Log In | Register
What is there to say on the Haiti earthquake, and subsequent relief effort? Not much, beyond the obvious--which is why I have not said anything. Sure. Cable TV has found a lot to say, but that coverage is wildly excessive. That has nothing to do with Haiti, however, since cable TV coverage is wildly excessive on things less important than the Haiti earthquake that killed 100,000 people, or 200,000, or whatever.
I have nothing to criticize in the Obama relief effort. It is not that Obama is doing a "good job",. He is simply doing the appropriate job--as far as offering humanitarian assistance is concerned. The U.S. has always done this sort of thing to help people in disasters. I hope, and believe, we always will, not matter who is President. President Bush did the same thing: providing U.S. assistance to Indonesia for that tidal wave disaster.
President Obama is NOT providing the money for Haiti relief. He is NOT doing the relief work. He is NOT directly supervising the relief effort. The U.S. taxpayer, and individual donors, are providing the money. The relief is being provided by the U.S. military and individual aid workers, including government employees. The "supervision" is, well, pretty chaotic, but it ALWAYS IS. Bureaucracies do NOT suddenly become efficient during a disaster--especially one where the local authorities are pretty much dysfunctional--as in Haiti and Katrina (before Haiti). President Bush got a bum rap on Katrina for this reason: There is only so much a President can do. Yes, President Bush seemed a little "behind the curve" in WORDS and empathy, but there was little or nothing he could have done to change the RESULT in New Orleans. Instead of learning the lesson that the Federal Government cannot wave a magic wand and "solve" all problems created by a disaster IMMEDIATELY, we "learned" the WRONG lesson in Katrina. We "learned" to THROW MONEY at every disaster, both before and after the disaster occurs. I can't tell you how many billions of dollars we have WASTE"preparing" for hurricanes that never hit, etc. (including proven waste AFTER the criticism over Katrina--waste resulting from political CYA more than any kind of intelligent compassion).
I am serious about President Obama not "supervising" the Haiti relief effort. He is NOT QUALIFIED to do so. Almost no President is. Herbert Hoover was perhaps the best qualified for that sort of thing. It did him no good as, for example, my mother BITTERLY despises Hoover for being more concerned about people overseas than about the suffering of AMERICAN people in the Great Depression.
Should President Obama have paid more attention to American suffering, and not allowed himself to be so deflected by Haiti? Or should he, for example, have arranged a helicopter tour of Haiti to personally review the situation, rather than campaigning for Coakley in Massachusetts? While I bet Obama wishes he had done the latter, I don't think either is a valid criticism (FOR NOW--see below). For a President to "grandstand" with a personal visit is nothing but political theatre, that usually HURTS the relief effort. I also don't think "journalists" "helped" the relief effort, beyond an individual rescue effort or two, in either Haiti or Katrina New Orleans. And it is absurd to suggest we cannot "afford" IMMEDIATE humanitarian aid. Sure, a case can be made for PRIVATE donations, and PRIVATE aid, instead of taxpayer, bureaucratic aid. But, really, there is no substitute for the U.S. military in Haiti, and even--as it turned out--in New Orleans.
That is where the WRONG lesson was drawn from Katrina. Instead of learning that there is NO SUBSTITUTE for local government competence, the lesson the media wanted to "teach" us on Katrina was the the heavy, bureaucratic hand of the Federal Government is necessary as the FIRST RESPONDER, and thereafter to keep throwing money at the "problems" until they are all "solved". The real lesson is that there is only so much the bureaucratic Federal Government can do, and that not efficiently. It would be more VALUABLE to Haiti if Haiti were able to react to this earthquake itself, rather than relying on the U.S. bureaucracy. And it will be another disaster if we assume indefinite responsibility for all of Haiti's problems. Just as it would be better if New Orleans, and Louisiana, have learned to respond to--and anticipate, or mitigate, a disaster in Louisiana, instead of relying on the Federal Government. Yes, there is no substitute for the U.S. military as to immediate rescue help, to the extent local governments are overtaxed, but to place ultimate reliance on the Federal Government to "solve" all of your disaster "problems" is a huge mistake. Haiti has proved this again, as the relief efforts from outside face the inevitable bureaucratic snafus, lack of efficiency, fraud, etc. that ALWAYS accompany massive relief (not Obama's fault, and I don't fault him for it).
So if Obama has done the right thing in Haiti, whatever quibbles you might have about relief snafus or excessive taxpayer money being spent, what is the problem> The problem, as usual with Obama, is OVERKILL. Remember what Obama said: "We will do whatever it takes>' NO, WE WON'T, AND WE CAN'T. "Whatever it takes" means taking over, and occupying, Haiti--on a pretty long-term basis. Both Hugo Chavez and a French minister have already accused us of doing exactly that. The IMMEDIATE humanitarian relief and rescue effort cannot really be criticized, and carping at individual relief failures--as overpraising pulling individuals from rubble, admirable as that is--accomplishes nothing (unless there is a specific REMEDY to the problem proposed, other than the "magic wand" remedy).
But Haiti is NOT the "responsibility" of the United States. It is NOT our place to "rebuild Haiti" or "rebuild Haiti's infrastructure". This is really no different from the "white man's burden" justification for imperialism, circa 1900. Plus, of course, it does black people IN THE UNITED STATES no good whatever for us to assume responsibility for Haiti. In fact, it HARMS the, as it harms everyone in the United States. I think our relief effort to this point is not really subject to valid criticism. That will not be true, and my mother will have reaon to think of President Obama in the same way she thinks of Herbert Hoover, if we take over entire responsibility for Haiti as if Haiti is some sort of child for which we are responsible.
Nope. I am not saying that we should not provide some reasonable aid to Haiti, as we HAVE been doing (albeit with the government of Haiti siphoning off money in massive corruption). But here is where PRIVATE aid should be the real vehicle--preferably through private agencies who know how to stop CORRUPTION from deflecting the money into people's pockets. The American TAXPAYER is NOT responsible for Haiti forever more, and it is irresponsible of President Obama to suggest otherwise.
Throwing money at problems has never worked, and never will work. Once the initial humanitarian effort has done what it reasonably can (NOT "whatever it takes' to solve Haiti's problems), our aim should be for HAITI to be responsible for itself, with such VOLUNTARY help as is available--plus such reasonable U.S. aid that can be properly directed towards helping Haiti be in that position. That U.S. aid should have STRINGS, which leaves us open to the charge of "dominating" Haiti. Tough. It is either that or NO U.S. taxpayer aid.
Under no circumstances should U.S. taxpayer aid to Haiti replace Haitian and private efforts, or be tendered with the idea that WE are "responsible for "rebuilding" Haiti, or "solving" all of Haitis problems (when we can't "solve" our own, especially through Federal Government central planning).
Yes, we need an "exit strategy" from Haiti--an exit strategy that does not involve the American taxpayer taking over responsibility for Haiti, beyond urgent humanitarian assistance.
