1/17/2010, 3:59 pm
Greetings Comrades! This article came up in my Government & Politics class, so I thought I'd cross-post here for Party Approved Collective Enjoyment.
Mr. Cockburn, as a time-tested liberal raised by a socialist father would almost be remiss not to blame the US, but there are several flaws in his logic. First, why is it the fault of the US? We are not required to do anything for any other nation, but we are in the position to help, and do so from a culture of compassion and concern for humanity. We have much and are geographically the closest out of the wealthy nations, and are not the type to ignore such a tragedy without rendering aid. Cockburn accepts that the fear of looting and crime require armed troops to be among the first to arrive on the ground. How can any NGO, charitable organization, or even US military medics provide medical aid or search for survivors while in danger of having their supplies looted or their personnel attacked or kidnapped for ransom. People become desperate in desperate times, and one must ensure safety for aid providers and survivors alike. The 82nd Airborne, already overtaxed by two wars, is performing this mission without complaint.
His arguments concerning Aristide, Papa Doc, and Baby Doc run parallel to current criticisms of US policy toward Chavez and Zelaya wherein the evil imperialist US counters the will of the people and props up puppets, thus preventing a peace-loving socialist and "friend of the people" from saving their populations from the greed of GOP backed multinational corporations and plantation owners by enacting "progressive" policies and equal distribution of wealth. History shows that a left-wing dictator is just as bad as a right-wing dictator. It's not the policy that is the problem- it's the concept of the dictator. The US has never overthrown the will of the people of another nation by removing a progressive leader selected through free and fair elections. If that were true we would have gone to war with most of Europe and indeed the rest of the world. It is foolish to expect any country to act contrary to its national interest and the US is no exception. We have supported freedom loving people throughout the world, including in Haiti, known for its successful slave rebellions. Particularly during the Cold War, why should the US have been expected to support radical regimes in its own back yard, especially close to Cuba? It is perhaps the withdrawal of our protective hand that caused some of Haiti's governmental problems, not support for gangs by certain unnamed GOP members (which is distinct from official US policy) as asserted by Cockburn.
He denounces the speed at which heavy equipment has arrived, comparing it to New Orleans as too little, too late. The journey by sea takes time. Ships must be prepared and outfitted for extended deployment, ground forces organized, heavy equipment consolidated from around the Eastern seaboard, and finally shuttled to the island nation at slow maritime speeds. Once it arrives, how does it make land as the port has largely been destroyed? Divers must inspect the port to ensure it is safe and repairs must be made. We're moving as fast as we can. Movement by air for heavy equipment is equally troubled. Equipment and crews must be consolidated and prepared for a lengthy deployment. Heavy-lift air assets must either be diverted from their wartime mission or called up from the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. Fuel must be carried along with maintenance supplies. Further complicating matters is the destruction of the airport. Without runway lights, landing beacons, control towers, etc., landings must be made by day at considerable risk. Who wants to see their sons and daughters killed flying bulldozers to Haiti due to a lack of infrastructure at the receiving end? Again, we're moving as fast as we can. However, with each aid worker who arrives, more food, water, quarters, etc. must be carried. Fuel must be sent to power generators. What would Cockburn do, aside from denouncing President Obama, to speed up this process?
Finally, he blasts the NGOs who are to provide aid, saying their operating overheads are too high, and comparing them to straw men in the guise of notional corrupt Haitian ministers. Haitian ministers don't have to film and broadcast fundraising commercials, pay staffs, or fly equipment around the globe, so of course they don't see the same overhead. However, Cockburn might be surprised to learn that he, at least in part, agrees with Rush Limbaugh, who also warns of possible corruption by large organizations (from The Guardian: https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/j ... h-limbaugh). The smaller organizations he promotes might require less money to run their operations, but do they have the same visibility, reach, or capacity to provide aid?
I will agree with Cockburn on one point. The key to Haiti's success after this crisis is resolved will be found in its people forming an honest, legitimate government to provide opportunities for success and safeguard the rights and freedoms of its people. It is in the interest of the US to help such an endeavor to succeed.
NOW BACK ON YOUR HEADS!!! TO YOUR SHOVELS!! Those beets aren't going to harvest themselves in accordance with our 5 year plan by themselves...
