US realises late that aid to Muslims enhances its image

[Mephisto2]

Interesting article on the "aid to tsunami victims" debate

US realises late that aid to Muslims enhances its image

The US response to the tsunami disaster is of strategic importance, writes Conor O'Clery.

The surprising thing is that the Bush administration did not see right from the start the public relations benefits of pictures of American helicopter crews distributing fresh water to Muslims in Indonesia rather than firing bullets at insurgents in Iraq.

But it was unquestionably tardy in its initial response to the biggest natural disaster for decades. US officials themselves admitted this and were quoted saying that the belated decision to send Colin Powell and Governor Jeb Bush to the region was partly to defuse hurt feelings.

During the first three days after the December 26th tsunami slammed into Indian Ocean coasts, Mr Bush had remained secluded in his ranch in Crawford, Texas, in contrast to the instantaneous response of many world leaders to the September 11th attacks on the US.

Critics began complaining that by not speaking out he was missing an opportunity to show goodwill at a time of worldwide opposition to his policies in Iraq.

Much was also made of the comment by Jan Egeland, UN emergency relief co-ordinator, the day after the disaster, that rich countries were "stingy", which stung the Bush administration particularly and set off a debate about America's role in providing aid worldwide.

The New York Times said Egeland was "right on target" and pointed out that the $15 million first proposed by Washington was less than half of the cost of the Bush inaugural festivities this month and that the subsequent increase to $35 million remained "a miserly drop in the bucket" in keeping with the pitiful amount (less than a quarter of 1 per cent) of the US budget allocated to non-military foreign aid.

A Democratic senator, Pat Leahy, commented witheringly that the US "spends $35 million before breakfast every day inside Iraq" and that by missing an opportunity America would have to play "catch-up ball".

US congressman Albert Wynn of Maryland weighed in, saying the president needed to show the world "that Americans do care, that Americans are compassionate, to put a different face on America from what people have been seeing as result of the Iraq war".

The strategic importance of the US response were spelled out by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who argued that the image of American power solving problems was the best antidote for America's global difficulties.

"An unpopular America has to seize every opportunity it can - to 'walk the walk' about our values, instead of just talking the talk," he said. "It's a moral duty, but it's also a national security requirement."

The White House was in fact fast coming to the same conclusion by the middle of last week. The aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln battle group was deployed to the region, followed by a Marine amphibious group and a 1,000-bed hospital ship, and fleets of helicopters and C130, C17 and C5 transport planes.

Bush dispatched Colin Powell and his own brother, Jeb, to the Indian Ocean, raised the amount of government aid to $350 million and on Monday, appointed his father, George H.W. Bush, and former president Bill Clinton to encourage Americans to dig deep to help the victims.

At a White House ceremony with his father and Clinton by his side, Bush praised "the good heart of the American people" as the greatest source of American generosity.

The "privatisation" of American aid donations had a practical purpose: the $350 million pledge basically emptied the federal disaster fund.

Across America people and businesses did dig deep. Microsoft committed $2 million in cash and its employees raised $700,000. Pfizer pledged $35 million in cash and medicines. Amazon.com raised $14 million in three days. Citigroup promised $3 million. The American Red Cross pulled in $80 million, mostly from individuals. Doctors Without Borders got $20 million from ordinary Americans.

Bill Clinton acknowledged that the overall US aid effort would improve America's image in the Muslim world, as by doing the right thing it gave America a chance to "reach across religious and political divides". The choice of Clinton to help out reflects an unusually warm relationship between the former president and the Bush family - on television he and Bush snr laughed and slapped each other's knees during interviews - and it paid immediate political dividends for the White House.

Clinton said he did not think the president had been tardy at all in his response, as no one realised at first the terrible effect of the tsunami.

Other defenders of the administration pointed out that several countries including France and Britain (and Ireland) had also raised pledges dramatically as the tragedy unfolded. Mr Egeland rowed back on his comment about stinginess, saying that he wasn't targeting the US which was the "the biggest donor and the most generous" (though in cash terms Japan provided more, pledging $500 million).

He hoped, however, that there would be an equally generous response in eastern Congo, were there were no dramatic tsunami-type pictures to highlight a humanitarian disaster, and in the developing world, where 1,000 people died every day from preventable disease and humanitarian neglect.

Andrew Natsios, administrator for the US Agency for International Development, defended the US aid record, saying that America contributed 40 per cent of all humanitarian relief worldwide, but he managed to spark a new row with France by observing that Paris was not a major donor to other nations.

