I can see that delivering relief supplies is very, very important, but I can also see that simply dumping huge amounts of supplies without organisation and control would simply lead to mass looting by those with the biggest sticks.
That article seems to suggest that all military influence in Haiti is for the good of the US or the Haitian elite, where it's obvious that a good deal of military control is genuinely required for the relief effort. Like all of these things the truth is probably somewhere in the middle and certain amounts of military control are necessary but it may well be that some amount of it is being directed for personal gain by some of those involve. How much of one and how much of the other is very, very hard to discern.
Fair point, but who else do you think could keep adequate control?
First thing that springs into my mind is that you're going to need people with a high degree of organisation and weaponry. The military generally fits that bill (not always of course, but generally).
Well, for example, I think if the response was more adequate then a large degree of weaponry wouldn't be necessary ... people (I think) generally don't loot and don't riot unless there's a root cause.
Even if the military are the sensible choice, they're only as good as the organisation from the top. If there's no sensible plan and insufficient aid all the military discipline and guns in the world aren't going to stop the chaos.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-01-26 11:01 am
no subject
That article seems to suggest that all military influence in Haiti is for the good of the US or the Haitian elite, where it's obvious that a good deal of military control is genuinely required for the relief effort. Like all of these things the truth is probably somewhere in the middle and certain amounts of military control are necessary but it may well be that some amount of it is being directed for personal gain by some of those involve. How much of one and how much of the other is very, very hard to discern.
no subject
no subject
First thing that springs into my mind is that you're going to need people with a high degree of organisation and weaponry. The military generally fits that bill (not always of course, but generally).
no subject
Even if the military are the sensible choice, they're only as good as the organisation from the top. If there's no sensible plan and insufficient aid all the military discipline and guns in the world aren't going to stop the chaos.