Laurence Vance says no, and I agree. Why not? Well, as has been discussed here at the YAL blog already, it's wrong for the US government to respond to this horrible situation with forced charity. Where the military specifically is concerned, it's also a complete violation of military purpose:
The main reason the U.S. military has no business going to Haiti is simply that the purpose of the military should be to defend the United States against attack or invasion. Nothing more (like invading other countries), and nothing less (like failing to defend its own headquarters on 9/11). Using the military to establish democracy, spread goodwill, change regimes, train foreign armies, open foreign markets, enforce no-fly zones, protect U.S. commercial interests, serve as peacekeepers, furnish security in other countries, contain communism, and provide disaster relief and humanitarian aid perverts the purpose of the military.
Moreover, there are other good reasons no to take the secretary of defense up on his offer to send in the troops. Vance particularly mentions three: First, this is what private charity is for -- and private organizations, I'd add, are much better at actually aiding those in need:
Private charities have an incentive toward greater efficiency and effectiveness since they are competing with other charities for money and volunteers. If they fail in their mission, they may experience declining contributions, possibly to the point where operations will cease. In simple economic terms, the amount of assistance that reaches the recipients of government welfare benefits are only a fraction of the resources consumed by the supporting bureaucracy.
I did extensive original research resulting in a 70-page paper on exactly this subject and I can tell you, he's right. The percentage of wasted resources with government charity tends to be less unfortunate with emergency relief than it does with long-term, welfare style programs, but when you consider the size of the government programs' budgets, it still adds up to a lot.
Vance's second two reasons are: Disaster relief is still foreign aid, which is both wrong and ineffective when it comes from the government; and if the military helps out in Haiti, while this will have an effect preferable to increased aggression in the Middle East, it will also distract the press coverage from "the fact that we are engaged in two unpopular wars....[and] that our Predator drone attacks have killed more civilians than militants."
With that said, as Vance notes in the beginning of his piece, there is "no disputing that the situation in Haiti is very grave," and the private charities heroically working there to save lives should be praised and supported. Please click here for a good guide to helping Haiti and a list of charities known to use their resources very effectively and efficiently. I'd recommend Direct Relief International and Operation USA, the latter of which has a history of helping the desperate in places (like Vietnam in 1979) the US government wouldn't think of assisting for political reasons.
"Despair among the Haitian people clamoring for food, water and medical care is turning into simmering anger as relief workers struggle to reach earthquake victims."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/HaitiEarthquake/haiti-earthquake-relief-despai...
The problem with subscribing to the assertions of a person who knows little about the military like Dr Lawrence, is that you get answers that do not comport with reality, are fantasy, do not exist outside human imagination.
World-wide, humanitarian organizations buy their trucks, airplanes and ships from civilian organizations, who only transport goods to markets that can purchase them... ergo those who have division of labor, ergo those who have production, ergo those who have commerce, ergo those who have roads, airports, and harbors.
Unfortunately, earthquakes destroy those things.
But there are some organizations who must deliver logistical goods to places that don't have those things, primarily because it is to their advantage to be able to deliver logistical supplies in places that lack those things better than their adversaries.
Lacking an economic reason, it is obvious who that group is: the military.
I agree that it is unjust to FORCE people to pay for their military to deliver aid to someone else. But it is just as possible for a civilian humanitarian organization to PAY for military transport as it is for the governmental to donate it by fiat. In fact, it happens all the time.
Military helicopters, that can fly higher than civilian ones, are FREQUENTLY tasked to rescue lost hikers and mountaineers. Cities, counties, and yes, even civilian organizations and companies typically are required to reimburse the military when those tasks fall outside the scope of military operations.
On a larger scale, it is ABSOLUTELY NORMAL for humanitarian organizations to request, and pay for, such aid to the inaccessible corners of the world. RWANDA? SUDAN? ETHIOPIA? The military has been there many times at the requrest of humanitarian organizations, with the cost compensated.
But of course Dr Lawrence, who by base deduction hates the military, is so desperate to box the military into his extreme, unambiguous, guys-in-black hats role, that he actually says he would PREFER THE DEATHS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS TO AN ACTION WHICH MIGHT SHOW THE MILITARY IN A FAVORABLE LIGHT.
By his own statement, he so desires the rest of humanity to share his views that he would condem hundreds of thousands to death?... not in my words but in his.