This was a "shocking" comment, protested French ambassador Jean-David Levitte, who said that France, with an economy a fraction of the size of the US, had already given $28 million for tsunami relief when the US was pledging little more than that.

French anger probably reflected suspicions abroad about Mr Bush's motive in initially announcing a coalition of the US, India, Japan and Australia to lead the aid effort in the Indian Ocean. This was seen by some as a calculated snub to the United Nations, whose Secretary General Kofi Annan has fallen out of favour in Washington. It also did not go down well with US allies.

The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who has taken over the presidency of the G8 group of nations, made it clear that the UN should take the lead in the relief operation.

Facing suspicions of political opportunism, the Bush administration conceded that the group should work with the UN, and Colin Powell was instructed to attend today's Jakarta aid summit proposed by EU development commissioner Louis Michael and presided over by Kofi Annan.

There were dangers, too, in pushing the argument that America should be forgiven for past sins because they were helping out, said Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, who said that "people will think we're being very crass and exploiting a humanitarian tragedy for our own benefit".

The US response was "necessary and not debatable", he told the Associated Press. However, helping was not just the right thing to do but was in America's national interest, Colin Powell said. "If nations are poor, if they don't see hope, if they're riddled by disease, if no one is helping them, then radicalism takes over.

"They lose faith in democracy, and they start turning in other directions," he added. "This is an investment not only in the welfare of these people, which in and of itself is a good thing to do, it's an investment in our own national security."

Now personally I don't see this as an anti-US article, but rather an interesting analysis and commentary on the events and issues. However, as some members of this board have a habit of accusing me of being anti-American, I would like to repeat my opinion that I believe the US is leading the world in this effort (along with Japan). However, I do agree with the jist of the article; that is, a golden opportunity to not only help the world (and Islamic countries), but be seen to help was almost missed.

I especially like the analogy used in the article comparing pictures of US helicopters distributing clean water and food, with those of US helicopters shooting Iraqis. It's true that the former image would be more beneficial to American interests than the latter. Or do you disagree?

What do you guys think?


Mr Mephisto


EDIT: Link to original article in the Irish Times: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opi...54OPCONOR.html
Not sure if this works for non-subscribers.

[ShaniFaye]

Why does aid like this always have to be a "PR" campaign?

Damn it....the people need help....let countries give what they can/will and dont bitch about it, analyze it, compare it etc. I do NOT see why this tragedy needs to turn into a "lets see what countries are gonna do what, and lets see which countries we can trash for (insert stupid reason here) Quite frankly I am totally sick of the way these reports keep going.

Im sure those victims dont give a crap if the bottled water they are drinking or the medicines, food, clothes or any number of other things came from the US, Russia, Japan, Iraq, Egypt, Scotland, Iceland or from Santa Claus at the damn North Pole.

[Mephisto2]

No, I think you misunderstand the point of the article.

It's not that aid has to be a PR exercise, but that a good opportunity to show the "positive" side of US foreign engagement was almost overlooked.

That's all. There's no real criticism inherent in the observation.

Mr Mephisto

[ShaniFaye]

in all honesty that wasnt a reaction to THAT article in and of itself (but the title of this one alone pissed me off "image" and aide should not be inclusive of each other) my response is in reaction to ALL that has been said. All Im trying to say is why cant we just help.....why do people have to say, well if you do such and such it will look good to so and so.

These people are hurting and in major need....I dont think they give a flying monkey fart about the US's "image"

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

why do people have to say, well if you do such and such it will look good to so and so.

Because THAT, my dear ShaniFaye, is politics, in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

These people are hurting and in major need....I dont think they give a flying monkey fart about the US's "image"

Very true, unfortunately there will always be those that look at things like this, and ask themselves; "How can I use this to my advantage?"
What all of those initial aid figures failed to take into account, was the amount of aid that was going to be raised by private donations. So, the "stingy" thing did kind of bite a little. The government may only be sending X amount of dollars, in the form of aid...but John and Jane Q. Public can always be relied upon to send exponentialy more.

Colin Powell said. "If nations are poor, if they don't see hope, if they're riddled by disease, if no one is helping them, then radicalism takes over.

"They lose faith in democracy, and they start turning in other directions," he added. "This is an investment not only in the welfare of these people, which in and of itself is a good thing to do, it's an investment in our own national security."

I think this statement is one of the most sensible and usefull ones I've heard all year - and shows Colin Powell to be an intelligent and measured statesman.

[martinguerre]

Originally Posted by zen_tom

I think this statement is one of the most sensible and usefull ones I've heard all year - and shows Colin Powell to be an intelligent and measured statesman.

amen...there's a very basic reason for aid, like Shani is talking about, simply recognizing need and addressing it with out thought to ulterior motive. orwell has some fascinating work on this, discussing how the only remedy to moral corruption and violence is to recognize the humane course of action in everyday situations, with out theory or motive.

but coldly analysed, there is still a reason to do it, and that is that poverty and instability breeds chaos.

[roachboy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...383411,00.html

this article gives a hilarious glimpse behind the scenes of this tour, before the photo ops that allow powell to further the american marketing effort----which alone rationalizes expenditure on poor folk in a disaster situation--obviously it makes no sense in capitalist terms to simply provide assistance---something beneficial to the general bidness climate must also be involved.

it is particularly funny, in a twisted kinda way, reading the above statements--which rehash the american understanding of fascism as a function of economic crisis---coming from a guy who has carried...um....freight for the bush administration for 4 years, who requested that the guernica be covered up at the un before his dog and pony show before the unsc that tried to substitute snappy graphics for actual information in the bushcase for war against iraq....funny stuff indeed.

you would think with all the talk about compassion and christian values that emanates like a foul brown cloud from the administration that they would just shut the fuck up, pitch in and try to help these folks.

[OFKU0]

I heard on CNN that Jeb Bush went with Powell but thought the milk in my cereal was a little off making me hear things. What is Jeb Bush doing there? Christ if they are looking for brownie points, why didn't the U.S send Ahnooold.

I like the thought in the article that this visit might show caring and compassion on the part of the U.S but as I watch, and will watch especially Anderson Cooper tonight on CNN, it will appear that it is simply an exercise in futility. (Just because Anderson Cooper tries to hard to not make America look like the greatest thing since sliced bread, but fails every time)

Yes the U.S is doing their part, as is the rest of the world but somehow it looks so fake. Yes I'm sure that the U.S like the rest of the world cares about this disaster, but I can't get over the feeling that this is a tradeoff to make the U.S look good in light of the war in Iraq. I think the 3 presidents charade the other day is proof of that. I can't wait 'til Robert Smigel animates his political spin on that one.

edit---When refering to the U.S, this is administration, not the people of the U.S I'm refering too.

[powerclown]

Since the OP insists on introducing a "Muslim' slant to this:

-Saudi Arabia: $30 million
-Kuwait: $2 million
-United Arab Emirates: $2 million
-Turkey: $1.25 million
-Iran: $627,000
-Osama Bin Laden: $0

-Australia, USA, German, UK, Japan: ~$2.5 Billion

[OFKU0]

Originally Posted by powerclown

Since the OP insists on introducing a "Muslim' slant to this:

-Saudi Arabia: $30 million
-Kuwait: $2 million
-United Arab Emirates: $2 million
-Turkey: $1.25 million
-Iran: $627,000
-Osama Bin Laden: $0

-Australia, USA, German, UK, Japan: ~$2.5 Billion

I guess since these mideast countries feel the U.S is running the mideast, the U.S has got the funds covered.

[maleficent]

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

Why does aid like this always have to be a "PR" campaign?
.

Ok, so I'm a cynic at heart... Good PR is always needed, and not just by the governments. Pfizer donated a serious chunk of cash and medicine (not gonna mention all the really bad jokes floating around about unloading Celebrex somewhere) You don't think for one moment that Pfizer's generous donation was front and center in the press to counteract some of the bad press they've received for Celebrex.

Merck is another that has had a PR Nightmare with Vioxx, this will help. Starbucks faced a little bit of heat for not donatiing anything to the troops in Iraq, they've jumped on the bandwagon. Some of these companies badly needed a shot of good PR and getting what they've donated into the press helps, bunches.

Some other corporate donors:
• Abbott Laboratories (ABT), which was giving $2 million in cash, plus $2 million in products such as child nutritional supplement PediaSure.

• Merck (MRK), which pledged an initial contribution of $250,000 to the American Red Cross, plus donations of medicine.

• Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY), which committed $100,000 through the Red Cross and said it will be shipping antibiotics and other products to the region.

• Kaiser Permanente, one of the country's biggest hospital systems, which said it would send some of its 5,000 doctors to help and would donate $100,000 to the American Red Cross.

• Industrial conglomerate Tyco International (TYC), which was sending 200 cases of bandages, sutures, surgical gloves and other products from its health care division.

• Starbucks (SBUX) has contributed $100,000 to two international relief organizations — CARE and Oxfam UK. It plans next month to donate $2 for every pound of Sumatra, Sumatra Decaf and Aged Sumatra whole-bean coffee bought in its stores worldwide.

[Yakk]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

The government may only be sending X amount of dollars, in the form of aid...but John and Jane Q. Public can always be relied upon to send exponentialy more.

That hasn't happened yet. Jane and John Q Public are sending, worldwide, amounts on the same order of magnatude as governments are sending.

Currently JQP in the USA has spent/pledged less than the government as a whole.

"Exponentially more" -- I suspect you are being hyperbolic with your adjectives. Do you mean 10 times more? 100 times more? The amount the governments give, squared? Two to the power of the amount the government gave? An amount simular to what the government gave, increasing by 10% compounded every year? Or, just 'more'?

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

Damn it....the people need help....let countries give what they can/will and dont bitch about it, analyze it, compare it etc. I do NOT see why this tragedy needs to turn into a "lets see what countries are gonna do what, and lets see which countries we can trash for (insert stupid reason here) Quite frankly I am totally sick of the way these reports keep going.

All Im trying to say is why cant we just help.....why do people have to say, well if you do such and such it will look good to so and so.

Sure. Go and give 2 billion dollars. Yourself.

If it takes cold strategic analysis and comparison to get people to feed the hungry, yippie for cold analysis.

If PR is responsible for 2 billion life saving dollars, then push PR. All the warm fuzzy feelings in the world won't save those lives. Convincing people to give up billions upon billions of dollars in order to prevent death and suffering is an end that enobles -- not justifies -- pedestiran means.

Originally Posted by OFKU0

I heard on CNN that Jeb Bush went with Powell but thought the milk in my cereal was a little off making me hear things. What is Jeb Bush doing there? Christ if they are looking for brownie points, why didn't the U.S send Ahnooold.

Because Jeb is part of the Dynasty, silly. America's crown princes should be given exposure. (only half joking)

Originally Posted by OFKU0

Yes the U.S is doing their part, as is the rest of the world but somehow it looks so fake. Yes I'm sure that the U.S like the rest of the world cares about this disaster, but I can't get over the feeling that this is a tradeoff to make the U.S look good in light of the war in Iraq. I think the 3 presidents charade the other day is proof of that. I can't wait 'til Robert Smigel animates his political spin on that one.

If they are doing good to look good, more power to them. They are doing good.

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

However, as some members of this board have a habit of accusing me of being anti-American, I would like to repeat my opinion that I believe the US is leading the world in this effort (along with Japan).

Actually, in many ways, the US is following the world in this effort.

If you are talking 'when they decided to give' or 'how much they gave' or 'how much they gave per capita' or 'how much they gave as a percent of GDP', the US isn't a leader.

They are at the forefront with the other rich nations of the world. Canada, Japan, Germany, USA, Austrailia, UK, France, Denmark, China, Finland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Portugal, Qatar, Sweden, Ireland, Taiwan, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia and the World Bank.

(in USD, including annual debt relief, from the wiki)
EU governments: 1375: m 0.0124% of GDP, 3.0$ per capita (11050 billion PPP GDP, 456 million people)
Austrailia: 836 m: 0.146% of GDP, 41.8$ per capita (571 billion PPP GDP, 20 million people)
Japan: 500 m: 0.014% of GDP, 3.94$ per capita (3582 billion PPP GDP, 127 million people)
USA governments: 350 m: 0.0032% of GDP, 1.2$ per capita (10990 billion PPP GDP, 293 million people)
World Bank: 250 m
Canadian governments: 136 m: 0.014% of GDP, 4.25$ per capita (959 billion PPP GDP, 32 million people)
RoChina governments (Taiwan): 50 m: 0.009% of GDP, 2.27$ per capita (529 billion PPP GDP, 22 million people)
PRoChina governments (China+HK): 42 m: 0.0007% of GDP, 0.03$ per capita (6449 billion PPP GDP, 1299 million people)
Switzerland: 23 m: 0.013% of GDP, 3.29$ per capita (239 billion PPP GDP, 7 million people)
Arab governments: 20 m (??? PPP GDP, ??? people) (Qatar and Saudi Arabia)

edit: Added Japan, and following aside:
The USA is amoung the most generous nations in this disaster, it just isn't the most generous, or the leader, in any measureable sense.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

As pointed out by President Clinton, the United States, annually, gives 25-35% in emergency disaster relief, as well as 60+% of the worlds food aid annually.

Everyone can bitch all they want, but it's bullshit until they start putting or start shutting up.

[rgr22j]

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

No, I think you misunderstand the point of the article.

It's not that aid has to be a PR exercise, but that a good opportunity to show the "positive" side of US foreign engagement was almost overlooked.

That's all. There's no real criticism inherent in the observation.

Mr Mephisto,

Perhaps, then, do you think, as I do, that it's a credit to the Bush administration that running to the cameras for a PR opportunity was overlooked? Send help first, make sound bites later?

At first I thought that Bush was comically ineffective at maintaining his image, making him (unjustly, in my opinion) a very polarizing figure. But perhaps the more obvious answer is that, he really doesn't care about his image.

I just heard it reported on the radio that $15 million was all that could be immediately released when the disaster struck, and that the $35 million effectively emptied out the federal disaster fund. Pledging $350 million couldn't be done without Congress, which was out of session. Seems reasonable to me, even in a disaster of this magnitude -- it's not like Congress wouldn't pass a tsunami-aid bill. Otherwise, what's to prevent Bush from claiming that Iraq qualifies for relief and pledging $250 billion or whatever? Or some future president from pledging X billion to a pet cause of his?

But the end result is that this almost comically bad timing makes it look like Bush upped the ante when faced with world criticism which, if we look at the Iraq experience, couldn't be further from the truth. So my conclusion must be that abusing the tsunami to enhance our "image," so to speak, must have not been high on his list of priorities. I think it's a credit to him. And I think it's a credit to quite a number of people -- Clinton included -- to put aside partisanship for this unthinkable disaster.

I think I read somewhere that you're from Australia. I think it's stunning what Australia has done in this disaster, and full credit to Australians everywhere. However, no offense intended, but there isn't any way I'm going to let a bunch of Aussies be more generous than us. And that's why I'm sending in more money to the relief fund. I think Bush -- as well as the rest of us Americans -- would do well with the same attitude.

-- Alvin

PS Apologies if you're not from Australia -- my memory is not as good as it used to be!

[Seaver]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...type=printable

Could someone please teach me how to post the full article? Sorry for my ignorance.

Anyways Bush donated $10k of his own money to them. Cant wait for the bitching to ensue "He gets $200k/year he could give more!"

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by rgr22j

Mr Mephisto,

Perhaps, then, do you think, as I do, that it's a credit to the Bush administration that running to the cameras for a PR opportunity was overlooked? Send help first, make sound bites later?

No, actually I think the Bush Administration dropped the ball entirely with their delayed response.


One topic that has barely been touched on (apart from OFKUO) is the absolutely miserly contributions from other, exceedingly rich, Islamic countries.

To be perfectly honest, I'm both aghast at this lack of assistance and amazed that it hasn't been siezed upon by the usual anti-Islamic members and pundits. In this circumstance, complete and utter condemnation of such miserliness is entirely justified.

These guys talk about the "West" trying to colonize and influence their countries, or (even worse) that Chrisitians are trying to convert or struggle against Muslims. But who are helping out the most?

Hypocrisy, no matter what side it's on, should be identified, highlighted and ridiculed.

Mr Mephisto

[sob]

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

No, I think you misunderstand the point of the article.

It's not that aid has to be a PR exercise, but that a good opportunity to show the "positive" side of US foreign engagement was almost overlooked.

That's all. There's no real criticism inherent in the observation.

Mr Mephisto

Here's another positive side of US foreign engagement that's been almost overlooked:

According to UNICEF, Saddam's response to sanctions was to permit 5,000 Iraqi children under the age of five to die each month (60,000 per year) so that he could purchase military equipment and palaces.

A very rough calculation leads me to believe that President Bush has saved considerably more children's lives (roughly 90,000 plus) than all the aid that has been given to the Tsunami victims.

[roachboy]

i have been sitting here for five minutes or so trying to figure out ways to logically connect the previous post to the topic....the sanctions regime were like a tsunami?...no, that doesnt work....

i'm baffled.

[tellumFS]

Originally Posted by OFKU0
I heard on CNN that Jeb Bush went with Powell but thought the milk in my cereal was a little off making me hear things. What is Jeb Bush doing there? Christ if they are looking for brownie points, why didn't the U.S send Ahnooold.


Because Jeb is part of the Dynasty, silly. America's crown princes should be given exposure. (only half joking)

You may not be too far off...Jeb '08?

Seriously, I think that while it's understandable if aid isn't as much as other countries due to the emergency fund being drained, the question is, why did it take so long? An aid package, or at the very least condolences should have been announced the day of, not days later. It takes time to find money, but how much time to say "We're sorry for the families. We'll be there to help with what we can."? damn shame.

[jb2000]

The fact is there is no yardstick to measure how much giving is enough. It is easy to say so-and-so hasn't given enough or soon enough or whatever.

My choice is to universally applaud those who have contributed anything, be it a large cash donation or a few cans of food. Why they did it and why they chose the level they did is not something I'm going to judge them on.

Personal contributions are obiously excellent, but government aid is invaluable. Governments have unique abilities to provide aid effectively, quickly, and in sufficient amounts. Additionally, for many of their citizens, governments provide the only way to make a significant contribution. It is great that an actress has $2m to give, but most Americans would have to make some serious sacrifices and perhaps endanger their own financial situation just to find one or two hundred bucks to give. Through government we can give aid effectively and in sufficient quantity to be meaningful.

[sob]

Originally Posted by roachboy

i have been sitting here for five minutes or so trying to figure out ways to logically connect the previous post to the topic....the sanctions regime were like a tsunami?...no, that doesnt work....

i'm baffled.

Let's see if I can help.

Every post I've seen commends those who contributes funds, their expertise, or their time to save lives in the areas affected by the tsunami. Except for Bush, of course, whom I believe sent $10,000.

However, the same people who praise the donors are speechless in regard to the huge number of lives in Iraq that have been saved and improved by President Bush. In fact, the number I previously stated did not include lives saved by our troops' restoring hospitals, electricity, and phone systems to function, as well as getting water and sewer facilities on-line. By the way, these are systems that for the most part, have not worked in years. They weren't destroyed by the troops.

Why have I seen so many posts of people who were saddened by the tsunami, but very few to none from people who were saddened by the deaths of children in Iraq?

Are Iraqi lives, especially children's, not as valuable as those of the tsunami victims? Or is it just that Bush can never be credited with any worthwhile acts, as some of the posts here allude?

[jb2000]

Originally Posted by sob

Every post I've seen commends those who contributes funds, their expertise, or their time to save lives in the areas affected by the tsunami. Except for Bush, of course, whom I believe sent $10,000.

...

Are Iraqi lives, especially children's, not as valuable as those of the tsunami victims? Or is it just that Bush can never be credited with any worthwhile acts, as some of the posts here allude?

First, when I said I applaud all donors, I did not exclude Bush from that applause. I have heard his contribution maligned as too small for a fat cat, but I don't share that sentiment.

However, your assertion that we should have the same feelings of gratitude and respect for someone for starting a war as we do for someone providing humanitarian aid in the face of a natural disaster is absurd at the least.

There are some reasonable estimates of the deaths caused through the actions of the Saddam regime, and one can extrapolate that figure over the potential but limited extension of that regime had it not been toppled in 2003. However, it does not hold up to the sheer number of deaths caused by the invasion. Unfortunately, the Administration intentionally prevented accurate counting of the death toll amonst Iraqi citizens caused by the US Invasion. But the quantities that are estimated are significantly greater than the number of deaths caused by Saddam over a similar period. Granted, the argument can be made that the rate of death will decrease and eventually, the formula will result in a net savings in lives. We haven't reached that point on the graph yet, and with the continuing unrest, violence, and potential for sustained violence, it is not clear when we might expect to reach that point.

Thus, to say that the invasion saved lives is inaccurate as of today, and to say it will ultimately result in saving lives can not be known yet, as it is entirely dependant on future events that can not be accurately predicted yet.

Regardless, to paint Bush as Mother Theresa for the invasion of Iraq is completely unreasonable in any light. Bringing salvation on the point of a sword IS fundamentally different than bringing it in a non-violent means.

[roachboy]

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/tsunami/st...384245,00.html

The neocons have a hand in Aceh, too

US support for Indonesia's army is compromising its relief effort

Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday January 6, 2005
The Guardian

Two days after the tsunami struck, President Bush, who had made no public statement, was vacationing at his ranch in Texas, and a junior spokesman was trotted out. The offer of US aid was $15m - $2m less than the star pitcher of the Boston Red Sox was paid that year.

On December 27, UN emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland had criticised wealthy nations for "stinginess". The next day Bill Clinton described the tsunami as a "horror movie", and explained that international leadership was required for a sustained effort once the "emotional tug" waned.

Now the White House spokesman reassured the country that Bush was "clearing some brush this morning; I think he has some friends coming in ... that he enjoys hosting; he's doing some biking and exercising ... taking walks with the first lady..." The spokesman said US aid would be increased to $35m, and added a jibe at Clinton: "The president wanted to be fully briefed on our efforts. He didn't want to make a symbolic statement about 'we feel your pain'. "

For Bush, the war on terrorism is the alpha and omega of foreign policy, and it did not occur to him or to his national security team that the tsunami disaster, devastating Muslim regions, provided an opportunity for the US to demonstrate humanitarian motives. In this crisis, his advisers acted in character: Vice-president Cheney was duck-hunting on the plantation of a Republican donor; Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, suggested nothing to disturb her boss; and Colin Powell, the secretary of state, defended Bush as "not stingy".

Eight days after the tsunami, Bush appeared in the White House flanked by his father and Clinton, who, he announced, would lead a private aid effort, and moreover that US aid would be increased tenfold to $350m. Attacking Clinton hadn't worked; so Bush recruited him to deflect criticism.

The coastline of south Asia has been radically altered, but the political landscape in Washington remains familiar. Behind the stentorian rhetoric about the battle between good and evil lies the neoconservative struggle to remove human rights sanctions against the Indonesian military, which is waging a vicious war against the popular separatist movement on Banda Aceh, the province hardest hit by the tsunami.

The war between the Indonesian military and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) has raged for more than two decades. A ceasefire negotiated in 2002, with the involvement of former general Anthony Zinni as US representative, was brutally broken by the military in May 2003. The Indonesian military is a virtual state within a state and is unaccountable for its human rights violations and criminal activities. After its war of ethnic cleansing against East Timor concluded with independence following diplomatic intervention, the military was determined not to lose Banda Aceh.

In its war there, the military has mimicked the language of the war on terrorism and the Iraq war, calling its operation "shock and awe", targeting the population as terrorist supporters, and expelling all international observers, including the UN, from the region. Human Rights Watch documented extensive torture and abuse.

Bush administration policy has been conflicted, confused and negligent. The leading neoconservative at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defence, has tried to overthrow US restrictions on aid to, and relations with, the Indonesian military. The neoconservative thrust is undeterred by the military's obstruction of the FBI investigation into the murder of two US businessmen in 2002, killings that appear to implicate the military. When the state department issued a human rights report on Indonesia's abysmal record, its spokesman replied: "The US government does not have the moral authority to assess or act as a judge of other countries, including Indonesia, on human rights, especially after the abuse scandal at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison."

On his tour of Banda Aceh, Powell made no determined effort to restore the cease-fire. Meanwhile, GAM reports that the Indonesia military is using the catastrophe to launch a new offensive. "The Indonesians get the message when you have no high-level condemnation of what they're doing," Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch told me. A renewed effort by Wolfowitz against sanctions is expected soon.

In the name of the war on terrorism, neoconservatives attempt to bolster the repressive military, which flings the Bush administration's sins back in its face. In the "march of freedom", human rights are cast aside. The absence of moral clarity is matched by the absence of strategic clarity.

this adds another, interesting wrinkle to the bush administration's interactions with indonesia over aid to tsunami victims. nothing happens in isolation, you see.

historical background:
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/indonesia.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Asi...ific/EM818.cfm
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=indone
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...11&ItemID=2132

[smooth]

Originally Posted by Seaver

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...type=printable

Could someone please teach me how to post the full article? Sorry for my ignorance.

Anyways Bush donated $10k of his own money to them. Cant wait for the bitching to ensue "He gets $200k/year he could give more!"

These kinds of comments always get posted in this forum.
Have you noticed that more often than not it's the conservatives that do it?

I didn't even care how much he personally donated. Never thought to look. Now I know.
Yet somehow your post is going to be remembered as some liberal bitching about Bush.

It's really tiresome to me.

[Konichiwaneko]

Originally Posted by roachboy

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/tsunami/st...384245,00.html




this adds another, interesting wrinkle to the bush administration's interactions with indonesia over aid to tsunami victims. nothing happens in isolation, you see.

historical background:
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/indonesia.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Asi...ific/EM818.cfm
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=indone
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...11&ItemID=2132

Wasn't it said earlier in this thread that Bush couldn't just throw out 350 million at the swipe of the hand?

As the number of casualties grew, so did the donation amount. Also we have more then money going, we mobilized are technology, training and work force.



Maybe the title should read

"Muslim's realize it too late that the US is not their enemy"

[RangerDick]

OT, I know...but

Smooth -

Although, I disagree with pretty much everything you write, I have to admit that I am hypnotized by your avatar. But I think that's part of your strategy. Do they ever do the same position twice....?

On that merit alone, mad props you crazy sumbitch.

-RD

[sob]

Originally Posted by jb2000

Thus, to say that the invasion saved lives is inaccurate as of today, and to say it will ultimately result in saving lives can not be known yet, as it is entirely dependant on future events that can not be accurately predicted yet.

Regardless, to paint Bush as Mother Theresa for the invasion of Iraq is completely unreasonable in any light. Bringing salvation on the point of a sword IS fundamentally different than bringing it in a non-violent means.

As is usually the case, it appears that neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

In the interest of not dragging this out further, I'll simply say that it's equally unreasonable to say Bush gets no credit for the aid he arranged for the victims, since it took him a few days to do it.

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by Konichiwaneko

Maybe the title should read

"Muslim's realize it too late that the US is not their enemy"

The thread title is simply a repeat of the article title.

I think it's a good article. I hope you're not implying I'm knocking the US aid effort, as I've gone on record as explicitly praising it.


Mr Mephisto

[Konichiwaneko]

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

The thread title is simply a repeat of the article title.

I think it's a good article. I hope you're not implying I'm knocking the US aid effort, as I've gone on record as explicitly praising it.


Mr Mephisto

Nah nothing against what you put up Mr. M, just kinda tired by the fact that the US has to win the Muslim overs, when they in turn haven't really been winning us over.

I know it sounds cocky, but I agree with Shani and so on. I don't care if I help muslim, jew, hindu, buddhist, christian, or the non religious, what I care for is life and helping someone else have the priveledge of having what we all have... a chance.

[Yakk]

However, the same people who praise the donors are speechless in regard to the huge number of lives in Iraq that have been saved and improved by President Bush. In fact, the number I previously stated did not include lives saved by our troops' restoring hospitals, electricity, and phone systems to function, as well as getting water and sewer facilities on-line. By the way, these are systems that for the most part, have not worked in years. They weren't destroyed by the troops.

I haven't seen a good study demonstrating that the Iraqi invasion caused a net reduction in Iraqi deaths.

Do you have such a source? I would like to see the numbers!

[flstf]

I hate these "mine's bigger than yours" comparisons but since it came up:

How much are the military ships, helicopters, manpower, etc.. costing the U.S. in order to be dedicated to tsunami relief work? If that's included in the original 350 million it's probably almost gone by now. If it's not included then our contribution will be in the billions before long.

The U.S. is uniquely qualified to roll our sleeves up and go in there and immediately help. From what I've seen on the news, fresh water is already being supplied from our ship's desalinization plants and more are on the way.

[jb2000]

Originally Posted by sob

As is usually the case, it appears that neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

In the interest of not dragging this out further, I'll simply say that it's equally unreasonable to say Bush gets no credit for the aid he arranged for the victims, since it took him a few days to do it.

I have only told you of my applause for all contributions regardless of size or timing in each post so far. So could you tell me again where I have said or even suggested that Bush should not get credit for contributing to tsunami relief? Otherwise, for the sake of civility, please admit that I have not made any such statement, and that in fact I have applauded the President's contribution unconditionally.

[jb2000]

Originally Posted by flstf

I hate these "mine's bigger than yours" comparisons but since it came up:

How much are the military ships, helicopters, manpower, etc.. costing the U.S. in order to be dedicated to tsunami relief work? If that's included in the original 350 million it's probably almost gone by now. If it's not included then our contribution will be in the billions before long.

The U.S. is uniquely qualified to roll our sleeves up and go in there and immediately help. From what I've seen on the news, fresh water is already being supplied from our ship's desalinization plants and more are on the way.

As a former crewmember of the Abe Lincoln, I was proud to see her responding to the crisis. The point is that nations should respond with what they can that will provide effective relief. For some that is primarily cash, for some expertise, and for the US, a variety of responses. One can't and shouldn't bother quantifying the exact cost of our response. Our ships are perfect for providing quick water treatment capacity where it is needed most, and its been a great contribution. Fact is they were at sea and would be cruising anyway, regardless of the tsunami, so the whole cost of the ships operations is not attributable to the relief effort. How much is, well I'm sure some bean-counter will find a way to measure it, but in the end it doesn't matter. The fact is that the United States was there and will continue to be there through the reconstruction effort.

As for the cash pledge, only a fraction has actually been directed to projects yet. It doesn't matter if we had pledged a billion dollars, it would have made no difference as of today. If we reach the end of the $350m at some point, then it will be an issue as to whether or not to extend more, but we will be at a much better position to make that judgement from.

America's contribution has frankly been huge, and should be considered nothing but. Whether others contribute more is not the issue. Only one nation can contribute the most, so does that mean only one nation can make a worthwhile contribution while all the rest are stingy bastards?