hey banjar - as you know I value your posts but where's ya paragraphs? - this is easier to read
jd,
If those responsible for managing the response to the fires were still unable to comprehend the magnitude of of the situation by the time Nixon left to dine with friends, then obviously the enquiry needs to establish why.
Whilst there are various layers within the command structure, each with their own responsibilities that contribute to the overall effort, it still needs the leadership to ensure that it is functioning as a co-ordinated unit rather than a group of individual cells as it seems to have been, plus importantly it needs that same leadership to be putting together the big picture view and then ensuring that the focus is being directed in the right direction.
Most important of all, in any organisation, in any situation, in any operation where time is critical, or the risks are high, good leaders ensure they are present, not only to maintain a sense or urgency and direction, but to indicate to their subordinates that they are there, taking ultimate responsibility, ready to make any important decisions as they arise.
In private enterprise, if any leader left the site during a critical moment of an operation that ended in disaster, even if no problems were foreseen at the time, they would end up paying for such error of judgement with their job.
Nixon may be claiming an error of judgement, but given the revelations of poor co-ordination and poor communications, and the lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the situation so late in the day, one has to question the quality and effectiveness of her overall leadership leading up to the day.
We all know the continuous warnings of the potential for a major disaster occurring on that day, the leadership should have had her hands firmly on the wheel days ahead and not taken them off at any time.
