Haiti (Catch all)

[Tom Kratman]

Since the bus vignette and its Narrative seemed realistic to me, I thought Labaan might have some suggestions. He sounds like an interesting character.

As to shooting looters, that was part of the Detroit Riot - discussed as part of the COIN comes home thread. Ken White's unit did not find it necessary to shoot anyone, Went there, did that. "Shoot all the looters" is a good soundbite; so also "Shoot all irregular combatants".

As to the "fleeing felon" rule, some materials re: Tennessee v Garner are linked here, Tennessee v. Garner (part of the Astan ROE Change thread).

As to mutiny, I couldn't find any summary execution provisons in the Manual for Courts-Martial re: "mutiny" (searched all returns on the word). Obviously, during the active mutiny, we have a combat situation where "armed, hostile, shoot" would be a valid rule. Once the mutineers have surrendered, another story - see, Summary Execution.

True that Tony Waller was acquitted at his 1902 CM (for reasons that mostly avoided the merits); but in that case, there was more relative filth to cast at the flag grades (see J. Franklin Bell and Jacob H. Smith) than with the field and company grades who had to carry out the orders (dirty or not).

Within my own personal package of morals and ethics (and a vivid imagination), I could think of scenarios where my morals and ethics would allow summary actions (including executions) in sitations where "exigent circumstances" or "absolute necessity" exist. Others' morals and ethics would collide with mine. In general, discussing the extremes leads to extremes in discourse. In any event, "exigent circumstances" and "absolute necessity" are "jury nullification" arguments, which are thin reeds indeed. In Waller's case, they worked, but he never got to command the Corps.

Regards

Mike

Labaan is actually a "bad guy," except that he isn't. He's a good man doing a bad thing for the only group that matters to him, his tribe. He does have one such idea. I don't recall if it's before that passage or after. Forget the idea of African "countries," in most cases. Split them back up into their tribes. One of the things, one suspects, that leads to such bevatheft in Africa (and the problem isn't restricted to there), is that, for the most part, people simply don't care about, or don't even consider to be fully human, people of other tribes. Thus theft has all the moral connotations of stealing a dog's bone. Short version: "Why not steal? It's on behalf of my tribe."

It's not unreasonable to expect a certain, shall we say, diminution (at least) in the intensity of looting should it be ordered that looters will be shot. Of course, talk is cheap and demonstrations might be required.

I was familiar with Garner. That's why I mentioned that it was a fairly dead letter with regard to the police. It does not, on the face of it, appear to take the fleeing felon rule from privati, however. Note for the audience: you would be _SUED_ blue if you actually did it.

You didn't dig far enough. It falls under the "do utmost to prevent." In the explanatory sections you'll find: "Utmost includes the use of such force, including deadly force, as may be reasonably necessary under the circumstances to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition." Tack onto that that failure to do "the utmost" to suppress a mutiny is also a capital crime. "Reasonably necessary" is something of a weasel phrase, of course. It is not hard, however, to come up with scenarios where it would be reasonably necessary. Note, however, that in this age, it would be career death to actually do it, quite despite that it is a capital crime also to fail to do that utmost to suppress a mutiny.

Addendum:

By the way, with the Waller case, it is by no means clear that the Filipino porters were even subject to the UCMJ (Articles of War, back then), such that they even _could_ be in a state of legal mutiny. It strikes me as fairly obvious that it was murder.

[marct]

Hi Rex,

In any case, unless we're going to take a morally unsustainable Malthusian position that we'll let children die off en masse, we don't have much choice in the matter, do we?

Much as I hate to say it, and believe me I do hate to say it, "we" have already accepted the moral position to let children die off in a Malthusian fashion. Let me expand on this one....

Foreign aid and development work can, indeed, lower the infant mortality rate; no questions there. In every case that I am aware of where this has happened, however (including Western Europe), the birth rate has only gradually dropped over a 60-70 period. I think we both agree on that and on the existence of a culture lag.

That's all fine and dandy, but what it tends to mean is that the increase in population brought about as a result of the reduction in infant mortality has several, macro-level demographic effects. First, it creates a population skewed to the lower age groups, so your population pyramid is quite wide. Second, infrastructural changes, say along the lines of the great sanitation engineering projects of the mid-19th century in Europe, also drop the mortality rate amongst all ages thereby significantly increasing the number of child bearing age people and their life expectancies.

This increase in general population leads to another cultural strain that shows up in many areas but, especially, in the economic divisions of labour. For example, male and female cultural expectations on types of employment, expectations on childrens employment, etc. This produces another round of cultural, hmmm, let's call it "negotiation" that actually tends to last longer than the family size one does. When you say something like

There is some evidence that a slow demographic transition is underway, and as we know from other cases this is something that can be aided through support for family planning and especially female education and labour force participation.

you are quite right; it can, but only at the expense of increased cultural instability centered around gender and age grade roles in the society.

