PASSIVE SABOTAGE

Many of these international aid agencies somehow felt uncompromised in Saddam's Iraq, adhering to the enshrined doctrine of humanitarian relief that they are beyond politics or "metapolitical." No one can deny that they were blunting the force of U.N. sanctions against Saddam, and thereby making his rule more tolerable. But starvation is not a policy of the U.S., and Americans freely contributed to the easing of Iraqi distress.

There are even more vexing ambiguities. As the author David Rieff has pointed out many times, the NGOs in Rwanda and Zaire relieved the suffering of millions of Hutu families whose members had waged genocide against the Tutsis. Those who now suffer in Iraq never committed genocide or, indeed, any crimes at all. They were mostly victims of the Baathist regime. But they were freed from their captivity by the U.S. and the U.K. and--their agony notwithstanding--the identity of their liberators somehow sullies them and makes their wretchedness tolerable. Or at least not worthy of the routinely brave work of humanitarian institutions.

Many of the NGOs that are on their way out of Iraq from fear--if we believe them--maintain elaborate operations in Liberia, where their employees were until recently probably more at risk than in Iraq. After all, Liberia has been plagued by wanton, random killing. And yet the relief workers soldiered on. Meanwhile, in Iraq--where whatever mistakes have been made by the occupying authorities and however vexing the internal struggles, there can be no doubt that the U.S. wants to leave the country in a better way than it found it--the NGOs are leaving in droves.

(via Instapundit)