I wrote this over at Michael's place:

If you look at the Louisiana Constitution it does state:

The military shall be subordinate to the civil power.

This does allow for directed the legitimate use of the military by civil officials and, while what you say about unarmed people is entirely correct - who cares if they have seven DVD players - there is also this (from CNN):

Before Thursday night fell, police were stopping anyone they saw on the street and warning them that they were not safe from armed bands of young men who were attacking people and attempting to rape women.

That is not looting. That is organized violent opposition. How can you deal with an evacuation, dealing with fires and exploding chemical train cars, removing the dead if you also have people sniping at you. What happens if it does not dissipate of its own accord? An organized civilly directed use of military force in an urban setting may be required.

What an awful prospect.

Having officials threaten use of a standing army against the population may well responate with Americans more than elsewhere given what gave rise to their nation. That is why state constitutions speak against military rule under any circumstances. There may, however, have to be some use of the military by civic officials which may not be as random as suggested in this perhaps rash statement by the Governor:

She said Thursday night that 300 soldiers from the Arkansas National Guard had arrived -- "fresh back from Iraq. These are some of the 40,000 extra troops that I have demanded," Blanco said. "They have M-16s, and they're locked and loaded ... I have one message for these hoodlums: These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so if necessary, and I expect they will."

For the military to engage rather than just take up the good cause of assisting in a disaster, there would have to be a plan which they would accept operating under. The sort of planning I think John does. For one soldier to fire, however, just takes a sniping idiot. And they seem to exist.

I think the Flea is right, though. I think in Canada the lads in green would have been in a wee bit earlier. But it would have been both as assistance and less about deterrence perhaps - but we are a different country with different expectations and comfort levels. In the end it is all so hard to compare and judge which is what makes it awful.