I'm not sure of any country where increased primary/secondary school attendance and improved basic literacy rates can be considered a developmental negative. Yes, brain-drains are a problem--but less of a problem than an uneducated population. (I also wouldn't underestimate the very positive impact that diaspora remittances can have over multiple generations--Jordan, one of the proportionately highest exporters of semiskilled and skilled labour in the world--being a case in point.)

The problem comes about, in part, because of that culture lag issue. "Education", in the West, is a status marker that has managed to retain some of its equation with probable economic benefits despite the continued devaluation of educational credentials (in terms of actual "learning) of the past, say 100 years. For the US and Canada at least, we were incredibly lucky that the boom in educational opportunities also coincided with an economic boom and, when that started to go sour (late 1968 actually, but it doesn't really hit until the 1970's), educational attainment became a gatekeeper function that made it a necessary albeit insufficient condition for achieving economic success.

The same is not true in all cultures and/or societies. In crass, Keynesian terms, what is the value of a "product" when the supply is rapidly inflated? It tends to devalue the product, which is what we have seen happening time and time again with degrees. Now, the key here lies in one distinction that is not usually made, and that is the content of the education rather than the marker of the education, which is why I say that "education" is not a good marker. You can improve literacy rates, which I am all in favour of, but what are they going to read? School attendance? I'm sure that you have had students who just can't make the grade no matter how often they show up for class, I know I have.

But let me return to this content point for a moment since it is the foundation of a lot of my concerns. Our Western belief that education and economic success are tied together creates a set of expectations in our cultures, the current incarnation of which is the Gen X "sense of entitlement". What happens when the expectations run head on into the realities? The Gen X phenomenon is being met by a rather large deployment of "training seminars" for managers to learn to deal with Gen X'ers; it's a multi-million dollar business. How about what happens when these expectations hit in a society which does not have the same socially acceptable options (no, I'm not going to go into Merton's strain theory, but it's a good model).

You mentioned remittances, and that is certainly one option that reduces social strain. You get people who develop enough competence and/or the right set of requirements to enable them to succeed in an extra-social economy. They leave, thereby reducing the local strain on the social fabric, and yet at the same time they send hard money back into the local economy. It's a win-win situation in some ways .

But it has a cost at the local level by draining off local talent and, to some degree, capital. Over a decent time interval, say 50 years or so, it can work out very well as 2nd gen members of the diaspora communities go to their "native" country and invest in it - American Samoa is actually a great example of that. On the down side, during those 50+ years or so, it actually reduces the talent in the country as well as hardening the social structure.

Again, I'm not sure of the argument--that populations should be kept poor so that they won't do bad things with increased resources?

That's not where I'm going with the argument. What I'm trying to argue is that there are consequences for social choices and that one of the primary trade-offs is stability vs. dynamism/change. I'm not marking a moral or ethical argument .

We don't do governance reform and rule-of-law well--its partly a cultural problem, but much more so a problem of entrenched interests and massive disparities of wealth and power, coupled with often inappropriate external models. Indeed, it is that context of years of exploitation, poverty, and inequality that help to shape Haitian political culture. There was, however, a broad consensus that (very gradual) progress was being made, pre-earthquake.

Agreed, and that is, IMHO, part of the problem. Let me try and pull that out in evolutionary terms and at a very general level (i.e. not Haiti specific)....

When "we" decided to get out of the imposed governance business (aka de-colonization plus an entire attitude / culture change towards "imperialism"), our leaving withdrew one of the key factors leading to stability - the external "Other". Many places which got their "independence" (in quotes because it was political at the nation state level, but usually not economic), tended to fracture along long suppressed, and sometimes artificially imposed, lines.

[satirical tone]This created an opportunity for a number of organizations that had been in the "feel good" business, especially since the 19th and early 20th century style moral entrepreneurial content was now considered to be passe. You can no longer sell the London Missionary Society version of the White Man's Burden but, instead, have to recast it into a more palatable version which, coincidentally, is just helped along by all of these conveniently located failing states (many of which "we" "created" in the first place). The old Indulgences con is, once again, in full swing but this time it is backed by unprecedented media access, and one has to wonder what moral entrepreneur wants to actually get rid of the problems that allow them to live in the style to which they have rapidly become accustomed?[/satirical tone]

Okay, I'll drop the satirical tone, but if you look at the actual amount of money that reached the people it was raised to help, it tends to be a very sobering experience. I've known several groups in the aid / development business who I actually do consider quite ethical, and they all had less than a 10% administration overhead, and at least one had a 0% overhead. I'll be very interested to see what the overhead charges on on the recent Haiti telethons Those groups were actually working to solve local problems.

If we compare that with the admin overheads from some of the other groups, you have to wonder. I believe that one of the most egregious examples, since corrected to some degree, was UNICEF with an 80% overhead (or somewhere in that area) and who, by the 1990's, appear to have been spending the vast majority of their money on conferences and symposia (cf. Chattering International: How UNICEF Fails the World’s Poorest Children, James Le Fenu, 1993).

