Home > Politics, News & Issues > International Politics > Natural Disasters
Should military forces be used for delivering humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 47% | 24 votes | Total: 51 votes | |
| No | 53% | 27 votes |
Yes
by T. Scott Randolph
Created on: September 01, 2010
In the world that we live in, sometimes it is necessary to use a form of evil to fight evil. This is not to say that the military is an evil entity, but let's face it, their purpose is to fight wars.
There are many people in the world that will make sacrifices to help their fellow man, but there are just as many people that will see a situation where people are in need as a way to gain power or make money. Maybe one day in the future, the good guys will out number the bad, but that day is not upon us now.
Anytime you watch the news (during a natural disaster or war torn area), one of the first things that you see is people looting stores. I believe some of this is understandable. If you are getting essential supplies so that your family can survive (canned food, fresh water) the looting is not such a horrible crime. At no point is taking a 42 inch TV (when there is no electricity) acceptable.
Most people don't ever see the end of the game. They do what they think is right. They donate money and food for Haiti. The have clothing drives for the children in Afghanistan before the winter comes. Once they have written the check or collected the clothes, they drop the aid products at a local collection point and feel better about themselves.
All of these supplies have to get to the area that they are needed. When the political structure of an area has been destroyed (by either nature or man) lawlessness ensues. It is like the wild west times 10. Groups of people, whether corrupt government, militias, or just plain gangsters have the thing that means power. Guns.
If a mother doesn't do what the militia wants, even though there is literally tons of food, she will watch her baby starve to death. This is the reality. This is not an academic argument, I know from first hand experience that this is the way that it works. I spent close to a year in Somalia stopping this very thing from happening.
All down the line people have the best of intentions. Americans have the means to help another country that lacks the basic needs for survival. They unselfishly give to relief agencies that manage to get them to where they need to be (or at least close). There are countless people that step up to bat and donate everything from time, money, specialty skills, anything to help. The problem lies in the fact that at the end of this chain, a small group of men with machine guns simply take it away from the relief workers. Now they have the power, they make the rules. How can we fix this problem?
That answer is simple. It is expensive, and many times unpopular, but still very simple. When you are sending the much needed supplies into the dangerous areas, have a combat unit as part of the convoy. Several companies of combat trained Marines or Rangers will make the scum that want to steal the donated food think twice. Will people get hurt? Maybe. More than likely it will be the amateurs that are trying to take advantage of horrible situation.
I can't speak for other nations, but the U.S. military is highly trained. They do not take kindly to armed men (literally) taking the food out of the mouths of women and children.
While their purpose is warfare, and that entails killing, the military definitely should be used to make sure that relief supplies get to where they are needed. If a few scum of the Earth militia don't make it to the end of the day to gorge themselves on stolen relief supplies, so be it. The relief aid was never intended to end up in the hands of a militia that terrorizes it's own population.
Use the military. Get the supplies to where they are needed the most. It is truly a case where you use a little evil to stop a much greater evil.
Learn more about this author, T. Scott Randolph.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Dorothy Hoffman
Created on: October 16, 2010
In October 2001, shortly after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Doctors Without Borders’ executive director Nicolas de Torrente issued a statement questioning the delivery of humanitarian aid by the US and UK military:
"As a humanitarian organization, our concern with any military actions, such as those of US and UK forces in Afghanistan, is with their impact on civilian populations. We fear that air drops of food by the US military, even if well-intentioned, are not the most effective means of meeting the enormous humanitarian needs of the Afghan people. We are also worried that the blurring of lines between military and aid activities has the potential to undermine the provision of larger-scale humanitarian assistance by independent, non-governmental actors to the most vulnerable populations in Afghanistan."
Many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and humanitarian agencies have questioned the growing use of the military in humanitarian crises throughout the world. One issue is certainly that aid workers and the military have very different agendas. As the conservative Heritage Foundation posted on its web site after the devastating earthquake in Haiti (though the post was later taken down):
“The U.S. response to the tragic earthquake in Haiti earthquake offers opportunities to re-shape Haiti's long-dysfunctional government and economy as well as to improve the public image of the United States in the region. While on the ground in Haiti, the U.S. military can also interrupt the nightly flights of cocaine to Haiti and the Dominican Republic from the Venezuelan coast and counter the ongoing efforts of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to destabilize the island of Hispaniola. . . . [and] prevent any large-scale movement by Haitians to . . .try to enter the U.S. illegally.”
This is not a humanitarian agenda, and making desperately needed aid to civilians in areas devastated by war or natural disasters a public relations component of the political, military, and economic objectives of an occupying army is bound to have counterproductive results.
In addition, the military is trained for combat and armed control of populations, not humanitarian service. In unstable and dangerous areas, security is certainly needed to ensure the safety of aid workers and civilians and ensure that help gets to the people in need. But military personnel delivering aid often lack the skills to assess the population’s needs for medicine, food, clean water, adequate shelter, and other essentials. In situations like the Afghanistan occupation, blurring the lines between the occupying forces and dispensers of aid can endanger the lives of humanitarian workers, who seem to be instruments of the military occupation. That’s why it’s so important for these agencies to be totally independent of military and political entities, both in reality and in perception.
Clearly this can’t be done in Afghanistan when medical care is being provided by the same Special Operations command the population knows is responsible for the night raids on homes and the disappearances and deaths of many civilians. In fact, the UN refused to be part of the Marja reconstruction following the February surge for this very reason.
As the New York Times reported, “Senior United Nations officials in Afghanistan ... criticized NATO forces for what one referred to as ‘the militarization of humanitarian aid,’ and said United Nations agencies would not participate in the military’s reconstruction strategy in Marja as part of its current offensive there.” The Secretary General representative Robert Watkins stated that the UN would “not be part of that military strategy.”
There is no reason military or security forces couldn’t simply provide protection for independent aid workers. Militarizing humanitarian aid not only endangers aid workers and undermines the efforts of neutral groups; it also undermines the efforts to “win hearts and minds” by making civilians suspicious of even the most altruistic actions of the U.S. and Western powers.
Learn more about this author, Dorothy Hoffman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next Page >>
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley