California Wildfires and Lessons from Eisenhower

Leadership, Mission, and Management Principles

On the eve of Project Overlord, General Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote a speech he never had to give. He wrote it in the event the D-Day attacks were not successful:

“Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops,” And with a realization of the unpredictable nature of weather, continued, “My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air, and the navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

Accountability. Consider General Eisenhower’s message in light of the bureaucratic backside covering coming out of California:

• My decision to attack. Not a committee or faceless bureaucracy. No claims of being unaware. No excuses.

• If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone. Accepting the consequences of his decision.

In an era of hyper-partisan politics and the dying gasps of a failed established media ecosystem, the beautiful state of California is scarred by wildfires and untold numbers lose their homes. What can be learned?

Let’s stipulate that grave risks of wildfire occur naturally in California. California’s climate and terrain make it ideal for burning. Everyone who has lived in California knows the lush greenery of the wet season soon becomes dry fuel for wildfires. It doesn’t take much of a spark to turn a tranquil day into life-threatening terror. Winds, especially Santa Ana winds, can send flame and sparks to other areas of dry vegetation. It’s a known problem.

This column is not going to debate climate change. However, consider that at one time in the late 19^th century the official climate policy of the United States government was based on the notion that “rain follows the plow.” That justification for destroying the grasslands of the Midwest was based on a climate theory so wrong it was catastrophic. Although it helped land barons and railroads gather up more territory. That history gives rise to both the conclusion that human action can make weather worse and the notion that the complex models for weather and climate are just that – complex models where one variable change can throw off the entire conclusion. Not to mention nefarious motivations for promoting a particular set of conclusions.

As a fiercely nonpartisan commentator, I am looking for the places where there is agreement. So far, there are three:

1. There wasn’t enough water where needed to fight the fire. Hydrants were dry.

2. Uncleared deadwood and vegetation supplied fuel to the fires.

3. Extremely heavy Santa Ana winds contributed to the historic scope of this disaster.

Notice that of the three causes, only one is beyond the reach of policy implications, i.e., the annual Santa Ana winds were much stronger this year.

NOTHING COULD BE DONE

Consider the leadership and management shown by General Eisenhower. He knew he could not control the weather, but his proactive management placed his troops into the best position to be successful. Eisenhower ensured there were sufficient numbers of trained personnel, operable machinery, and ample supplies. Contrast with reports from Los Angeles Fire Department Chief Kristin Crowley, revealing correspondence wherein she begged for more personnel and showed the need for 62 more fire stations. Chief Crowley warned that budget cuts would devastate fire safety and detailed that laying off mechanics left 100 pieces of equipment offline. LAFD also claims they were unaware the Santa Ynez reservoir had none of its 117-million-gallon capacity for a vital firefighting supply, i.e., water.

Succinctly, Crowley answered, “Yes,” when asked if the City of Los Angeles failed her and her department. Naturally, in days following, the established legacy media attempted to sidestep the impact of government failure by asking the chief about whether a specific $17.6 million budget cut made the difference in stopping the current round of wildfires. An honest or competent press would have asked about the many diversions of public safety funds and attention given to other pet projects. These media outlets, the same ones who strained to convince America that “only a handful” of apartment buildings in Aurora, Colorado under the control of violent South American gangs wasn’t a problem, are now building a narrative around a single element of the sustained mission failure at the state and local level. It’s the “nothing could be done” canard, dressed up to look like all is well and gosh, Donald Trump is the problem. A better question would be, “How many homes could have been saved with the firefighters, equipment and water that was slashed from the budget?”

To further unravel the “nothing could be done” narrative, The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, January 13^th that, under new NWS’ warnings of catastrophic, potentially hurricane force winds coming, Chief Crowley pre-positioned engine strike teams and task forces, reinforced fire control lines around the current fires, cleared dry brush from surviving structures, and staged resources in areas where new fires could ignite. The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services also pre-positioned additional equipment. The addition of personnel streaming in from other locales to fight the existing blazes increase the chance for success even if conditions prevented firefighting aircraft from operating. The mid-disaster action was almost like Ike in organizing sufficient numbers of trained personnel, operable machinery, and ample supplies.

