I skimmed the report and pulled out this quote (below). I think the problem is that a ton of funding has gone into Africa but what the public sees is what appears to be a lack of results - more wars, more refugees, more problems.

The major contention, I think, is that the GWOT may have shorter-term goals of eliminating the threat of terrorism which may undermine long-term development efforts at capacity building, democratization, poverty reduction, etc. The point and frankly, the question remains, is whether long-term development goals, if funded sufficiently and implemented effectively will address the fundamental questions of security and terrorism. I think the DOD has answered, in part, that the efforts, largely on their own, have not produced results and that's why we have the problems we do now (and that's why efforts need to be coordinated)

Are short-term stability and counter-terrorism efforts counter-productive to long-term stability and development? Can we do both? I think we can , we have to and we are already doing it. Companies and organizations like RI need to figure out how THEY can get on board, not how the everyone else needs to. I didn't see much evidence of that.


The resultant militarization of aid in an effort to prevail in the war against terrorism and in pursuit of national security objectives is unlikely to enhance either national security or the ability of the U.S. to achieve its foreign policy goals. The history of counter-insurgency, as well as development theory and practice, points rather towards long-term failure.