System (NIMS) was used to manage this major sporting event. Those that oversaw the public safety aspect of this overwhelming planned event made sure that security was of the utmost importance. In their effort to provide top‐notch public safety, they utilized and managed over 40 federal agencies, approximately 840 different officers from 60 local and state agencies, and they incorporated the Minnesota National Guard (Moore, 2015). Beyond the previously mentioned assets, there were also a large contingency of processes and equipment integrated into the overall management of this planned event.
Not only was ICS component and NIMS used to manage a large security presence (to prevent some type of chaos from happening), but it was also used behind the scenes. There were emergency managers who planned, and who were on standby for a mass casualty event, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel were strategically placed and prepared to jump into action should someone become ill or injured, or in the event a mass casualty incident occurred. Hazardous Material (HazMat) teams were also staged and ready to respond if a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or Explosives (CBRNE) incident occurred. Additionally, a multitude of other very specific teams were managed through the utilization of ICS component and NIMS. Some security teams were scanning for problems, while separately, other teams were ready to jump into action and take the steps needed to mitigate the effects of an emergency situation. Trying to manage a planned event, or even an emergent incident that uses a lot of personnel and equipment, would be a nightmare if not for IMS methods.
In the United States, the ICS component and its supportive companion, NIMS, has become the standard in recent years. Many people have attempted to historically date the initial development of ICS, and there has been much discussion about where the main underpinning began. No concrete date or circumstance has ever been agreed upon, even though it is usually taught that Firefighting Resources of California Organized for Potential Emergencies (FIRESCOPE) was the first official iteration of the formal system known as ICS.
In retrospect, we could say that it was a long progression of events that eventually led to the IMS methods that we now see in today's world. Many different concepts, and many different incidents have used similar methods throughout the last few hundred or more years, and some of them have been concretely identified as playing a significant role in the systems of today. Various incidents have very distinct bits and pieces of current IMS methods.
As we move onward through this chapter, there will be varying incidents discussed. These incidents may have contributed to the IMS we use today, then again, it may be coincidence that these methods were used. It should be noted that some of the history and incidents that may have contributed to modern‐day IMS methods is nothing more than speculation. On the other hand, some of these incidents are concretely documented as contributing to the current IMS methods being used today.
1.1 The Revolutionary War
It does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to say that IMS methods may have come from early military campaigns that were undertaken in the United States. Some might say that the initial fledglings may have come from other countries. Since this book primarily focuses on the United States, we will discuss only instances in the United States which may, or potentially may not have led to these systems.
Part of the reason for focusing primarily on the United States is also based on expediency. An individual could spend a lifetime trying to make connections between the gazillions (or is it quintillions) of incidents that have occurred worldwide in the last few hundred years. Most of us do not have the time, resources, or even the inclination to take review it so in depth.
We only need to look at the history of the Revolutionary War to understand that some of the principles we see in modern‐day IMS method were used during this war. Initially, the Revolutionary War had no strategy. It was nothing more than a few haphazard militia's fighting against the British when they came into or occupied their geographical location. Initially, there was no centralized commander, no strategy, and no single person, or group of people, in charge. There was no one single person that was charged with coming up with a singular or overarching strategy. In fact, most of the resistance to the British were organized locally and was not part of a larger tactic or main plan. While many of the battles were bloody, they did not follow a strategic battle plan. The objective was quite often to drive the British from the area rather than looking at the bigger picture of defeating the British in all of the colonies.
The Continental Congress began to realize that an organized response was not in place, and some would say they began to wonder if they could win these battles and claim their independence. After much debate and discussion, the Continental Congress appointed George Washington as the General, and commander, of the Continental Army. This occurred on 10 May 1779 (Stockwell, n.d.). By historically reviewing information, we see that Washington began to organize a comprehensive plan, and when implemented, Washington had named it The Grand Strategy (Stockwell, n.d.).
Washington, in his infinite wisdom, unified his battles using the militia from the colony's as the main force, and he integrated the French into specific battles where he felt the militias needed bolstering or reinforcements. He ensured that he provided specific orders for each battle, but he had chosen capable individuals manage the battles. Those capable individuals had the ability and the authority of General Washington to make on‐the‐spot decisions, based on the circumstances at hand.
Some historians have said that Washington's tactics were primarily defensive tactics. They believe that General Washington used a multitude of tactics to exhaust the British, which was sprinkled with hit‐and‐run attacks and a propaganda campaign. The purpose of the propaganda campaign was to undermine the will of the British citizenry and their soldiers (Brooks, 2017). There were some offensive actions taken against the British, but they were often rare.
Those that are learning about IMS methods for the first time should realize the similarities of the propaganda campaign of General Washington, and the IMS methods of today. In Washington's propaganda campaign, the successes of those fighting for independence (such as the militias and specific individuals) were touted. Additionally, the failures of the British were exploited, and their successes were rarely mentioned. This strategic release of information led to more support for the overall effort of war and independence.
When IMS methods are used in modern‐day times, there is nearly always a component that covers public information. In most instances, this is a Public Information Officer (PIO) or the utilization of a Joint Information Center (JIC). Modern‐day Public Information Officers (PIO's) fashion the release of information, but they do not use propaganda. Similar to the propaganda that was released by the Continental Army, the PIO and/or JIC strategically release information to garner support for their cause: the support for the management of an incident. While this is not propaganda per say, it is a similar method to garner support and provide information about an incident. It is easy to see that at least in some respects, it mimics the work that General Washington employed to help win the war.
In looking at the potential of a historical military connection to modern‐day IMS methods, French General Jean‐Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau arrived to assist with the struggle to gain independence in July 1780. He and General Washington would work together to fight the British, but prior to Rochambeau's departure from France, King Louis XVI advised him that he should be subordinate to General Washington. Essentially, General Rochambeau played a supportive role for the Continental Army, and he would work under the command of the Incident Commander (IC), General George Washington. While Washington was in charge, he also held planning meetings with Rochambeau. Historically, we see that these meetings were held between General Rochambeau and General Washington prior to an offensive to ensure that everyone was on the same page and to ensure everyone knew their role in these attacks (Covart, 2014).
If we compare the actions of Washington in the Revolutionary War to that of the modern‐day IMS Method, we can see that there are multiple similarities. We can start with the appearance that a centralized command was initiated. That centralized command gave strategic instructions to subordinates on what should be done, but it also gave authority to a specific person (or persons) to command how that goal was met. This is a customary practice in all forms of IMS methods