Soldiers as Samaritans: what's the right balance?

• Author: Erwin, Sandra I.
• Position: DEFENSE WATCH

* Where does one draw the line between philanthropy and national security?

The boundaries between the two have become increasingly fuzzier during the past two decades. It's almost as if troops are expected to be Janus-like, with a single head looking in entirely opposite directions.

As the current thinking goes at the Defense Department, humanitarian assistance is a good fit for the military because it helps prevent wars and generates goodwill for the United States. But at what point should the military stop taking on duties that are best suited for civilian agencies?

Somebody had better come up with answers soon, or the military will break under the pressure of an ever-growing to-do list, some experts contend.

Not only is the military stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it must also sustain a "global presence," train foreign troops in friendly countries, provide emergency relief after natural disasters, keep terrorists at bay in dozens of so-called "failed states," not to mention prepare for high-tech wars against future peer competitors.

These unrealistic expectations are overstressing the military and breaking the bank, grouse critics, who complain that the military is responsible for far too many non-combat missions.

Such isolationist views stand in contrast to the Pentagon's mantra of "preventive" humanitarian actions such as naval hospital ship tours around the world and the creation of a new Africa command. These measures are viewed as deterrents against the rapid infiltration of Muslim extremists in the poorest regions of the world.

Advocates of philanthropy as a sensible foreign policy vehicle--including U.S. Navy leaders--say that good works should be part and parcel of military strategy.

"We like to believe that the American instinct is to fly the human rights flag and help people who are in danger," says Victoria Holt, senior associate at the Henry Stimson Center.

The backlash against philanthropy appears to be more about Iraq fatigue than anything else. Iraq has so consumed the military establishment that it may be clouding the judgment of policy makers about what makes sense to do in the long term.

The Africa command, which is intended to boost ties with local governments, assist in economic development and enhance the U.S. image in the region, already has been taking a public-relations beating because the Defense Department has sent mixed messages about the command's goals and responsibilities. That just proves how...