Was progress being made? Certainly everything I had heard said that it was, albeit very slowly (which, BTW, I consider to be quite promising ). I hope that progress in Haiti can continue to be made.

Cheers,

Marc

[Stan]

Hey Marc and Rex !

Hi Rex,

Foreign aid and development work can, indeed, lower the infant mortality rate; no questions there. In every case that I am aware of where this has happened, however (including Western Europe), the birth rate has only gradually dropped over a 60-70 period. I think we both agree on that and on the existence of a culture lag.

I recall the CDC and USAID performing studies in the early 80s in Sub-Sahara and the general target was infant mortality. At first I found that odd until I realized exactly what they were after.

Seems most African families were huge - 3 or even 4 generations under a single roof. The elders concluded that "more than half will die anyway" and the best approach was to make more (babies). The cultural spin there was simple, the children would eventually take care of their parents and so on.

When CDC finally brought cholera and malaria down to a "treatable illness" the locals began to see less of a need for 6 or 8 children. Even my local guard stopped at 3 kids (although he continued to steal my malaria prophylactics ).

That was nearly 15 years of research and money. Sadly, following civil wars and social upheaval the system died.

That's all fine and dandy, but what it tends to mean is that the increase in population brought about as a result of the reduction in infant mortality has several, macro-level demographic effects. First, it creates a population skewed to the lower age groups, so your population pyramid is quite wide. Second, infrastructural changes, say along the lines of the great sanitation engineering projects of the mid-19th century in Europe, also drop the mortality rate amongst all ages thereby significantly increasing the number of child bearing age people and their life expectancies.

This increase in general population leads to another cultural strain that shows up in many areas but, especially, in the economic divisions of labour. For example, male and female cultural expectations on types of employment, expectations on childrens employment, etc. This produces another round of cultural, hmmm, let's call it "negotiation" that actually tends to last longer than the family size one does.
Cheers,

Marc

Indeed a dilemma of major proportions. Children being sold, or worse, turned into soldiers. The school system couldn't handle the "influx" and many children ended up on the streets supporting their families.

Regards, Stan

[marct]

Hey Stan!

Yeah, it's really all about the systems . I remember years ago chatting with a fellow who had worked for CIDA in India on how to influence the birth rate. He was involved in the condom distribution project and had some great pictures of the villagers in the area he was working in using them as balloons in a parade!

At any rate, he got interested in the effects of entertainment on birth rates and tried some experiments. After a while, he realized that introducing individual TVs significantly reduced the birth rate - something he told me later that his wife had acerbicly commented on before .

Cheers,

Marc

[Tom Kratman]

Was progress being made? Certainly everything I had heard said that it was, albeit very slowly (which, BTW, I consider to be quite promising ). I hope that progress in Haiti can continue to be made.

Cheers,

Marc

Marc:

Progress? Hmmm.

It has been said that one should never underestimate the ability of an armed force to make a bad idea seem good through sheer weight of effort and duplicity practiced on an heroic scale. I can't think of any reason to believe the armed forces are unique in this.

Do we have any reason to believe that the people reporting progress weren't cherry picking? Or that their information gatherers weren't "finding" the information their superiors most wanted to be found? Perhaps even massaging it a bit, here and there? Or that they didn't, humanly and understandably, turn away from indicators that they were failing?

I mean, can you imagine the following TV ad, replete with pictures of starving children: "Hi, I represent Save the Children. We want your money and we want it even though the majority of what you give us will be siphoned off by kleptocrats and the little that remains will do no good whatsoever except to ensure that there will be a few more children starving in ten years than there are today. Trust us; you'll feel better after you write that check."

Nah.

So color me skeptical that there has been any real progress in places where the objective realities say there ought not be and where sundry NGOs stand to make a fair chunk of change from disseminating that there has been progress.

To go back to Haiti, for example, is there any evidence that the average age for beginning sexual activity has gone up from 12 to, oh, I dunno, maybe 12 and a half? That would be real, grassroots progress, and on a truly key matter affecting the long term prospects of the place. Don't think it happened. Have the police and bureaucrats become more honest? Can't imagine how they'd measure that one. "Ah, oui, monsieur; I have reduced my schedule of bribes by 43% under the influence of your wonderful NGO/MTT/the bribes your organization paid me." We've had evidence here (the police taking off at 16:30 while the looters did not) that the police are fundamentally indifferent to meeting their core function. What's that say about them? And what does what it says about them say about the rest of the society? How, indeed, do we measure that they became more self-reliant? Why would we expect it when they're under the influence of organizations for whom it would be corporate death if they ever actually became self-reliant?

There's another old Army saying: All the really measureable things aren't very important and all the really important things aren't very measureable. I think it's true.

