The article “Disaster Management and the Military” by E.W. Anderson (1994) explores the evolving role of the military in global disaster management amid an increasing frequency of disasters and the changing geopolitical landscape following the Cold War. As the world witnesses a surge in both natural and complex disasters—driven by human vulnerability and environmental degradation—there is growing recognition of the military’s potential contribution to relief operations.

Defining Disasters and Hazards

Dr. Anderson begins by clarifying terminology. A hazard is defined as a potential risk to human welfare, which becomes a disaster when it causes significant harm. The term environmental hazard is preferred over “natural” or “man-made” due to the increasing complexity of disasters, which often involve both natural triggers and human aggravators. A compelling example is the 1970 cyclone in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), which killed 500,000 people—an event exacerbated by governmental policies and failed warnings, illustrating how social and political conditions transform hazards into disasters.

This complexity calls for a multidisciplinary, ecological approach to studying disasters. As human activity, particularly urbanization and environmental mismanagement, increases vulnerability, disasters become more frequent and severe. Societies define phenomena as either “resources” or “hazards” based on cultural assessments, emphasizing that the perception of disaster is not universally objective but context-dependent.

Classification and Impact

Hazards can be broadly categorized into three groups:

1. Natural hazards, including meteorological, geophysical, and biological events;
2. Quasi-natural hazards, such as acidification and desertification;
3. Anthropogenic hazards, including pollution, war, and industrial accidents.

Key characteristics of hazards include intensity, duration, predictability, and response mechanisms. Not all hazards are violent; many, like drought or disease, are slow and insidious but equally damaging. Moreover, the significance of a disaster cannot be measured solely by death tolls, as the social and economic impacts vary widely between rural and urban areas, and between developed and developing nations.

Vulnerability and Preparedness

Vulnerability is shaped by three main factors: exposure, poverty, and marginalization. Importantly, poverty alone doesn’t imply vulnerability unless it is compounded by social exclusion and a lack of capacity to respond. Recognizing this, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRCRCS) developed a practical vulnerability assessment framework, classifying threats into:

1. Nature-based (e.g., earthquakes, floods),
2. Violence-based (e.g., war, conflict),
3. Socioeconomic-based (e.g., structural adjustment, epidemics).

Preparedness involves anticipating, preventing, and responding to crises, with management responsibility varying by country size. IFRCRCS emphasizes local, national, and international levels of readiness. However, many countries lack effective disaster management agencies, leaving a gap in coordinated response.

Role of the Military in Disaster Relief

With traditional military roles shrinking post-Cold War, attention has turned to their potential role in humanitarian operations. The military’s logistical capabilities—mobility, engineering, medical expertise, and command systems—make them uniquely equipped for rapid disaster response. Their ability to operate autonomously in challenging environments and coordinate across agencies can be invaluable.

The military’s involvement can vary:

• Basic support during natural disasters,
• Active partnership in large-scale emergencies,
• Cross-border humanitarian operations.

However, this role remains controversial. Critics argue that military involvement could compromise the neutrality and independence of humanitarian agencies like the Red Cross, especially in politically sensitive contexts. Nonetheless, examples like the military’s involvement in Kurdish relief in 1991 illustrate that effective collaboration with NGOs is possible.

Case Study: The Maharashtra Earthquake

The 1993 Maharashtra earthquake in India is presented as a successful case of military-led disaster response. Despite the absence of a formal disaster management agency, the Indian military, under Major General R. Mohan, quickly mobilized 15,000 personnel to the affected region. Tasks included search and rescue, medical aid, infrastructure repair, and the establishment of relief camps and communication networks. Within two weeks, the military handed over operations to civil authorities. This operation demonstrated that, under appropriate leadership and coordination, the military can be a powerful force for humanitarian response and recovery.

Coordination and Global Implications

The international disaster response system is currently fragmented. Relief efforts from the UN, Red Cross, NGOs, and national charities often lack coordination, resulting in inefficiencies despite generous commitments. A central coordinating body is needed to streamline operations and ensure that aid reaches affected populations effectively.

The article underscores the importance of integrating military capabilities into global disaster response systems in a way that respects the autonomy and neutrality of civilian humanitarian actors. Military forces should not be seen merely as emergency responders but as integral, prepared components of long-term disaster management frameworks.

Conclusion

Disasters are becoming more frequent and severe due to environmental degradation and increased human vulnerability. While the military is not a substitute for civilian agencies, its unique capabilities—if well-coordinated with humanitarian organizations—can play a critical role in disaster relief. Establishing effective partnerships and clear frameworks for cooperation between military and civilian entities is essential for future disaster management strategies. As seen in Maharashtra, when military forces are deployed strategically and appropriately, they can help lay the groundwork for successful, civilian-led recovery operations.

The most interesting references from “Disaster Management and the Military” by E.W. Anderson:

1. Harbottle, M. N. (1991). What is proper soldiering? Chipping Norton: The Centre for International Peacebuilding.
2. O’Keefe, P., Westgate, K., & Wisner, B. (1976). Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature, 260(5552), 566–567.
3. Hewitt, K. (1983). The idea of calamity in a technocratic age. In K. Hewitt (Ed.), Interpretations of calamity (pp. 3–32). Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin.
4. Smith, K. (1992). Environmental hazards (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
5. Jones, D. K. C. (1991). Environmental hazards. In R. Bennett & R. Estall (Eds.), Global change and challenge (pp. 206–229). London: Routledge.
6. Bryant, E. A. (1991). Natural hazards. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Degg, M. (1992). Natural disasters: Recent trends and future prospects. Geography, 77(3), 198–209.
8. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRCRCS). (1993, March 8). Vulnerability and capacity assessment: An international guide.
9. Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA). (1988). Annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State.
10. Bramall, D. E. (1986). The use of foreign military resources in natural disaster relief. Presentation at the International Peace Academy, New York.