"And third, U.S. military relief efforts in Haiti are a PR bonanza for the military. It is certain to counter, at least for a few weeks, the fact that we are engaged in two unpopular wars. And it certainly will help to quash the news that our Predator drone attacks have killed more civilians than militants. Humanitarian intervention by the U.S. military fosters the illusion that the military is somehow benevolent and praiseworthy instead of aggressive and contemptible." - Dr. Lawrence Vance
So, says Dr Lawrence Vance, the military should not render aid in Haiti, not because the cost of such a mission could be involuntarily confiscated from citizens, but because it might make people have a less negative view of the military than he does?
He doesn't want Military Aid in Haiti because of what people might think?
He would rather control the content of other human beings minds than to help them?
So, controlling the minds of other people is more important than the principle of non-aggression?
Controlling the minds of other people is more important than voluntary compassion?
This is Libertarian thinking?
If this extreme lust to control the views of others is Libertarian, then I want no part of it.
But, I beg to differ. It is not Libertarian. The content of others minds, including whatever conclusions they reach regarding a news story, is their own personal property and none of Vance's concern.
For God's sake Dr Vance! I know you count yourself a Christian!
Put aside your bigotry! Pay for the transportation and THEN continue your campaign against the military - without sacrificing your values.
Alternatively, if the dislike of the military, and lust to control others property (their thoughts) is more core in Dr Vance's belief system than the sanctity of human life, or the principle of non-aggression. Well, then it would seem he has revealed his true position on Libertarian philosophy!
Gordon, thanks for your comment. I've really appreciated your recent thoughtful contributions to the site.
For myself, Vance's last reason about the military's image of of the least interest. It is perhaps a valid point, and I included it to report fully on his article, but it's most definitely not the main reason why I don't think we should send the military to Haiti. You'll note I devoted very little space to it compared to the first reason, which I discussed at length.
To steal a quote from Calvin Coolidge,
I don't want to keep the military out of Haiti (and I assume the same could be said for Vance, though of course I don't know him personally) because I care more about the proper use of the military than I do about people's lives.
Far to the contrary.
As I mentioned, I've done extensive research on this. Most private emergency relief agencies have their own transportation -- planes, helicopters, buses, etc. (just like a hospital has its own medevac); their job is to reach remote places where others can't go. They're better at helping those in need than the government, military or other agency, ever is. They take a more efficient, diversified approach. And they help people in places the government -- including the military -- refuses to go for political reasons. For instance, I mentioned OPUSA, which prides itself on reaching those governments refuse to help.
Moreover, it is a point of pride among many relief organizations to refuse all government assistance -- this tends to attract donors and reassure them that their donations are not being used for some kind of political agenda. The two groups I mentioned, for instance, have never taken a dollar of government funds and so never, not even indirectly as you described, coerce charity.
And they do excellent work.
So I do not want to keep the military out of Haiti because of some sick desire to sacrifice lives for ideology, but because I want to see the people of Haiti helped well through moral means. This means better help for them without coercing the American taxpayer to support comparatively ineffective and inefficient relief efforts.
As for Vance, obviously I can't speak for him. But I wonder if you read the whole article he wrote? Did you see the part where, far from hating the military, he wrote of keeping it to its just and stated purpose? Or perhaps the part where he qualified his statement about how this involvement would conceal the military's less savory actions, saying he'd rather see the troops helping in Haiti than killing in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I'm simply a little confused at your statement that Vance hates the military more than he likes human life and non-agression given these statements. It seems to me like a more accurate depiction of his piece would be to say that he hates improper use of the military and, to quote him, would rather have the military:
That sounds like concern for human life over distaste for the military to me. What I see is that he wants help to go to Haiti and to have it do so without aggression against taxpayers -- while maintaining accurate reporting of the military's other activity (activity which hardly respects the sanctity of human life, or the principle of non-aggression). The mind control you speak of is a little less obvious.
So are you saying that you support the idea of deploying troops to Haiti, but only if they are removed from Iraq? That sounds an awful like withholding help for people until you get the political capital you're interested in. Essentially, you're willing to trade Haitian lives for getting your way in Iraq. Either stick to the principles you believe in, or stop claiming them.
I, for one, believe we shouldn't be in Iraq. I spent 15 months there, and regret that I was deployed at all. However, contracting military materiel through contracts and repayment in order to provide better service to non-profits in Haiti seems like a VERY libertarian thing to do. Maybe the military will get the idea that they need to contract out ALL of their services, and they'll stop spending taxes. Of course, that's not realistic at all; people will always accept "free" money. Gordon makes a good point about certain military technologies. These aid organizations wouldn't bother contracting with the military if they were able to provide the technology themselves... in fact, that's the entire basis for the idea of limited government.
