Why did US aid focus on security Haiti rather than helping Haitians?

[alarimer]

http://www.slate.com/id/2242078/pagenum/all/#p2


By the weekend, it was clear that something perverse was going on in Haiti, something savage and bestial in its lack of concern for human life. I'm not talking about the earthquake, and certainly not about the so-called "looting," which I prefer to think of as the autonomously organized distribution of unjustly hoarded goods. I'm talking about the U.S. relief effort.

For two days after the quake, despite almost unimaginable destruction, there were reasons to be optimistic. With a few notable exceptions—Pat Robertson and David Brooks among them—Americans reacted with extraordinary and unhesitating generosity of spirit and of purse. Port-au-Prince is not much farther from Washington, D.C., than, say, New Orleans, and the current president of the United States, unlike his predecessor, was quick to react to catastrophe. Taking advantage of "our unique capacity to project power around the world," President Barack Obama pledged abundant aid and 10,000 troops.

SNIP

The much-feared descent into anarchy stubbornly refused to materialize. "It is calm at this time," Lt. Gen. Ken Keen, deputy commander of the U.S. Southern Command, admitted to the AP on Monday. "Those who live and work here … tell me that the level of violence that we see right now is below pre-earthquake levels." He announced that four—four, in a city of more than 2 million—aid-distribution points had been set up on the sixth day of the crisis.

So what happened? Why the mad rush to command and control, with all its ultimately murderous consequences? Why the paranoid focus on security above saving lives? Clearly, President Obama failed to learn one of the basic lessons taught by Hurricane Katrina: You can't solve a humanitarian problem by throwing guns at it. Before the president had finished insisting that "my national security team understands that I will not put up with any excuses," Haiti's fate was sealed. National security teams prioritize national security, an amorphous and expensive notion that has little to do with keeping Haitian citizens alive.


Yes, you cannot solve a humanitarian crisis by throwing guns at it. Obama is making exactly the same mistake as Bush did in New Orleans. I am not even going into the fact that it is partly our fault Haiti is as poor and corrupt as it is.

We are making the death toll worse.

[DJ13]

1. Thousands of soldiers, aid still not getting to the populace very well

But reporters do location shots from anywhere they want.

Something is broken in our militaristic approach to dealing with a crisis.

[alarimer]

5. And the unrecommends have started by the Obama cheerleaders.

People who prefer rah-rah bullshit to the truth.

I have been listening to Amy Goodman all week from Haiti. THAT is the truth the cheerleaders refuse to listen to.

And I just read that Triple Canopy and other "security" companies are heading there. Guess they need to keep in practice by shooting brown people or something.

[tabatha]

6. Geez

A reporter and his crew camera are far more mobile than a truck full of heavy water.

Did you see Anderson Cooper talk to the woman who helped the 8 year old, and he tried to get her to say that they had shortages, and she said, they did not lack medical supplies.

Did you also not see the military dropping water from airplanes because of the bottleneck at the airport.

Did you not see military divers repairing the port so that water and supplies could be delivered much faster.

And the marines only arrived in the second week.

[DJ13]

17. All Im saying is that aid doesnt need to be exclusively military

Smaller agencies (more mobile as you say) could be as effective, if not more so, than the logistics of moving in 10,000 troops with all their equipment.

The military isnt very nimble, and the additional time to move the military in (and secure areas to their satisfaction) is time lost in getting help out to people.

Can you seriously say the military response to Katrina helped?

Thats an example of why using a military response to a humanitarian crisis is the wrong approach.

By the way, I dont blame Obama for this, he responded as the government is set up to respond.

I just believe the way we respond to future humanitarian crises needs a redesign.

[tabatha]

21. It is NOT exclusively military.

I read that the numbers of military flights were something like 15-20% of the total.

In Katrina, it was not the military, but contractors, and they were under Bush.

[suzie]

27. This is not New Orleans. This is an island.

There are no highways on which Wal Mart can drive trucks bringing bottled water. It's an island.

After Katrina, there was still a functioning airport. There were still docks where boats and barges could land.

The Port in Haiti was damaged and it is an island.

Who has the divers to repair the port--the oil companies?

Part of the complaint in Katrina was that the local National Guard (military) wasn't initially available to aid in the recovery effort because, 1) Their facilities were underwater; 2) their heavy equipment needed was in Iraq and 3) their trained personnel were also in Iraq.

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. It's like they always expect the worst.

Don't they train them to be cautiously alert without being excessively restrictive?

[tabatha]

2. The Marines only arrived THIS WEEK.

Obama is not in charge - the Hatian government and the UN are in charge.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Everything is about Obama failing......

so much stupid, so little time.

They are beating that horse,
and it becoming quite tiring...
so many with so much to say....
but little to do.

I'm sure Slate will Welcome President Walmart in 2012.

[tabatha]

8. I am sick of it.

There is a sickness in this country that will cause people to lie, distort, fabricate to unfairly bash the object of their hatred.

[FrenchieCat]

13. It makes them feel righteous, since they themselves have accomplished so little.....

running their mouths makes them feel like they are doing something.
Someone should let them know; they still aren't doing anything,
constructive or otherwise.

[Windy]

23. I"m really wondering about all this obama angst and outright hatred by some... could it be racism?

I truly wonder. Its a bit scary.

