Humanitarian Aid is No Job for the Military

3 Reasons the U.S. MILITARY Should Not Be Fighting EBOLA was
Produced by Amanda Winkler and co-written with Nick Gillespie, who
narrates. Camera by Jim Epstein with Anthony L. Fisher. About 2
mins.

Original release date was October 14, 2014 and original write up
is below.

President Obama is sending thousands of U.S. troops to West
Africa to fight the deadly Ebola virus. Their mission will be to
construct treatment centers and provide medical training to
health-care workers in the local communities.

But is it really a good idea to send soldiers to provide this
sort of aid?

Here are 3 reasons why militarizing humanitarian aid is a very
bad idea:

1. Militarized Aid Erodes Humanitarian Principles

Humanitarian aid must be perceived as neutral and not driven by
political or military objectives. Using the military in a
humanitarian crisis works against that and potentially instigates
further unrest.

Attacks against humanitarian personnel have been rising in the
past decade precisely because of a perceived blurring of
humanitarian, political, and military goals.

And our track record in Africa warrants such skepticism. In the
past six years, the U.S. military has expanded its troop presense
in Africa via humanitarian missions specifically designed to
establish points of entry for future military missions.

Local communities face a hell of a bind: if they don’t accept
help from the military, they run the risk of missing out on much
needed humanitarian aid. That erodes the trust needed to establish
a working relationship between aid workers and local
communities.

2. Militarized Aid is Ineffective in the Long Term

Militarized aid is often backed by huge budgets that are
supposed to be spent quickly.

Indeed, the Department of Defense has already allocated $1
billion to fight Ebola.

The pressure to spend massive amounts is often coupled with
pressure to achieve short-term political goals.

That in turn translates into an ineffective use of funds.
Accountability and follow-up are in short supply, too, meaning the
same mistakes get repeated over and over.

3. Militarized Aid Diminishes the Supply of Civil Aid

Many politicians who support militarized aid claim that the
military is the only institution capable of handling the
humanitarian crisis at hand.

If this is true—and too often it is—this highlights the neglect
of civilian-led programs that are more likely to get the job
done.

By constantly relying on the military for humanitarian efforts,
we’re stifling efforts to grow civilian-led organizations that can
handle the complicated logistics necessary to address large-scale
humanitarian crises. 

View this article.