I'm late to this one, too, but since I lead an NGO with activities in Iraq (since 2003) and returning to Afghanistan (left in late-2006 - project ended successfully, we didn't run away), I have a couple of thoughts (and have probably said them before in my few posts on SWC).

In my opinion, our community (the humanitarian one) is in a bit of mess in Iraq. Too many organizations are headquartered in Amman and/or Erbil, and not in many other places in the country. There are a very few major NGOs implemeing programs in most goernorates (the numbers are slowly growing), often employing only Iraq national staff on the ground, and using a variety of monitoring processes to make sure things are getting done (we've been quite creative in how we monitor our Iraqi colleagues in the field in places we expatriates can't go).

In Amman, the old "idle hands are the devil's workshop" axiom holds sway. The companies, NGOs and United Nations agencies that have most of their international staff there seem sometimes to be at war with one another, I think largely as a frustrated reaction to their inability to operate in the field (personnel ceilings, lack of security facilities, philosophical opposition to working from FOBs, etc.).

In reality, we stay as far away from the military and foreign governmental institutions in both places as we can, simply because being overtly tied to them presents such increased risk to our operations, in these two counries in particular. Since my own organization has a long history in the Humanitarian Mine Action community, we get less animated about the philosophical side of this issue, but we take the personal security side of it very, very seriously.

Most NGOs worth their salt approach the principles of impartiality and neutrality with great sincerity. USAID, the State Department, the United Nations agencies, and the other donors who support our work understand this, and we work together with them to make sure that the operational and ethical considerations that are our mandate are served, that the needs of the donors are served, and if we're doing our jobs, that the needs of the beneficiaries are served.

There are exceptions to the approach related above, as there always are. However, these execptions are usually organizations that are not "main stream" in the NGO sense, or there are a few who are large enough to not get overly worked up about the perceptions of their fellows.

We have good relations in Iraq and Afghanistan with one of the State Department offices responsible for the relief and development side of things, and a growing relationship with USAID in Iraq. Our donors understand our need to keep a distance between us based upon security reality and humanitarian community perception unreality. The United Nations offices and agencies we have worked with, or are currently working with (including OCHA, WFP, UNDP, UNOPS, UNMAS, and I'm sure I'm forgetting one or two) are good partners to us, and have generally approached getting things done in Iraq either with us or through us in a very practical manner, given the constraints their people in Jordan and Iraq are forced to work within.

Too late, and I'm out of practice, so I'm rambling and not making enough sense. Apologies.

Stan, DH is on his way to your location. He's really looking forward to the supermodel parade in the town square. I met with him today, and he sends his regards.

Cheers,