There is an analogy I've had cause to use from time to time on the subject. Imagine a jungle, the real triple canopy deal. Almost nothing grows at ground level except very large trees. Those trees have been there a long time. Their branches are intergrown and intertwined. What happens when you cut a tree down at the base? Nothing soon, because it is held up by the others with which it has intertwined. Okay, but imagine you have somehow gotten rid of the tree; what happens? Another one grows in about the same spot and, under the influence of the other trees, to about the same shape as the previous one. In short, you can't change the jungle piecemeal; rather, you must raze a very large section of it and, even then, there are objective factors - soil, sun, rain, terrain - that made it a jungle in the first place and about which you can do precisely nothing. And the moment you stop cutting, the jungle begins its return.

By comparison, human societies are much more complex than mere jungles, and much harder to change. Moreover, while the jungle is non-sentient - the trees will not actively and cleverly thwart you - the people who make up societies, and are doing fairly well in their own, are sentient and will thwart you.

[jmm99]

and actually managed to read Article 94 and its commentary:

Here's the full explanation:

(3) Failure to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition. “Utmost” means taking those measures to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition which may properly be called for by the circumstances, including the rank, responsibilities, or employment of the person concerned. “Utmost” includes the use of such force, including deadly force, as may be reasonably necessary under the circumstances to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition.

and the sample specification:

(4) Failure to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition.
In that ____ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about ____ 20__ , fail to do his/her utmost to prevent and suppress a (mutiny) (sedition) among the (soldiers) (sailors) (airmen) (marines) (___ ) of ____, which (mutiny) (sedition) was being committed in his/her presence, in that (he/she took no means to compel the dispersal of the assembly) (he / she made no effort to assist _____ who was attempting to quell the mutiny) ( ).

The key words "prevent and suppress" do not deal with time period after the mutineers' surrender. At that point, the mutiny has been suppressed or quelled - and the mutineers are prisoners.

----------------------------
Labaan has a good point about tribes.

Regards

Mike

[marct]

Hi Tom,

Do we have any reason to believe that the people reporting progress weren't cherry picking? Or that their information gatherers weren't "finding" the information their superiors most wanted to be found? Perhaps even massaging it a bit, here and there? Or that they didn't, humanly and understandably, turn away from indicators that they were failing?

As far as conditions in haiti were concerned, I was relying not only on "official" reports, which are frequently subject to judicious "editing" but, rather, on reports from a number friends and ex-students who are Haitian and let me know what's happening with their family and friends back there.

I mean, can you imagine the following TV ad, replete with pictures of starving children: "Hi, I represent Save the Children. We want your money and we want it even though the majority of what you give us will be siphoned off by kleptocrats and the little that remains will do no good whatsoever except to ensure that there will be a few more children starving in ten years than there are today. Trust us; you'll feel better after you write that check."

Truth in advertising never plays well with moral entrepreneurs . How about the following ad

[pan shot off students lined up in front of the unemployment office; voice of narrator]
One of the greatest problems our society has today is the shortage of work for deserving graduates with MA's in Social Work. Won't you help these poor, disadvantaged children to achieve the jobs they deserve? Just $5 a day will help support a poor, starving MA graduate in the lifestyle which they deserve by helping them find employment helping the deserving poor in the Third World!
[pan to shot of "bright young Gen X'ers building homes for adoring children in refugee camps]
Your donation goes beyond helping your children - it allows them to help everyone, so send generously!

I suspect I already know your answer

Nah.

To go back to Haiti, for example, is there any evidence that the average age for beginning sexual activity has gone up from 12 to, oh, I dunno, maybe 12 and a half? That would be real, grassroots progress, and on a truly key matter affecting the long term prospects of the place. Don't think it happened. Have the police and bureaucrats become more honest? Can't imagine how they'd measure that one. "Ah, oui, monsieur; I have reduced my schedule of bribes by 43% under the influence of your wonderful NGO/MTT/the bribes your organization paid me." We've had evidence here (the police taking off at 16:30 while the looters did not) that the police are fundamentally indifferent to meeting their core function. What's that say about them? And what does what it says about them say about the rest of the society? How, indeed, do we measure that they became more self-reliant? Why would we expect it when they're under the influence of organizations for whom it would be corporate death if they ever actually became self-reliant?

Which, BTW, is one of the reasons why I said that it was too bad we got out of the governance business. Seriously, these are all serious problems with doing anything in the area, especially when you have organizations whose business requires that they have a plentiful supply of "raw material".

It is, however, absolutely critical, at least in my opinion, to distinguish between the "support an 90% overhead" crowd and the groups that actually try to do something and have a much, MUCH lower overhead. I've done some work (yes, as a volunteer) with several aid / development agencies, but I wouldn't touch them if they didn't have wide open books (I've also turned down contracts with the other type). Some of them do some great work with some serious follow-up; they also tend to be fairly small and tend to work very locally on the long term, unlike the crisis de jour variety.

By comparison, human societies are much more complex than mere jungles, and much harder to change. Moreover, while the jungle is non-sentient - the trees will not actively and cleverly thwart you - the people who make up societies, and are doing fairly well in their own, are sentient and will thwart you.

It's a good analogy, Tom - I've used similar ones when I've taught social theory; it's one of the reasons why I tend to be exceedingly cautious with anything related to cultural or social engineering. The best form of both that I've ever come across is to rely on basic human motivations like enlightened self interest and reinforce them. One of my big problems with most of the attempts at social and cultural engineering is that it tries to be top down and based on ideologies rather than working with people's actual desires.

[Tom Kratman]

and actually managed to read Article 94 and its commentary:

Here's the full explanation:



and the sample specification:



The key words "prevent and suppress" do not deal with time period after the mutineers' surrender. At that point, the mutiny has been suppressed or quelled - and the mutineers are prisoners.

----------------------------
Labaan has a good point about tribes.

Regards

Mike

That's right. I've used the following real world example to illustrate it:

Back in 89, during the Invasion of Panama, two female truck drivers refused to drive some troops further towards the fighting. Now, I think you can make a straight-faced argument that they simply panicked. Understandable and, while criminal in military terms, NOT mutiny.

But if you put the worst possible face on it, that they talked together to determine that if both refused neither would get in serious trouble (which, as far as I know, they didn't), it was a mutiny.

A. Assume you can and have arrested them. Mutiny's over. Back to work.
B. Assume, for whatever reason, that you can't. As soon as you shoot one, conspiracy has stopped and it is no longer an active mutiny. (Of course, if the other one doesn't know this and assumes, not unreasonably, that you're just a maniac, she'll probably drive.

Where it really gets icky is when the mutiny is much larger and better organized than that and has recognizable leaders. This could allow arrest and trial, or might forbid it. In the latter case, shooting people out of hand would appear to be authorized - consider some of the crew, if it's shipboard, marching on the brig to free their leaders, and shooting said leaders, quite despite that they present no immediate personal threat to the commander or whoever does the shooting. Then the argument is, "I had to shoot the leaders to bring the rest of the crew to its senses." Might even work at the Court-Martial.

It's still career death, of course.

Yes, Labaan could be right.

[Stan]

It's still career death, of course.

Yes, Labaan could be right.

Jeez, and I thought after a decade in Africa I was pessimistic

Tom, this is like Armageddon or something worse

Sorry, couldn't help meeself

[Tom Kratman]

Jeez, and I thought after a decade in Africa I was pessimistic

Tom, this is like Armageddon or something worse

Sorry, couldn't help meeself

Which is, Stan?

[Stan]

Which is, Stan?

Tom, No offense intended - I did say Sorry !

I enjoy your "no Bravo Sierra" approach, but I doubt your conclusions would work much better than our current abysmal system. Funds are being mismanaged and the aid has never fully reached those in need. Yep, flawed and bankrupt but not because we've lost our own moral fiber.

Our disaster relief teams just returned as did many others. So, with all this fuss it seems the problem was either smaller than projected or ?

Having been a member of a three-man team in a refugee camp with 800,000, I can tell you we would have had to shoot and hang 750,000 before someone took notice.

Better to send ammo or food when 4,000 a day die of cholera while we ponder over looting?

BTW, a belated Welcome Aboard !

Regards, Stan

[Tom Kratman]

Hi Tom,



As far as conditions in haiti were concerned, I was relying not only on "official" reports, which are frequently subject to judicious "editing" but, rather, on reports from a number friends and ex-students who are Haitian and let me know what's happening with their family and friends back there.



Truth in advertising never plays well with moral entrepreneurs . How about the following ad



I suspect I already know your answer





Which, BTW, is one of the reasons why I said that it was too bad we got out of the governance business. Seriously, these are all serious problems with doing anything in the area, especially when you have organizations whose business requires that they have a plentiful supply of "raw material".

It is, however, absolutely critical, at least in my opinion, to distinguish between the "support an 90% overhead" crowd and the groups that actually try to do something and have a much, MUCH lower overhead. I've done some work (yes, as a volunteer) with several aid / development agencies, but I wouldn't touch them if they didn't have wide open books (I've also turned down contracts with the other type). Some of them do some great work with some serious follow-up; they also tend to be fairly small and tend to work very locally on the long term, unlike the crisis de jour variety.



It's a good analogy, Tom - I've used similar ones when I've taught social theory; it's one of the reasons why I tend to be exceedingly cautious with anything related to cultural or social engineering. The best form of both that I've ever come across is to rely on basic human motivations like enlightened self interest and reinforce them. One of my big problems with most of the attempts at social and cultural engineering is that it tries to be top down and based on ideologies rather than working with people's actual desires.

Careful there, Marc, you're getting perilously close to uttering the dreaded "I" word. ("Look, let me go back in there and face the peril." "No, Marc, it's much too perilous." "I can handle it. Really.")

The "I" word is, of course, imperialism. Pity really, that we're simply not morally equipped to do any of that, anymore. It was hardly such an unmixed bag of evil as it's generally portrayed as. Indeed, most of the formerly British colonies, possessions, and proctetorates, are doing comparatively well.

I liked that ad, but couldn't help but notice how interestingly flexible phrases like "help support" and "help pay for" are. At least insofar as they mean, as they often do, that "5% of your money goes to support one person, who needs 792 of you people to live fairly well. The rest is split, 55% to bribes, 21% to our Chairman's little dacha in Darien, CT, 9% to our legal defense fund, 4% to our accounting firm and their tax attorneys, and the rest for advertising..."

Yes, there are some vast differences in overhead among charities. I'm not sanguine that the end result, however, varies much on the ground, generally. Exceptions? Yes, probably a few, for a while, and then the jungle returns. My church, for example, supports a school in Haiti, the nuns who teach there, and the two women who cook for the kids (as someone must because their families can't or won't but in any case don't). And if they're successful over the next 20 years what will it mean beyond that 640 (of about 820 anticipated 'graduates' over that time) somewhat literate Haitians will escape for greener pastures?

You realize, I trust, that reports from your students are somewhat anecdotal, evidence-wise.

[Tom Kratman]

Tom, No offense intended - I did say Sorry !

I enjoy your "no Bravo Sierra" approach, but I doubt your conclusions would work much better than our current abysmal system. Funds are being mismanaged and the aid has never fully reached those in need. Yep, flawed and bankrupt but not because we've lost our own moral fiber.

Our disaster relief teams just returned as did many others. So, with all this fuss it seems the problem was either smaller than projected or ?

Having been a member of a three-man team in a refugee camp with 800,000, I can tell you we would have had to shoot and hang 750,000 before someone took notice.

Better to send ammo or food when 4,000 a day die of cholera while we ponder over looting?

BTW, a belated Welcome Aboard !

Regards, Stan

Oh, surely you could have gotten more lumber to build a higher gallows to get them to notice sooner, Stan.

I note how very quiet and cooperative the Haitians rioting in the camps at GTMO, circa late 91-early 92, became once we committed one Marine artillery battery and one Army infantry company, in riot control gear, to quelling those riots. And I don't think we had to hurt anyone, but merely demonstrate that we would.

When I refer to lack of moral fiber, in the case of the west, I'm generally referring to the unwillingness to do the bad thing, or at least the harsh thing, to prevent the worse, or the simply frightful. Forex, we could have probably saved 800,000 innocent Tutsi for well under a billion with the commitment of a single brigade with ROE to shoot. I personally suspect that the reason we didn't was that the domestic political cost of shooting black folks, be they never so evil, in order to save other black folks, be they never so innocent, is simply too high. The ones we kill end up on the news (though they don't say much) while the ones we save are ignored as, at best, speculative.

In any case, yes, 3 for 800k drawfs my worst ratio (2, plus a Dutch Marine company, to about 20k), by orders of magnitude. I can understand why you couldn't get a lot of cooperation.

Ammo or food depends on both the need for food and the seriousness of the looting. No cookie cutter will do.

I don't have any conclusions, Stan. I don't think that anything we can do, and that we're willing to do, will work, long term. And in the places where they seem to, one wonders if we were needed in the first place for anything but to keep people alive, short term.

[marct]

Hi Tom,

Careful there, Marc, you're getting perilously close to uttering the dreaded "I" word. ("Look, let me go back in there and face the peril." "No, Marc, it's much too perilous." "I can handle it. Really.")

The "I" word is, of course, imperialism. Pity really, that we're simply not morally equipped to do any of that, anymore. It was hardly such an unmixed bag of evil as it's generally portrayed as. Indeed, most of the formerly British colonies, possessions, and proctetorates, are doing comparatively well.

Personally, I've never had as much of a problem with imperialism, at least in the open, British, sense, as I have had with other forms of it including, but not limited to, the neo-feudalist version currently in practice by many bureaucracies. Then again, I'm a descendant of United Empire Loyalists and (by blood and schooling) a member of the Family Compact, so I'm obviously biased .

I liked that ad, but couldn't help but notice how interestingly flexible phrases like "help support" and "help pay for" are. At least insofar as they mean, as they often do, that "5% of your money goes to support one person, who needs 792 of you people to live fairly well. The rest is split, 55% to bribes, 21% to our Chairman's little dacha in Darien, CT, 9% to our legal defense fund, 4% to our accounting firm and their tax attorneys, and the rest for advertising..."

Yup, they are "flexible". What truly bothers me is looking at how close that is, both yours and mine, to the reality in some of the more unethical groups.

Yes, there are some vast differences in overhead among charities. I'm not sanguine that the end result, however, varies much on the ground, generally. Exceptions? Yes, probably a few, for a while, and then the jungle returns. My church, for example, supports a school in Haiti, the nuns who teach there, and the two women who cook for the kids (as someone must because their families can't or won't but in any case don't). And if they're successful over the next 20 years what will it mean beyond that 640 (of about 820 anticipated 'graduates' over that time) somewhat literate Haitians will escape for greener pastures?

