are culturaldifferences between military and civilian personnel deployed in the sameoperational environment. Put another way, there are diverse mentality andmanagement barriers to overcome; even though the two parties have the samedirection and goal, the actual essence of these is sometimes "lost intranslation" due to different approaches and personalities. 

This is not to say these issuescannot be addressed; effective cooperation between civilian and militarypersonnel in emergency response is possible. The most useful means for ensuringthis are joint civilian/military emergency exercises. These build familiarityand allow for working through differences before there is a real emergency,during which there will be no time for discussion. Practicing together hasproven to be the best way to improve communication and coordination, and fordeveloping common policies and structures.  

Military forces can be as an essential tool insupporting civilian efforts to cope with emergencies, even as they remainindispensable in securing countries against external threats to nationalsecurity. There are a number of issues and challenges that must bethoughtfully addressed to ensure that they perform the former task well.