-Commissar Obamissar Vodkavich
Mr. Cockburn, as a time-tested liberal raised by a socialist father would almost be remiss not to blame the US, but there are several flaws in his logic. First, why is it the fault of the US? We are not required to do anything for any other nation, but we are in the position to help, and do so from a culture of compassion and concern for humanity. We have much and are geographically the closest out of the wealthy nations, and are not the type to ignore such a tragedy without rendering aid. Cockburn accepts that the fear of looting and crime require armed troops to be among the first to arrive on the ground. How can any NGO, charitable organization, or even US military medics provide medical aid or search for survivors while in danger of having their supplies looted or their personnel attacked or kidnapped for ransom. People become desperate in desperate times, and one must ensure safety for aid providers and survivors alike. The 82nd Airborne, already overtaxed by two wars, is performing this mission without complaint.
His arguments concerning Aristide, Papa Doc, and Baby Doc run parallel to current criticisms of US policy toward Chavez and Zelaya wherein the evil imperialist US counters the will of the people and props up puppets, thus preventing a peace-loving socialist and "friend of the people" from saving their populations from the greed of GOP backed multinational corporations and plantation owners by enacting "progressive" policies and equal distribution of wealth. History shows that a left-wing dictator is just as bad as a right-wing dictator. It's not the policy that is the problem- it's the concept of the dictator. The US has never overthrown the will of the people of another nation by removing a progressive leader selected through free and fair elections. If that were true we would have gone to war with most of Europe and indeed the rest of the world. It is foolish to expect any country to act contrary to its national interest and the US is no exception. We have supported freedom loving people throughout the world, including in Haiti, known for its successful slave rebellions. Particularly during the Cold War, why should the US have been expected to support radical regimes in its own back yard, especially close to Cuba? It is perhaps the withdrawal of our protective hand that caused some of Haiti's governmental problems, not support for gangs by certain unnamed GOP members (which is distinct from official US policy) as asserted by Cockburn.
He denounces the speed at which heavy equipment has arrived, comparing it to New Orleans as too little, too late. The journey by sea takes time. Ships must be prepared and outfitted for extended deployment, ground forces organized, heavy equipment consolidated from around the Eastern seaboard, and finally shuttled to the island nation at slow maritime speeds. Once it arrives, how does it make land as the port has largely been destroyed? Divers must inspect the port to ensure it is safe and repairs must be made. We're moving as fast as we can. Movement by air for heavy equipment is equally troubled. Equipment and crews must be consolidated and prepared for a lengthy deployment. Heavy-lift air assets must either be diverted from their wartime mission or called up from the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. Fuel must be carried along with maintenance supplies. Further complicating matters is the destruction of the airport. Without runway lights, landing beacons, control towers, etc., landings must be made by day at considerable risk. Who wants to see their sons and daughters killed flying bulldozers to Haiti due to a lack of infrastructure at the receiving end? Again, we're moving as fast as we can. However, with each aid worker who arrives, more food, water, quarters, etc. must be carried. Fuel must be sent to power generators. What would Cockburn do, aside from denouncing President Obama, to speed up this process?
Finally, he blasts the NGOs who are to provide aid, saying their operating overheads are too high, and comparing them to straw men in the guise of notional corrupt Haitian ministers. Haitian ministers don't have to film and broadcast fundraising commercials, pay staffs, or fly equipment around the globe, so of course they don't see the same overhead. However, Cockburn might be surprised to learn that he, at least in part, agrees with Rush Limbaugh, who also warns of possible corruption by large organizations (from The Guardian: https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/j ... h-limbaugh). The smaller organizations he promotes might require less money to run their operations, but do they have the same visibility, reach, or capacity to provide aid?
I will agree with Cockburn on one point. The key to Haiti's success after this crisis is resolved will be found in its people forming an honest, legitimate government to provide opportunities for success and safeguard the rights and freedoms of its people. It is in the interest of the US to help such an endeavor to succeed.
NOW BACK ON YOUR HEADS!!! TO YOUR SHOVELS!! Those beets aren't going to harvest themselves in accordance with our 5 year plan by themselves...
-Commissar Obamissar Vodkavich