I've been involved with several projects supporting schools in the Dominican Republic and, while the overall picture is much better there, some of the same problems are still apparent, e.g. the brain drain. What is fascinating, however, is that, as Rex noted, if the society can be stabilized at a fairly basic level, then remittances can work as a driver. I doubt that more than 15% of the students in the school projects I've worked with will leave the DR for more than a couple of years.

You realize, I trust, that reports from your students are somewhat anecdotal, evidence-wise.

Yup. Then again, surveys and statistical analyses are just reified and projected anecdotal data . More seriously, so much depends on what indicators you look at, how you collect the data, how variables are defined both by the surveyors and the population being surveyed, etc. All too often, the people who write these surveys use a supposed universal indicator which actually isn't universal, it's a cultural projection (the rather vicious fights amongst the various international feminists are a great example of this).

[Tom Kratman]

Hi Tom,



Personally, I've never had as much of a problem with imperialism, at least in the open, British, sense, as I have had with other forms of it including, but not limited to, the neo-feudalist version currently in practice by many bureaucracies. Then again, I'm a descendant of United Empire Loyalists and (by blood and schooling) a member of the Family Compact, so I'm obviously biased .



Yup, they are "flexible". What truly bothers me is looking at how close that is, both yours and mine, to the reality in some of the more unethical groups.



I've been involved with several projects supporting schools in the Dominican Republic and, while the overall picture is much better there, some of the same problems are still apparent, e.g. the brain drain. What is fascinating, however, is that, as Rex noted, if the society can be stabilized at a fairly basic level, then remittances can work as a driver. I doubt that more than 15% of the students in the school projects I've worked with will leave the DR for more than a couple of years.



Yup. Then again, surveys and statistical analyses are just reified and projected anecdotal data . More seriously, so much depends on what indicators you look at, how you collect the data, how variables are defined both by the surveyors and the population being surveyed, etc. All too often, the people who write these surveys use a supposed universal indicator which actually isn't universal, it's a cultural projection (the rather vicious fights amongst the various international feminists are a great example of this).

We're somewhat special cases, though. The Empire never did a lot to or for us (at least til near the end) but protect us from the French and Indians, even as it served you mostly to protect you from us. Oz and Kiwiland were similar. None of us bear a great similarity to Kenya or Nigeria. That said, both of the latter two are doing much better in just about every way than the subSaharan norm.

God Bless England, and I don't mean the Irish song of that title.

The DR bears little relationship to Haiti. It's a real country. Maybe not a great one, but a real one.

[marct]

Hi Tom,

We're somewhat special cases, though. The Empire never did a lot to or for us (at least til near the end) but protect us from the French and Indians, even as it served you mostly to protect you from us. Oz and Kiwiland were similar. None of us bear a great similarity to Kenya or Nigeria. That said, both of the latter two are doing much better in just about every way than the subSaharan norm.

Quite true. What I find fascinating about how the Empire was run is the massive use of indirect governance (indirect rule). Then again, this probably had to do with the fact that most of the Empire was built by companies rather than by politicians, and it goes downhill once the politicians start taking over the governance.

The use of indirect rule meant that a lot of the social infrastructure of governance was, at least somewhat, tailored to the area and included some parts of the local cultural expectations. The cultural "policy" of intermarriage helped a lot too .

The DR bears little relationship to Haiti. It's a real country. Maybe not a great one, but a real one.

What fascinates me about the differences between the two are the similarities. I use the two of them as a good example of just why geographical determinism just doesn't work as a primary causal factor for social form. The DR is a truly fascinating social experiment in so many ways. Sigh .... I want to go back.... Anyway, one of the more fascinating things I've seen there is how local organization operates and enforces moral codes that are, quite literally, survival characteristics. Even more impressive is that the logic of the codes is quite well known.

Anyway, back to rehearsing.....

[Tom Kratman]

Hi Tom,



Quite true. What I find fascinating about how the Empire was run is the massive use of indirect governance (indirect rule). Then again, this probably had to do with the fact that most of the Empire was built by companies rather than by politicians, and it goes downhill once the politicians start taking over the governance.

The use of indirect rule meant that a lot of the social infrastructure of governance was, at least somewhat, tailored to the area and included some parts of the local cultural expectations. The cultural "policy" of intermarriage helped a lot too .



What fascinates me about the differences between the two are the similarities. I use the two of them as a good example of just why geographical determinism just doesn't work as a primary causal factor for social form. The DR is a truly fascinating social experiment in so many ways. Sigh .... I want to go back.... Anyway, one of the more fascinating things I've seen there is how local organization operates and enforces moral codes that are, quite literally, survival characteristics. Even more impressive is that the logic of the codes is quite well known.

Anyway, back to rehearsing.....

