The Coming Deaths in Pakistan

One of the things we do in life to keep ourselves sane is assign higher value to those closer to, and more like, us: My brother is worth more to me  than my cousin whom I value more than my fellow citizen whom I value more than, well, a  random human-being on the planet. I don't think it is  always   this way, and I don't think it should be.

Think about the response to Katrina--where hundreds of thousands left their houses--and the response to Pakistan--where millions lost their homes, and at least tens of thousands are now at risk of freezing to death.

It is understandable that we respond more to those who are (both physically and pyschologically) closer to us. But expanding the circle of caring (which, I know, sounds hippy) is what underpins much of the fight for  human-rights and frankly, a moral society. 

Anyway,  just saying.

Also, Anne-Marie Slaughter is right: The disaster in Pakistan isn't just an opportunity for the U.S. government to do the right thing in a moral sense, but in a pratical one too. It is an opportunity to build goodwill in one of the area's of the world where it could the  U.S. enormous good. Remember what Marine General Gregson said about one of the most crucial things to do  for the war on terror: "Put us on the side of the angels ."*

*I don't think being on the "side of angels" is enough. Killing AQ is still neccesary.
But any solid strategy needs to encompass both.

Comments

[Mike Todd]

Eric,

Just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that I really enjoy your work in Slate. I read TP every day, and you consistently do an excellent job -- keeping us informed while taking the papers to task when they need a little nudge. Thanks. Keep it up, man.

[Zathras]

I'm afraid that the Pakistan earthquake hit at a time when the circuits at the White House were already overloading: from Katrina and Iraq, then from the Miers debacle and Fitzgerald. This is not a team that can handle too many issues at once.

The initial response of helicopters from Afghanistan and a small naval effort was creditable. But an early opportunity was missed when the Nimitz carrier group was allowed to leave the Indian Ocean on schedule instead of being directed to the Pakistan coast, and the administration (like, it appears, most everyone else) did not appreciate at the beginning the full extent of this disaster.

I'd agree at this point to a larger aid effort focusing on providing the materials for shelter and getting them to the affected area quickly. Who ought to be responsible for leading it -- that is, which person should be charged with making the effort effective? No disrespect to your "circle of caring" but what we're up against right now are major logistical challenges and a very short timeframe.

[eric umansky]

Mike, Thanks for your comments.

Zathras, I think we're on the same page. My "give a little bit" argument wasn't really specific to Pakistan. And there are obviously huge logistical challenges and tightframes to deal with; but surely, the U.S. could do more. It's not that I think the aid we've provided has been miserly. It's just that I agree with others who've said there's an opportunity in doing more.

[jack3_xb]

canadian sign fabrication presidential email somethingaquired louisiana state department how to market a new landscaping business

[jack3_xb]

canadian sign fabrication presidential email somethingaquired louisiana state department how to market a new landscaping business

[jack3_xb]

canadian sign fabrication presidential email somethingaquired louisiana state department how to market a new landscaping business