Humanitarian Aid, Kelsey Hunter, Week 10 Dialog Post

I'm quite disappointed I missed yesterday's class discussion. However I was at the Fed Challenge in Baltimore all day. So I'm not quite sure what was discussed yesterday, but I am sure that I can respond to Erik's post below mine.
What is advocated in his post actually really shocked me, because I know that Erik is in the ROTC program here at Lehigh and I know he has a lot of knowledge about the military. My questions are: where are we possibly going to get these extra U.S. soldiers to go on "humanitarian aid" missions when our military is already stretched so thin all around the world? Does the question of sovereignty not arise? Why not advocate overthrowing their government if that is who is stealing the aid? Have we already forgotten about Somalia in 1992-93?

If we are going to talk about humanitarian aid, we need to clarify what it actually is and why it is important and why it is not appropriate to send in U.S. troops to use force if necessary to kill people stealing aid.
Humanitarian aid is assistance in times of humanitarian crisis; its purpose is to alleviate suffering, save lives, and maintain human dignity. So yes during times of humanitarian crisis, which can be wars, natural disasters, etc. it is likely necessary to help the people of the country to survive. Food aid, disaster relief, and refugee camps are the usual methods.
The reason I believe it is inappropriate to send in U.S. troops to ensure the proper distribution of the aid stems from my belief that allowing U.S. troops to kill people during such a crisis is a recipe for disaster. In times of crisis, yes some order is necessary, and while U.S. troops could provide that order, they would likely increase fear and anger the home government if they were allowed to use force. Unfortunately for the U.S., the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to raise questions about the U.S.'s capability to engage in purely humanitarianistic aid missions. Although I do actually know about many of the successes the U.S. military has been responsible for in these two countries, the majority of what we hear on the news does not focus on the good they do, but rather on the very, very bad. I think any country facing a humanitarian crisis would be reluctant to allow U.S. soldiers to come in to help.

I want to switch now to why I think it is better to engage in development aid than humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian assistance is much more romantic than development aid. I do not want to downplay the importance of helping people in crisis, for example I am not saying we shouldn't have been engaged in tsunami relief in Southeast Asia. However, in many situations if the country had received adequate development aid help, the effects of crisis could be averted or mitigated much easier. Improving the underlying socioeconomic structures and processes in a country can help prepare people to better deal with crisis. Learning agricultural techniques and building irrigation systems can help people learn to cope with droughts and floods (which are very severe humanitarian crises at times). Helping governments build appropriate infrastructure and institutions helps in any crisis. Combatting corruption (which is why governments steal from their citizens in times of crisis and normal times) through transparency advocation and encouragement of freedom of press and speech will improve the chances that governments won't steal the aid. There are so many things that can be done before the fact to set up the foundations to help people once a crisis occurs.

There are problems with both humanitarian assistance and development aid, the biggest being corruption, but I still do not think allowing soldiers to shoot people will discourage corruption. Corruption is at the root of the problem and serious attention must be paid to the development of a country if corruption is to be eliminated.