I think for some....not all.... deep seeded issues are rising to the surface. Some of the reaction has been irrational and over the top.And I'm not talking about freepers...although it is more overt with them

[suzie]

28. Yes.

[alarimer]

7. The Marines should not be there at all

This is all about a militaristic response to a humanitarian crisis. I strongly recommend listening to Democracy Now from this week. That is a perspective you will never get from the corporate media.

[tabatha]

10. Because military personnel are fit and strong enough to do the

back-breaking work to help. Tell me who else will be able to do what they are doing.

Edit: I just heard on CNN that the marines are using amphibious vehicles to get food and water to people have none. Ok, let them starve in your book.

[tabatha]

24. Please look at what Rachel Maddow reported today

about the USS Comfort and tell me that the military response is inappropriate.

- They are operating at full capacity, something they have never done before
- The patients are being ferried to the ship via military helicopter
- They have never seen such a situation before since Normandy
- A woman with a broken pelvis and other injuries gave birth via caesarian section
- On the ship, she and the baby will be away from death, destruction and infection

I guess if they were not there, there would be complaints of the wounded not being helped.

[SharonAnn]

3. Because Doctors Without Borders and Others need security. And the U.S.

had to get the airport up and running and work on getting the port up and running.

Plenty of groups can hand out aid when there is a way to get it in to the place and roads to transport it and security to prevent them from being injured or killed by frantic mobsl.

Also, work has to be done to provide clean drinking water and handles sewage waste.

Unpretty, but those are fundamental tasks and they are really, really hard.

[alarimer]

11. But there is no insecurity

Very, very little need for all the scary fascists with their guns. There is no rioting. There ARE a lot of people dying because the doctors cannot get the supplies they need fast enough.
Listen (or better yet watch) Democracy Now from this week.

http://i3.democracynow.org/2010/1/22/security_red_zones_in_haiti_preventing

[tabatha]

14. They are doing more labor work than security.

[suzie]

29. The BBC reports an entirely different story than your website.

They have reported armed gangs fighting with each other and menacing the population that is already living outdoors.

They have reported that some groups were holding up the supply trucks on the way from the airport to Port au Prince and demanding payment.

But, I'm sure the Brits are wrong, misled, not anti-Obama enough.

[Recursion]

32. Maybe there's no rioting because a bunch of troops are there?

Geez. Remember Somalia? Or the Haiti intervention in the 90s?

[babylonsister]

36. You must have missed all the video of the locals wielding huge

knives and machetes, and they weren't afraid to use them.

[elleng]

9. Sounds like a b.s. assumption to me,

by someone(s) who WANT to criticise U.S., and to not think about the huge difficulties involved.

[alarimer]

12. Democracy Now has video evidence

http://i3.democracynow.org/2010/1/22/security_red_zones_in_haiti_preventing

[tabatha]

15. I have not seen riots or shooting.

What she is saying "you will see riots".
"What I think is going to happen ...."

That is not evidence.

[elleng]

34. Yes.

There were what I'd call a FEW 'mini-riots,' rather early on; things seem to have settled down,
as one would expect.

Photos in WaPo story, posted below, #31, confirm this.

[elleng]

22. Interesting video. Thanks

[HuckleB]

33. Exactly.

The other piece that is being completely ignored by this crap is that they don't want to have more people get hurt in unstable buildings and areas, which is a very common issue anywhere there is an earthquake. The gotcha mentality of almost all media is killing discussion, democracy and any ability to accomplish anything at all.

It's all about "ME," no matter what mask they put on themselves.

[lutherj]

16. Obviously I don't know specifically what's been happening in Haiti, but I think

a problem inevitably arises when you choose to use the military for disaster relief. The military sees its function as national defense. When tasked with anything less than that, they go into hyper self-defense mode. The main priority of the upper ranks is to make sure no casualties occur. If some rations get handed out in the process, then they've accomplished their goal. It seems to me we need a specialized team of disaster relief workers, people who are trained to go in fearlessly and start making things happen. The military should be kept in the background, flying in workers and supplies, and providing back-up security for those on the ground.

[DJ13]

18. +1

My thoughts exactly.

[tabatha]

19. The article/video on Democracy Now

states nothing about problems with the Marines.

The only problem seems to be a long-standing problem with the UN, and also that the UN lost a lot of people in the earthquake, and hence their organization suffered.

The red zones were around before the earthquake - they were set up after the hurricanes.

This video is not "evidence".

[tabatha]

20. -1

[flamingdem]

26. There are many unknowns in Haiti

I would not assume it is safe.

I would not assume that the Marines are an agressive force in this instance.
They are surely more than welcome by all but the politically paranoid.

Please rent Cite du Soleile, about the half million slum dwellers and the gangs
that live there.

Don't forget the prisons were emptied out.

Considering everything the Haitians are being great but there is reason for caution.

The conditions are highly unusual, there's nothing to compare it with.

[Andronex]

30. It's now 20,000 troops...

This has nothing to do with helping the victims of the earthquake, it's about keeping political control of the situation and ensuring that the established order is protected. The empire is also using this crisis as a pretext to expand it's military presence in the Caribbean.

[elleng]

31. Photos, NOW and early:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/01/12/GA2010011203712.html?sid=ST2010012101758

[babylonsister]

35. Unrec. What a bunch of crap. In order to get supplies to so many

people, security had to be an issue. Love all the armchair warriors. :eyes:


And yes, another Obama hit piece. Screw that. :thumbsdown: