blargblog

"an operation that, from the start, has been so intensely politicised that humanitarian values of independence, neutrality and impartiality are being squeezed out. Aid agencies have become part of the front line."

You knew I'd weigh in on this one. You should be aware that within the field of humanitarianism there are a number of different schools of thought on things like "independence", "neutrality", and "politicization".

The British (by which I mean British NGOs and the journalists which cover them), in general, have staked out a position that allows them to feel good about themselves when they withdraw for whatever reason. The quote I excerpt above is a fine example of that. I have little respect for this position, because it denies the reality of the situation. Dammit, aid agencies are always on the front line, politics is the only reason we are ever in these places, neutrality is a goddam bedtime story and I hope Nick Cater sleeps more easily for telling it to himself.

Mr Cater ignores, perhaps does not know, the fact that the British government has people on the ground in Iraq, doing reconstruction work, who are not using armed guards and are not being targeted. Or maybe they asked him to not publicize their work? In which case the article is even more irresponsible. Don't kid yourself, Kevin, Mr Cater didn't put much thought at all into the "consequences of humanitarian withdrawal". He's just reporting the party line as it has been honed in every crisis over the past decade. I've heard it a million times. Bah.

Yes, I knew you'd chime in. In fact, was hoping for it. Cuz I always like to hear an informed view. So, hey—thanks!

Like I said, I don't endorse this view, but I did find it worth listening to. I am still not convinced, because the humanitarian need is so great there (and just about anywhere else in the world, for that matter) and to simply pack up and go is to leave the needy in a truly awful situation. Also, in the long run, we in the west will lose whatever degree of trust or respect we have with the arab world if we abandon our humanitarian efforts in Iraq.

What truly steams me about this attitude is the utter lack of options. "Either we get to play exactly the way we want to, or we'll pick up our toys and leave."

Cater does make some good points. The fact that the US is using the humanitarian agencies as cover for some of their policies is vile. The fact that this reduces the security for the humanitarian agencies is vile. This should be pointed out to constituencies back in Europe and North America.

But, and I can hardly emphasize this enough, this was expected. If you can anticipate the US strategy and the consequences of it, then you should be able to develop strategies of your own to counter them. Instead, Mr Cater whines that "neutrality" is being compromised and doing the work is, therefore, impossible. Again: Bah.

There are always ways to do the work. There are always options. Pulling out doesn't reduce the harm being suffered by the Iraqis.

I note that the ICRC decided to not pull out. I never expected them to. They are allowing any non-Iraqi staff to leave if they want to, but the organization has made its commitment to the Iraqi people clear.

"Cater", not "Carter"—argh. I hate it when I do that. All instances in the post have been changed. Not in my comment above, though. What is it Kip always says? "Poste in haste, repent in leisure." Something like that.

It sometimes seems like there's a wish among certain elements of the opposition to occupation (among whom I count myself) that all this had never happened, so we should just leave now and pretend that resolves the problem. I oppose the occupation, yes, but I think it would be foolhardy to just up and go; nor do I think it responsible to turn aid to the Iraqis into some horrible shackling loan. The fact is, as the invading nation, as the one who started the war, as the one who destabilized the country and destroyed much of its infrastructure—well, we have a huge debt to pay here. We gots obligations. I just don't think that we should be running the show: a) the BushAdmin cannot be trusted, b) no country can do it alone, certainly not the occupier, given its credibility problems among the occupied, and c) this best handled by the UN, who know what the fuck they're doing. Until we are ready to lose some face on this and transfer authority over, we're going to continue to see international resistance to US calls for help (did I say "calls"? I meant "demands"—yet another problematic element of this crisis) among our allies.

Even so, the UN has its own problems. It's a target and obviously needs the security, and we would be obliged to provide it. This idea sticks in the craw of anti-UN neocons who cannot stand the idea of American forces answering to an international authority. But that's simply the best way to achieve reconstruction and to provide security for the Iraqis without making the terrorist situation worse.

Almost needless to say, I talk about Iraq every day with people who are trying to figure out what to do. I have collected a number of suggestions and I really ought to turn them into a blog post.

Part of the gist, though, is that Iraqis have huge capacities which are going untapped and ignored. Sheesh, hire back the damn army already! Put all contracts through Iraqi companies and allow them to hire US companies (and companies from other countries) as subcontractors. Throw open the telecommunications market. Let the oil companies pay for the rehabilitation of the oil infrastructure (we'll pay eventually at the pumps, but why pay up-front?). Etc.

I've done a back of the envelope attempt to spend $87 billion in Iraq on things that Iraqis can't already do for themselves. I can spend the money over three years by wildly inflating expected costs (which is probably smart), but I wouldn't have asked for that much even over five years.