When it comes to troop deployment, it's more of a question of borders, sovereignty, and responsibility. Is the U.S. military responsible for protecting Americans outside the borders of the United States? If so, under what conditions? It's a hard question when talking to libertarians, as some view the existence of the military itself as offensive, and the idea of borders to be offensive as well. I personally believe that having an active federal military outside of war for national defense is unconstitutional. However, in a constitutional republic, I would support states using their militias to escort, protect, and assist non profits on humanitarian missions, and the authority to deploy said troops would rest with the states and their chosen manner of decision, likely governor approval. I would ESPECIALLY support these measures if they were paid for by compensation from private donations or contracted pay from the non-profits themselves, and I don't think that funding would be difficult to acquire.
No, no, no, I'm not saying we should pull the troops out of Iraq and put them in Haiti. I'm saying that Vance said that would be the lesser of two evils to demonstrate that a previous commenter's characterization of Vance seemed inaccurate. I most definitely do not agree with that statement and would absolutely not put the military in either country; I would have us leave Iraq and let private charities take care of Haiti.
This is questionable at best. Wouldn't it be considerably more libertarian for the aid organizations to skip over the military entirely and go straight to the people who produce these services (which in this case means planes and other transport mechanisms)? Why does the military need to be involved? What would prevent the private groups from buying their own transport? These organizations operate with annual budgets that range from a couple million to over a billion. Transport is not out of their reach.
In short, they have their own transport; they do not need the military; and smaller charities regularly work with larger ones when they need this kind of assistance.
Think about it. There are probably thousands of private charities in this country alone. The public wishes to donate a certain amount of money to them. They have to compete for that money. If an organization had no way of actually providing the services it claimed to provide and getting them to the people who need them, do you think it would be funded for very long? No, not at all. Donors aren't stupid; they expect -- and will only pay for -- results.
So now that the "take the troops from Iraq and put them in Haiti" thing is cleared up (neither of us supports that at all -- correct me if I misunderstand you), I guess I'm confused about a few things on your comment:
P.S. All our comments are ridiculously, even amusingly long and yet still civil. Excellent.
"As much as I deplore U.S. military interventions for any reason, I would love to see all U.S. forces leave Iraq and Afghanistan and deploy to Haiti instead."
Yes I did read that statement. But I discounted it due to the fact that virtually all of Dr Vance's preceding rhetoric stated the diametric opposite. Decide for your self.
The sentence you cite was in his conclusion. The quotation I offered was one of the main points supporting his thesis, the title of which was that the military should NOT provide any aid at all in Haiti.
Should I have accepted that closing statement as a more valid representation of Dr Vance's opinion than his thesis? Should I have accepted that closing statement over the points he raised to support his thesis?
Can that closing statement be reconciled with the main body or the thesis? I don't think it can.
Now, where your statement that private organizations have equipment equally capable of delivering volumes of supplies over unimproved or destroyed transportation media... We'll just have to differ on that.
Aid organizations generally put their emphasis on collecting donations, and organizing volunteers. Generally they own little real infrastructure. Instead they borrow it, rent it, or receive its use as a donation.
I have personnally witnessed such organizations, who (condinue to) advertise that they do not accept military aid, receiving said aid.
I don't want to over-sell it. And I do not approve of the government using involuntary tax dollars to pay for it. But read these:
CONDITION OF THE AIRPORT:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870365760457500491390116838...
CONDITION OF THE PORT-AU-PRINCE DOCKS:
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:X1Qgc8q_PMgJ:www.portguide.com/+con...
http://www.joc.com/node/415968
http://www.cargolaw.com/2010nihtmare_haiti.html#Jan17
So, basically, if you are right, then I should see civilian landing-craft transporting, in priority order, All-Terrain Transport Trucks, All-Terrain Fuel-Tankers, WATER, Medical, and food from the relief container-ships to the beaches.
Transport must go first or there will be no where for the relief aid to go once it lands on the beaches. It has to be all-terrain because the roads are out. Fuel must go with the trucks because they will need more than good intentions in order to run.
