Killing Osama bin Laden versus increasing Polio victims

[Craig234]

Note, I haven't said the CIA definitely should not have done this - that's an open question. Rather, I made the point that there should be concern about the impact, so that the harm is weighed against the benefit, and there is some effort to see if it can be done with less harm - to strengthen the barrier against undermining humanitarian groups.

Maybe in this case the mission did justify the ploy - but if you faced a life with Polio as a result your parents' reaction, you might have some questions about that.

I'm supporting the aid agencies' concerns about the impact of having security operations undermine them and make things harder for them, putting their people at risk. But there is a case to be made about the importance of finding bin Laden, the need to confirm it was him in the compound before launching a highly dangerous and controversial US military operation in an ally's territory without their permission.

I'm mostly raising awareness about the issue - it's something people weren't aware of as an impact, and it applies to the overuse of undermining humanitarian groups other times.

Tuskagee had a 'good cause' too, wanting to collect information that would help people by better understanding the effects of a disease. The way they got it was wrong. It was based on treating 'poor, rural black men' as 'disposable people' - something we need not to to do any group of civilians, including the Pakistani people.

As I said in an analogy, police need to be careful about tricking hostage takers by taking advantage of medical care workers as cover. This is a similar issue.

Similarly, calls for kidnappers to get executed were met with people who noted that would remove any incentive not to kill hostages. There was a price.

 

[nonlnear]

Craig,

Why should "aid" agencies expect to be given the level of trust you want them to enjoy in the first place? What is so wrong with suspecting the motives of aid workers? It's not like the USA ever gives anything away for free. You will forgive my incredulity if I doubt the UN is capable of completely pure motives as well. Even if there were a treaty signed by every country in the world to never engage in covert operations that involve the infiltration of a special list of "blessed" agencies, such a treaty wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on and everyone knows it. You are wishing for something that can never be.

The USA blatantly violates the WTO treaties whenever it feels like it - openly, and with the bipartisan support of Congress (I'm thinking here of Bush's steel tariffs). What makes you think they (or anyone else) would actually obey a treaty which, by definition, pertains to events which may never leave any evidence with which to trigger enforcement?

 

[Screech]

Yes, it is. Efforts to fight Polio are harmed by this, both Polio victims and workers.

You discount any feelings the people have against Western *security agencies*. You're wrong.

The people there don't like Western security agencies. That doesn't mean the efforts to fight Polio there aren't good to do.

There are a lot of legitimate Muslim charities. But some terrorists raised funds by posing as Muslim charities. That was discovered and publicized. I haven't checked the numbers, but I've little doubt it's crippled the fundraising by the legitimate charities, because people don't want to take a chance donating to a front group. That hurts people.

The people there interact with the western security agencies usually as 'collateral damage', with things like drones flying over killing civilians.

If we had Pakistan flying drones over the US killing civilians regularly, there might be some resentment against our 'ally' doing that. Guess that'd make the American people terrorists.

This isn't even about aid, though some cases are, like the Red Cross I mentioned earlier.

This is about Pakistan's efforts to fight Polio. A Pakistani doctor was co-opted for this.

It's a very immoral, immature position to take that 'if you don't embrace the US security agencies killing civilians with drones, you don't deserve Polio efforts'.

We're dealing with pretty uneduecated people a lot - in the *US* we have a lot of people who have thought that Fluoride in water was a mind-control plot, who don't want to vaccinate their children thinking there's some harmful government conspiracy behind it - the suspicions run a lot higher in a place like Pakistan.

I agree re: drones from our "ally"; that said, are we discussing drone strikes or the osama bin laden mission?

That position ( 'if you don't embrace the US security agencies killing civilians with drones, you don't deserve Polio efforts') is not one I would take, but the position I would take is "if you don't embrace the US security agencies killing terrorists at war with the US, you don't deserve Polio efforts". Obviously this will get into a very 'gray' area with colleteral damage, sadly. I still think that trying to bring aide to a part of the world that won't appreciate it (wherever that may be) is a massive waste of time and money (and lives, in some cases).

As far as a pakistani doctor being co-opted on this one; that's crappy for pakistan, but frankly, tough luck. My original point stands: if the reason you reject polio treatment is that you are worried about it hurting your chances to kill American forces, then tough shit.

 

[Craig234]

Craig,

Why should "aid" agencies expect to be given the level of trust you want them to enjoy in the first place? What is so wrong with suspecting the motives of aid workers? It's not like the USA ever gives anything away for free. You will forgive my incredulity if I doubt the UN is capable of completely pure motives as well. Even if there were a treaty signed by every country in the world to never engage in covert operations that involve the infiltration of a special list of "blessed" agencies, such a treaty wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on and everyone knows it. You are wishing for something that can never be.

The USA blatantly violates the WTO treaties whenever it feels like it - openly, and with the bipartisan support of Congress (I'm thinking here of Bush's steel tariffs). What makes you think they (or anyone else) would actually obey a treaty which, by definition, pertains to events which may never leave any evidence with which to trigger enforcement?

That's a valid point (I guess davmat was wrong again).

But I think you are failing to appreciate the constructive solutions and how this actually does work quite a bit.

Coincidentally, I've been interested in making a thread to suggest donating to the charity 'Doctors Without Borders' - they're an example, like the Red Cross, of groups who constantly face this issue and have made a lot of good progress on it by being vigilant against being infiltrated for whatever intelligence mission - even by the US, even to get bin Laden.

I think we actually do have agencies that can successfully negotiate to operate in sensitive situations with a strong humanitarian need.

You ask why they should have that - youre right, there are limits. They're not going to likely give these agencies such access that it's a threat in their view.

The terms are negotiated, I suspect, to provide as little risk as possible to get the help to the people.

You advocate just not bothering, because it won't work because it's not easy or perfect. I disagree - it's worth the huge efforts made which help a lot of people.

It works better than you suggest.