Indeed. One of the popular mind's great misconceptions was that the American Revolution was a revolution. It was nothing of the kind. What it was, was a _counter_-revolution to preserve the powers and institutions we'd grown ourselves from the grasping and overreaching parliament that was trying to change the deal. Yes, of course they had their reasons.

The DR doesn't undermine just geographic determinism. It has things to say about genetic determinism as well. Yes, they've got more Euro in their gene pool. Possibly more Taino, as well. But they are still in heavy part descended from slaves more or less indistinguishable from the ancestors of the current Haitians. And they've done much better, even so.

I've considered retiring there. The wife, however, insists that if we were to move to Latin American, it will bloodydamnedwell be to Panama.

Can geography matter? Well, yes, sure. Sometimes. Sitting on a desert covering a lot of oil will tend to turn your population to wastrels. And being effectively isolated from just about everyone and everything else seems to tend to throw up god-kings (i.e. Egypt and Japan).

Go rehearse.

[Stan]

Oh, surely you could have gotten more lumber to build a higher gallows to get them to notice sooner, Stan.

LOL... the lumber we contracted for - we built outhouses with

I note how very quiet and cooperative the Haitians rioting in the camps at GTMO, circa late 91-early 92, became once we committed one Marine artillery battery and one Army infantry company, in riot control gear, to quelling those riots. And I don't think we had to hurt anyone, but merely demonstrate that we would.

Yep, did that on the Korean border in my youth and saw a few things go Tango Uniform (without firearms). Tried that in Africa but the opponents carried US-made hand grenades. I got your point however. We better be prepared for a lot of dead children in that so-called crowd of refugees and as much as I hate to agree with you just yet, you're right - we're not prepared for the hard decisions.

When I refer to lack of moral fiber, in the case of the west, I'm generally referring to the unwillingness to do the bad thing, or at least the harsh thing, to prevent the worse, or the simply frightful. Forex, we could have probably saved 800,000 innocent Tutsi for well under a billion with the commitment of a single brigade with ROE to shoot. I personally suspect that the reason we didn't was that the domestic political cost of shooting black folks, be they never so evil, in order to save other black folks, be they never so innocent, is simply too high. The ones we kill end up on the news (though they don't say much) while the ones we save are ignored as, at best, speculative.

I think we were a little late for ROE - way behind the power curve and out gunned and out manned. Our allies weren't exactly on the same sheet of music either. Those were white folks BTW

Ammo or food depends on both the need for food and the seriousness of the looting. No cookie cutter will do.

I don't have any conclusions, Stan. I don't think that anything we can do, and that we're willing to do, will work, long term. And in the places where they seem to, one wonders if we were needed in the first place for anything but to keep people alive, short term.

Concur !
I must have been exposed to looting so much (grew up in DC) that I consider it SNAFU most of the time.

Issuing ammo may have solved problems faster than airlifting food

[Tom Kratman]

LOL... the lumber we did contracted for we built outhouses with



Yep, did that on the Korean border in my youth and saw a few things go Tango Uniform (without firearms). Tried that in Africa but the opponents carried US-made hand grenades. I got your point however. We better be prepared for a lot of dead children in that so-called crowd of refugees and as much as I hate to agree with you just yet, you're right - we're not prepared for the hard decisions.




I think we were a little late for ROE - way behind the power curve and out gunned and out manned. Our allies weren't exactly on the same sheet of music either. Those were white folks BTW



Concur !
I must have been exposed to looting so much (grew up in DC) that I consider it SNAFU most of the time.

Issuing ammo may have solved problems faster than airlifting food

That actually sparks an interesting thought, Africa-wise.

With basing troops in Western Europe being so expensive, and moving them to / basing them in Eastern Europe being potentially quite dangerous (as in leaving them out on an unsupplied limb should relations with Russia sour badly and some of NATO refuse to permit resupply through their borders, neither of which events would surprise me), I wonder what it would cost to base a brigade - maybe a division but at least a brigade - somewhere on the coast of Africa, along with a sufficient air and sea transport increment. It would need a decent but not a great port, and someplace flat enough to build a lengthy airstrip on. Buuut...demonstrate graphically once that we're willing to do whatever it takes to prevent another Rwanda, and we just might not have any more Rwandas.

The country - and note that I left off the quotes this time because under our close interest it just might be able to become a real country - would make a fortune servicing - and I mean that in the, ahem, broadest, ahem, sense - the troops.

Liberia, as the only place there where we have the greatest moral responsibility, might work.

Sadly, that initial demonstration we lack the will for, too.

[Stan]

I think EUCOM actually looked into that at one time with all the IMET and MTTs going wrong there (non-specific - insert country name here). Liberia ? I think they looked at Ascension Island.

In my 16 years here, we haven't exactly done much besides threaten to build a rocket base on Putin's back porch

I can't even fathom how much goes into protecting the Baltic airspace with fighter rotations and even that symbolic gesture may have been enough back in the early 90s to preclude "Rwanda".

Hindsight is great !