And if you are right, with regard to the airport, whose air-traffic control system was destroyed, I should see the first few civilian aircraft land, offload air traffic control equipment, and personnel, and then depart. Next should come fuel-tanker aircraft to the main airports, followed by All-terrain transports - think of an 18-wheel-drive semi-tractor trailer - fuel trucks, etc. And then I should see the materiel for transport, medical personnel & supplies, water, food, ROWPU's, etc landing and loading onto those all-terrain transports to travel to aid distribution points.
Alternatively, if I am right and you are wrong, then I should see lots of container ships loitering around the harbor, filled with aid materiel, but lacking the means to deliver it. I would expect well-meaning agencies to send aircraft full of aid. Those aircraft would land using visual flight rules, park to unload, and lacking the means to unload, sit there waiting as still more well-meaning aircraft landed.
Eventually, because without traffic control an aircraft who wants to take off basically has to play chicken with an aircraft that wants to land, I would expect all the area next to the runway (a.k.a. ramp space) to be used by well-meaining but poorly prepared aircraft. Most or all of them would be full, with no equipment to use for unloading. And being full of cargo, heavy, and on a short runway they may not be able to take off if they wanted to (heavy aircraft need a longer runway). Once the ramp space is gone, they would start using the runway to park, after which aircraft would no longer have enough runway to land...and would have to return to their point of origin.
So, which scenario more closely resembles the facts on the ground?
Had they rented the appropriate equipment and personnel from the military, and been for-profit, you'd have seen a high level of competence displayed.
But, you know, "non-profit" and "efficient" are two adjectives rarely used to address the same object.
With a sales tax or excise tax regime in place of our current tax regime most of them would not NEED to be non-profit.
If there are 30 other countries assisting the Haitian's with the earthquake devestation, why would the USA and UN send in 20,000 troops? I just wonder "what the are going to do with "rebuilding " Haiti?
A military base? A Military runway? A pier to access heavy equipment to land? Didn't our military build schools, roads, hospitals in a weeks time in Iraq?
Is it to make sure no other country takes over that territory, once the help is given? Is it because it is so close to South America, in case Chavez gets nasty with the USA, like he threaten in August 2009? Could it be that its a prime opportunity now to set up a base to aid in protecting our borders ?
How many times has our military gone into Haiti and for what purpose then?
Why wasn't anyother part of Haiti affected by the earthquake? What could have happened under the earth to have caused such a precise demolition of just that highly populated capital city?
What is in the psyche of the poor to live in highly populated cramed conditons, or have they been herded into a "coral" , by population control governments? The next to happen could be The Mississipi Madrid shelf, and again the poor live so close to that area, in the Delta opening of the Missisippi. While miles of open space in other states could be utilized for complete freedom and independence by people.
North America needs to open up that land and utilize it for mass production of food for their own people and allies.......uncapping the wealthy corporate farms for the rich and allowing our country to and our own farmers to make a living and to produce "healthy non GMO foods" for USA human health and consumption.
Watch and see if our military prescence in Haiti will be used to drill and refine oil off their shores. Wathch and see if they build a military base and airport.
Watch and see how heavy they get with looters !
It appears to me it is already a double edge sword for :Aid and a Coup de tat!
Time will tell.......what the real purpose of a earthquake ihappening just in Port Au Prince where 3 million poor people lived and many died in total poverty and disease for hundreds of years, without anyone caring until now , how they suffered or if they suffered. Yes there was a huge UN presence, yes President Bush gave $3 Billion in his last 4 years to help with TB & HIV / AIDS treatment centers. That is all well and good, but why has the USA run over to Iraq and Afganistan , our enemies for years and goes on and on about rebuilding that country , while poor Haite sat 800 miles away from the USA , starving in poverty and adequate shelter? Working for the USA and South America for pessence, as peasants???????
What did our country do in New Orleans for those people ? Did the rebuild it yet? No! And they never will........so why should they rebuild Hait? And will they ? And why will they? For Oil ? For a Military prescence? Watch and see as this all unfolds...........
Check these sites out! I love my internet friends.....we seem to be on the same wave length!