What a contrast in actions after the misery of losses from fire hurt so many versus the direction of LAFD in recent times. Consider the quote, by LAFD Assistant Chief Kristine Larson, that should live in infamy, “Am I able to carry your husband out of a fire? He got himself in the wrong place if I have to carry him out of a fire." No one had that response on their bingo card. Larson is suggesting that a person sleeping in bed and trapped by a fire only has themselves to blame. Is there any better evidence that an essential municipal service has lost its priorities? What type of environment, and what type of superiors would accept that type of statement? Larson would not be (in)famous today had she been relieved of command immediately upon making the statement.

GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM

What are you not hearing from California Governor Gavin Newsom? Newsom, a hearty advocate of the risks of climate change, should have been able to tick off a long list of actions he took in advance of the fire. You know, like Florida Governor Desantis pre-positioning crews to deal with power outages and every Northern state governor before blizzard season.

Maybe Governor Newsom, like many purely political types without a scintilla of real-world experience, knows he can safely mouth divisive nonsense because he has access to data. For example, facts show that rainfall in California hasn’t changed much in 144 years of tracking.

To be fair, Governor Newsom may be a victim of a new era of accountability. He came to power in an age where defeats are blamed on bad messaging, and destruction of cities captioned as “fiery but mostly peaceful.”

Please recall when Donald Trump was ridiculed for saying forest floors should be tended to, and further mocked for suggesting forest floors should be raked. From Newsom’s new web site to fight disinformation, this post on January 8th:

FACT: The budget for managing the forest (AKA “raking the forest”) is now TEN TIMES larger than it was when the Governor Newsom took office. It was a $200 million annual budget in 2018. The state has now invested $2 billion, in addition to the $200 million annually.

Apparently forest floor raking is now an acceptable activity. Maybe had Mr. Newsom heard Mr. Trump’s interview with Joe Rogan many months ago, he would know the incoming president also said that water in the wrong places and untended forests was going to have severe consequences at some point. Instead, the governor was leading the charge to “Trump-Proof” (his choice of language) California.

MAYOR KAREN BASS

Of course, there is much data beyond rainfall measurements. Which is why on January 2nd, the National Weather Service’s Los Angeles office held a rare press conference to warn of extreme fire risk. Boldy going where no leader has dared to venture, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass quickly decamped on a junket to West Africa. The next day, NWS announced a fire weather watch that quickly morphed into urgent messages about life-threatening, destructive, widespread windstorms that had drawn a bullseye on Los Angeles.

As the conflagration spread, Bass made her way back to California, using both commercial and military aircraft. Rushing to the microphone, Bass detailed how she was phoning it in to fulfill her job as mayor. If you are elected in a state where dining at the French Laundry during a crisis is not seen as disqualifying for office, then this all makes sense.

CALIFORNIA NEEDS AN EISENHOWER

Eisenhower was successful because he focused on the mission, calculated the costs, and proactively managed every controllable variable. There is no sane argument that the governments of California and Los Angeles did anything similar. The first step in fixing a problem is to acknowledge that you have a problem. It is up to the people of California, and the Los Angeles area in particular, to make the change.

Ask your friends and neighbors, which would be better:

• Governor Newsom writing to Janisse Quinones (CEO and Chief Engineer at Los Angels Department of Water and Power) and Mark Pastrella (Director of the LA County Public Works) asking them how they failed, as he has done in recent days, or

• A year ago, asking them how they plan to handle a catastrophic fire emergency and where there are gaps, what personnel, equipment and supplies are required to ensure public safety?

Then there are the following actual quotes from various California officials juxtaposed with fictional sarcasm about what Eisenhower did not write in his mission failure note:

• We have water but we don’t have enough. We had bullets, we just didn’t have enough.

• We couldn’t pump water uphill. We didn’t plan for the cliffs on the beaches of Normandy.

• “I want to make sure that you understand there's water on the trunk line, it just cannot get up the hill because we cannot fill the tanks fast enough,” Quiñones said. I want to make sure you understand we had many bombs back at bases in England, we just couldn’t get them to the airplanes.”

• It wasn’t the water supply. It was stress on the system. It wasn’t the battle plan; we didn’t think the Nazis would shoot back.

Dwight D. Eisenhower went on to be a two-term President of the United States. Among his accomplishments was building the infrastructure of the interstate highway system. Gavin Newsom’s wants to lead a Marshall Plan effort to restore California. In this pivotal moment in history, perhaps California voters will send Mr. Newsom to a future he is better suited for. Forming a hair band with Justin Trudeau would be an option.

Onward.