Soldiers told to stop handing out food.
 

This story is in USA Today. It made me sick. This is going to get our Soldiers killed. The military has a very long tradition of giving food (often candy, sweets, etc.) For example the most loved man in Berlin during the Berlin airlift was Gale Halverson.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Halvorsen


Here is the link:http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedit...T_U.htm?csp=34

Or you can read it here.

By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Food handouts were shut off Tuesday to thousands of people at a tent city here when the main U.S. aid agency said the Army should not be distributing the packages.

It was not known whether the action reflected a high-level policy decision at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) or confusion in a city where dozens of entities are involved in aid efforts.

"We are not supposed to get rations unless approved by AID," Maj. Larry Jordan said.

Jordan said that approval was revoked; water was not included in the USAID decision, so the troops continued to hand out bottles of water. The State Department and USAID did not respond to requests for comment.

Jordan has been at the airport supervising distribution of individual food packages and bottled water since his arrival last week. Each package provides enough calories to sustain a person for a day.

The food is flown by helicopter to points throughout the capital and distributed by paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division. At the tent city, set up at a golf course, more than 10,000 people displaced by the Haitian earthquake lay under makeshift tents. Each day, hundreds of people, many young children, line up for a meal.

Tuesday morning, the helicopters came only with water. Soldiers carried boxes of water in the hot sun and supervised Haitian volunteers who handed the supplies out.

:confused:

What is wrong with them handing out food if they have it? Some political mess most likely as someone wants to get publicity for what they do and if the military hands out a lot of the supplies they won't get their full page in the paper. I doubt if those starving people gives a crap about who gives them food and water.

Ron

I saw that too, Tom.

That is the question after all. Why? What is the thinking here?

:)

Ernie,

With all of the agencies involved I guess they aren't wanting anyone else to get any credit. I am not sure just what the official reason is, but if the troops have food they can give out, than I think it should be ok. After all, those people really don't care who gives them food or water. Maybe they were afraid the troops would give out to much to some people.

Ron :confused:

You don't think they are reading the box while eating their cereal? Me neither!

One of the items in the ration pack, toaster pastries. Wonder where they plug in the toaster they don't have??? What happened to Ham & MFers?:eek::D

It sounds like classic political BS. The only acceptable explanation would be that USAID was taking over the food distribution immediately and increasing the overall supply and wanted a better coordinated effort (which is unlikely that USAID would do better than the US Army IMHO). This is not what the article implied. The person that made that decision should be reprimanded, sent to Haiti to personally oversee the USAID food distribution and until USAID is capable of exceeding Army distribution, this decision should be reversed.

A reader of the blog I read (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/) posted:

The “aid” agencies did the same thing in Afghanistan. Being a logistics specialist, I volunteered to help an American NGO with rebuilding schools, and was on the ground in Kabul in January of ‘02. (I later ended up in charge of UNICEF’s warehouse/distribution operation for all of the new school supplies…leaving me with a complete and total disdain for all things UN-related.)

For the NGO community, to be seen co-operating with the US military was the kiss of death. NGO co-ordination meetings specifically warned against co-operation with the US military, as opposed to UN agencies. The supposed reason was that they wanted a clear line between the “killers” and those that were “there to help”. They would actually COMPLAIN that the military was out doing things like rehabilitating wells and such, whining that these were things that should be left to the aid agencies. The irony of the fact that we were all sitting in a meeting, DISCUSSING it, while the US military had already been out DOING it, was completely lost on them.

Sounds like it’s same-old, same-old. Nothing but tools, the lot of them.

This is an incomplete article full of omissions and guesses - it even says so. I find it amusing that that's enough for the usual suspects to fly off the handle and start criticizing a situation very likely to be nothing like what's described, in actions or underlying reasons and policies.

Funny how when "the media" reports something you don't like, they're "distorting things" and "inventing problems"... but when a half-assed, incomplete story pokes your button, you take it as gospel and are ready to ride out, guns blazing. :D