There are a number of people who have taken up the mantle of trying to chastise the United States for its actions and place within the world. They attribute much of the unrest and ill activities in the world to the U.S. claiming that US policy is the reason for terror, torture and or turmoil.
They accuse the US of being greedy and demean contributions to disaster relief, be it comments about financial contributions, manpower or issues with treaties and agreements.
What bothers me about this is that these criticisms are often layed out by people who have a poor understanding of economics, a skewed look at the political aspect and an agenda that does not allow for any middle ground.
The point is not to say that the US is without blame and or perfect, but that there is a problem with much of the criticism and its applicability and balance. When pundits comment on the proportion of aid to tsunami victims relative to other countries they focus on what they think the US should do, as opposed to what may be required, as well as they sometimes miss the long term perspective.
In simple English that means that although you might be able to throw tons of cash at a problem, it is not always the most effective method of bringing a solution. There are literally tons of donations that are not being used because the affected areas haven’t any ability to use them.
You need to understand that restoring an infrastructure that was wiped out takes more than a checkbook and that it requires time to rebuild and restore a framework that can make use of the assistance that is being offered.
In reference to treaties and agreements it is also important to take a harder look at them than to just say that majority wishes and rules should always be followed. Sometimes the majority is wrong, sometimes the majority interests are not in line with a minority and the refusal to go along with the majority is not always indicative of who holds the moral ground.