Chavez: US weapon test caused Haiti earthquake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9QtZkT8OBQ&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=93188243F6D0495F
Haiti Quake, HAARP and the NWO
interesting point about the upcoming elections
a graph showing HAARP activity contrast, from the day before the
Haiti earthquake (almost zero) to the day of the earthquake....well, take a look...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwhege4IuNs&NR=1
Haiti - Shock Doctrine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FY3j7nT4XI&feature=related
Quake-shattered Haiti awaits aid as thousands feared dead
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1d5-WIU54I&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=93188243F6D0495F
Footage Video of People just after the Haiti EarthQuake / Seisme haiti
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB_XXqu6pmk&feature=related
Haiti Earthquake - first film of horror 13 Jan 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLFLqnpSK0M&NR=1
Chaos in Haiti as huge earthquake hits island
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny_rUTHxozI&feature=related
Red Cross: Quake killed up to 50,000 in Haiti
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXG8VLzIktY&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=93188243F6D0495F
First minutes after Haiti quake caught on camera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adbRGAlaYPY&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=93188243F6D0495F
OUR LEFT BRAIN POLITICIANS
Our county is becoming more left-brain each year.. Our government is run by left brain individuals who are narrow focused and blind to things conveyed indirectly. The right brain is no longer a factor in our thinking.
By simplifying and making rigid rules, we have become disconnected with each other. Business vs. labor, unemployed vs. employed, rich vs. poor, uninsured vs. insured, immigrant vs. natives, conservative vs. liberal, white vs. black, seniors vs. young, republicans vs. democrats, abortion advocates vs. pro-life, gay marriages vs. church marriages, singles vs. married, family vs. singles, educated vs. uneducated, on and on.
To stay in power, left brain politicians simplify and disconnect us from each other by establishing many rigid mechanical rules. This is a way for them to stay in control. Despite their increased wealth and prosperity, this apparently has not made politicians happier. To achieve their goals, politicians can’t see what is obvious, but deal only with the predictable. Without ever considering all the aspects of our lives, they have made our society full of rules
Left-brain politicians see us as intrinsically meaningless fragments that must be replaced with paper rigid rules. There is no room for ambiguity, imagination, or the idea that opposite things are compatible. (YIN--YANG)
They deal within a closed system, and strip away the complexity of our health system and, through the media, systematize our way of thinking. This allows them to manipulate us, pursue their own agendas, and prevent us from being aware that we are all part of the whole, called America.
HEALTH CARE REFORM EXAMPLE
Assume a left brained politician has a stroke, paralyzing his right arm. After the stroke, his left-brain is completely in control. Even though half of his body is useless, he now denies that anything is wrong. He may even say that the dead parts of his body belong to someone else, in the next bed. Always optimistic, singing a happy tune with other left brained politicians, he walks towards total destruction.
RIGHT BRAIN
Right brain orientated people pays attention to the whole world and see things in context as inseparably interconnected. They recognize everything that’s nonverbal, metaphorical, ironic, and humorous. The problem is we must see the entire country as it is, before we can simplify and disconnect it. Both right and left-brains must work in harmony, not independently. By seeing the relationship between the parts and the whole, we can see the problems caused by rigid, fixed and simplified left brain thinking. Today, ambiguity is seen as a sign of obscurity and there is no room for imagination and metaphors.
The left-brain is concerned with manipulation and left-brain politicians see mechanical models as the only framework for understanding the world and us. The left-brain gets locked into its own point of view, and does the same things in the same way it has always been done, and never does more.
NEED FOR HARMONY
To return to harmony and balance, we need some right brain thinking that allows some negative feedback. We need more empathy and inter-connectedness between our government and us. The left-brain pushes to maintain symmetry and stasis. Right brain thinking influences attitudes that the left brain might know and can act on.
COMMENTARY
All of our functions (language, imagery, reason, emotion), now seem to be controlled by both hemispheres, The two hemispheres are significantly different in how they work. Normally they work together without us being aware of what the other is doing. One hemisphere dominates in each individual , and in politicians it seems to be dominated by the left hemisphere.
We need both versions of the world.
By not using their right brain, politicians become socially and emotionally insensitive and have a poor understanding of beauty art and religion. Effectively, they become autistic, with no sense of the broader context of experience. If politicians didn’t use their left brains ,they would struggle to focus on details and resolve them.
Certainly, there is no lack of confusing details in our legislative bills. Its time for our politicians to stimulate their right brain thinking ,and see that our happiness depend on being connected to each other. As a country, we need the empathy and inter connectedness that only right brain thinking can provide.
HOW DOES YOUR BRAIN WORK THE BIPOLAR EPIDEMICRELATED POSTS
NOURISH YOUR BRAIN
Visit www.drneedles.com for more discussion of controversial medical subjects. Your comments are always appreciated.
Americanacupuncture.Drneedles @ www.linkedin.com
Post new comment