Ordinarily I enjoy reading your stuff to stay informed. In this case, I wish I were as ignorant as the average citizen. Ugh.
At the risk of coming across as a cold, heartless bastard, my first preference would be to largely avoid these endless humanitarian wars. But since others with authority and (perhaps) greater insight will no doubt insist in spending our tax dollars on these initiatives, maybe we could do the DC-thing and form a committee and (one day) agree that we can do this better.
U.S. leaders consider the Powell Doctrine when deciding whether to engage militarily. We need an equivalent guideline (perhaps the Kaplan Doctrine?) for deciding whether and how to engage in the types of endless humanitarian excursions discussed in this interview.
I could take a shot at such guidelines (think of a decision-making flow chart), starting with: "Will funding go through the UN?" If the answer is YES, then the decision to provide funding defaults to "NO." That's the simplest starting point.
This could be expanded to include other basic questions, such as "Can we reasonably expect that the funds will be spent for the intended purpose? Is it a good purpose? Will the expenditure satisfactorily address the issue? Or will the U.S. be asked to pony up more and more funding over time? What's the CBO score on the proposed spending; what will this "really" cost when factoring in the decades of interest the U.S. will incur as a direct result of this expenditure?" Based on the article, I'd insist on adding: "Are we funding our enemies through this expenditure?"
As someone who manages non-profit organizations, my conclusion is that the U.S. government could do us all a favor by drastically curtailing the gravy train - preferably before we go bankrupt.
Lastly, I don't blame Hamas, the U.N., etc. for our stupidity/insanity here - I blame us. Specifically, it sounds as though this issue rests with Congress. I'm not optimistic this gets resolved - more likely, this is intentionally loose. We're enabling this every time we pay into it again.
"I am Shocked, Shocked! To find gambling going on in this establishment!" Cries Captain Relault to Rick in Casablanca. Outrageous yet not a surprising revelation. Things are better off left to private entities. Take care.
Ordinarily I enjoy reading your stuff to stay informed. In this case, I wish I were as ignorant as the average citizen. Ugh.
At the risk of coming across as a cold, heartless bastard, my first preference would be to largely avoid these endless humanitarian wars. But since others with authority and (perhaps) greater insight will no doubt insist in spending our tax dollars on these initiatives, maybe we could do the DC-thing and form a committee and (one day) agree that we can do this better.
U.S. leaders consider the Powell Doctrine when deciding whether to engage militarily. We need an equivalent guideline (perhaps the Kaplan Doctrine?) for deciding whether and how to engage in the types of endless humanitarian excursions discussed in this interview.
I could take a shot at such guidelines (think of a decision-making flow chart), starting with: "Will funding go through the UN?" If the answer is YES, then the decision to provide funding defaults to "NO." That's the simplest starting point.
This could be expanded to include other basic questions, such as "Can we reasonably expect that the funds will be spent for the intended purpose? Is it a good purpose? Will the expenditure satisfactorily address the issue? Or will the U.S. be asked to pony up more and more funding over time? What's the CBO score on the proposed spending; what will this "really" cost when factoring in the decades of interest the U.S. will incur as a direct result of this expenditure?" Based on the article, I'd insist on adding: "Are we funding our enemies through this expenditure?"
As someone who manages non-profit organizations, my conclusion is that the U.S. government could do us all a favor by drastically curtailing the gravy train - preferably before we go bankrupt.
Lastly, I don't blame Hamas, the U.N., etc. for our stupidity/insanity here - I blame us. Specifically, it sounds as though this issue rests with Congress. I'm not optimistic this gets resolved - more likely, this is intentionally loose. We're enabling this every time we pay into it again.
"I am Shocked, Shocked! To find gambling going on in this establishment!" Cries Captain Relault to Rick in Casablanca. Outrageous yet not a surprising revelation. Things are better off left to private entities. Take care.