Q In light of your reading of the Council of Foreign Relations Report, “Emergency Responders” (see Reading, above), answer the following questions: Do you agree with the Rudman, Clarke, and Metzl that the level of agency coordination in the post-9/11 environment has not much improved—or in some ways just as flawed—as the coordination that existed on September 10? Speculate on the reasons that might inhibit the better coordination between agencies in responding to emergencies? Some factors to consider: political, economic, bureaucratic, and geopolitical. The premise of the authors seems to center on accumulated efficiency gains through better cooperation and coordination between different agencies. However, is there merit to centralization of the myriad functions involved in responding to terrorist emergencies? Can an argument be made that the very presence of hundreds of different federal, state, and local organizations indicates an inefficient response to potential terrorist calamities? What, if anything, would you recommend to the First Responder community that the authors of the report missed? Were there any findings of fact or any recommendations contained within the report that you strongly supported? Disagreed with? Choose of each and explain why you agree or disagree with that finding of fact or conclusion. Your response should be at least 4 paragraphs. Respond to at least three of your colleagues in each of the discussion board areas.