US Department of Peace?

[esskreemr]

Let me start this thread by saying that I commend President Bush's announcement that the U.S. will be committing $350 million dollars to the aid effort. I hope that everyone sees it for what it is an extremely generous action that will have definite benefits beyond saving lives and aiding with the recovery of multiple nations. Thank You President Bush. (Inq ---> )


How would everyone feel about a US Department of Peace? A well-funded, relief oriented department that has the same rapid-reaction capabilities of the U.S. military. The department could coordinate the relief efforts that branches of the military end up taking. Service can be voluntary with the same benefits as being in the military. Individuals serving would require intensive training, because in many regions it will be like being in a war zone.

A fleet of carriers with helicopters, medical supplies, food, other aid, and a highly trained fast-response team.

Above the humanitarian mission that this department would serve, there are numerous diplomatic benefits.

[grotto]

We could call it.........

The Peace Corps!

Oh that name is already taken eh.

I think it is a great idea ess.

Now we need just need Lockheed to develop the laser guided relief missle.

Seriously this sort of thing is an excellent Idea and could bring a ton of specialized groups together to help. The UN has some sort of "rapid response" team for aid, but is small and underfunded.

[Inquartata]

My only objections would be that (a) it would require yet another expansion of the role of government, and (b) that charitable acts abroad aren't IMO proper functions of the state, that is, things which simply won't get done if the state doesn't do them...

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

How would everyone feel about a US Department of Peace? A well-funded, relief oriented department that has the same rapid-reaction capabilities of the U.S. military. The department could coordinate the relief efforts that branches of the military end up taking. Service can be voluntary with the same benefits as being in the military. Individuals serving would require intensive training, because in many regions it will be like being in a war zone.

A fleet of carriers with helicopters, medical supplies, food, other aid, and a highly trained fast-response team.

Above the humanitarian mission that this department would serve, there are numerous diplomatic benefits.

The US Department of Peace you just described already exists. Its the US Armed Forces.

[Gav]

So the department of peace is like the ministry of peace?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

My only objections would be that (a) it would require yet another expansion of the role of government, and (b) that charitable acts abroad aren't IMO proper functions of the state, that is, things which simply won't get done if the state doesn't do them...

I agree with Inq.

We already have in place several organizations, some government, some associations, and some private industry that already do provide relieve and humanitarian services. And these organizations are doing a fine job reaching out to nations in need.

The thought of establishing a single agency to perfom the tasks of the several already in place sends me shivers of Homeland Security Agency - which I don't think is maximizing, nor will be able to anytime soon, the benefit of the organizations it now encompasses.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

I agree with Inq.

In lieu of flowers, contributions can be made to the America Heart Association....