Emergency Incident Management Systems. Louis N. Molino, Sr.
and Reconnaissance
C3: Command, Control, and Communication
C3I: Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence
C4: Command, Control, Communications, and Collaboration
C4I: Command, Control, Communications, and Collaboration plus intelligence
C5I: Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Collaboration, and Intelligence
As can be seen from the C classifications above, some military officials also use the acronym C4I. The I in this acronym represents the element of intelligence. Intelligence is an important aspect that is often overlooked in public safety. This holds especially true when a crime was committed, or the incident involved a terrorist attack. Many would argue that in the post 9/11 era, this element is also an emergency services/public safety function and concern, which it is. However, the intelligence aspect of IMS methods, more specifically the ICS method, will be discussed in Chapter 12.
In looking at the military connection to IMS, the same C‐classifications are equally important to the military as they are to first responders. In most instances, the C4 and the C4I are applicable in most modern‐day IMS method situations. Suffice it to say that the same elements are needed to tackle and conquer nearly any type of emergency response situation. Consider the fact that public safety, whether fire agencies, law enforcement agencies, or EMS agencies are paramilitary organizations.
As we look at the military connection, we need to realize that the US military has evolved from men with French Muskets and swords (often marching by foot or on horseback) to the most sophisticated military force on the planet. These substantially more agile military units and branches now manage major wars that cover a multitude of geographical locations, sometimes even in different countries. The same concepts loosely apply to public safety.
Public safety agencies of the past would often tackle one incident, or one disaster, at a time. In more recent years, public safety agencies have evolved, and most are capable of monitoring, responding to, and making a difference through operational response for multiple ongoing incidents at the same time.
If you look at the organizational chart of a military organization, you can plainly see that there is a clear and apparent chain of command. When we talk about chain of command in this sense, we are talking about an official ladder of authority that declares who is in charge, and who a subordinate must approach to obtain permission for nearly anything they want to do in an official capacity. This chain of command creates leadership accountability.
While still writing about leadership accountability, it is important to realize that having leadership accountability is important in both the military and in public safety. Knowing who gave what order can be critical in correcting mistakes, and the military has known this since military conflicts have existed. It is critical to remember that no matter who we are, there is always a chain of command. Everyone has someone to report to, and that person usually holds them accountable for their actions.
Even if we look at the top dog in the military, the generals report to higher‐ranking generals, the higher‐ranking generals must report to the Secretary of Defense, who in turn reports to the President. You may think that the President reports to nobody, but you would be wrong. The President reports to the people of the United States, and he/she also reports to other world leaders when it comes to actions that may destabilize a region and various other issues. This is a basic example of the chain of command and that everyone has someone they report to.
If we put this chain of command in context to public safety, we can see that it holds true in all paramilitary organizations. In a fire department organization, firefighters report to lieutenants, who report to captains, who report to the fire chief (or another officer between themselves and the fire chief), the fire chief reports to the mayor, and the mayor reports to the city council and the citizens. Similarly, officer report to the shift commander in a law enforcement agency, who reports to the police chief. The police chief reports to the mayor who reports to the city councils and the citizens they serve.
In a military organizational chart, you can also see that there is a centralized command that directs “area” commanders to undertake tasks based on the conditions they are facing. They plan, and they call for mutual aid from another branch (or even the same branch) of military, and they work in teams, accomplishing different tasks that all lead to the greater good of the mission for which they are on. In some instances, they may even coordinate with foreign entities, in an effort to command, collaborate, coordinate, and communicate so that they can meet the goal of an agreed‐upon outcome.
We only need to think about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to prove the point that the 4CI is needed. Whenever a ground team falls under heavy enemy fire, they call for assistance. The type of assistance they may receive can vary, but there is definitely a multitude of resources at their disposal. If a group of infantrymen are pinned down by small arms fire and/or mortar shells, they make a radio call to their command and advise them of their situation, possibly even identifying the resources that they think are needed. When these infantrymen request help, they give the location (coordinates) of where they are, and the location of where the enemy is. With that information, the commander can look to all branches of service and decide who is best suited to support the mission and provide support to these infantrymen. The command officer may determine that airstrikes from fixed wing aircraft are needed, so they may look at resources from the Navy, the Marine Corp, or the Air Force. They may decide that helicopters with airstrike capabilities are needed, so they may look to the Army, the Marine Corp, or the Navy may be needed. Perhaps the fixed wing and helicopter resources of the United States are stretched thin, and they need to ask for assistance from an ally such as the British, the Australians, or the French. Then again, the command officer may believe that ground troops are needed, and they need to be brought in by helicopter. In some instances, this may require multiple agencies (or even countries) because the individuals being brought in may be Army Rangers being brought in by Marine Corp or Navy Helicopters, or perhaps another country has the needed resources closer. In all of these instances, organizing the response from multiple entities, or perhaps even multiple countries can and does save lives. What if the response is a combination of field artillery, ground troops being brought in by helicopter, and air strikes, all delivered to the same incident? In thinking about the mutual aid, including the coordination, cooperation, and communications, we can begin to imagine how the military connection has played a role in the IMS methods that emergency services use.
Much like the military, emergency services in the United States has also evolved. The days of a single constable patrolling, or a bucket brigade to extinguish fires in a large city have developed into modern‐day police forces with state‐of‐the‐art equipment. We also see that many fire departments can do more with the state‐of‐the‐art equipment that floods the market every year. This equipment allows firefighters to go beyond what was ever imagined in the early years of our country. These entities along with other contemporary delivery systems have provided a multitude of emergency response services to the citizens they serve.
Both the military and public safety utilizes new technological advances in their work, which in turn provides a safer and more complete response. In both the military and in emergency services, the technological revolution has begun to positively affect what these entities can do, at an amazing rate. The fact remains that technology by itself does not win a war, nor does technology physically respond to everyday emergencies. If we do not have a basic foundation to manage an incident, then all of the technological advances in the world may as well be rendered useless. Without humans to work alongside that technology, it is nothing more than a boat anchor.
The same holds true to major events like the 11 September 2001, Hurricane Katrina, or the tornado that devastated Joplin, MO. It was not technology that made a substantial difference, but rather men and women who use that technology and who perform the tasks that mitigate the incident. It does not matter if individuals are fighting a war or responding to a public safety emergency, without the human aspect of response, the technology is useless. On the other hand,