>>And I think that was the matter of contention - I've read somewhere that there was a quick and fierce dispute among the Luisiana top brass (both political and Guard) and that they had their own reasons why they didn't want to turn the reins over to the feds. OTOH, I've also read that this turning over of the power is not required by law, i.e. the feds miserpreted it, again for their own reasons. I wish someone came up with a clear answer to this.
>
>
>Once again, you make my point. If something is going to run efficiently, it needs to have a unified command. Not infighting. IMHO, the LA politicians should be shot. They delayed the help because they had political agendas. It's like they say in the army; lead, follow or get out of the way!

So what's wrong with state staying in command? Why would the feds insist on doing nothing until they take the reins? Don't tell me the LA NGuard is disorganized - there wouldn't be so many of them on mission outside if they were bad. And they have the advantage of being local and knowing the terrain, which IMO makes them more fit to lead.

Again, I'd love to have a clear answer as to what's in the law. It was posted somewhere, but I lost the link. I only remember that there was something crucial there which was misinterpreted by the feds.