As elsewhere, a bit of a contretemps is brewing in Blogdom these days over the question of whether the US is "stingy" or "generous" in its humanitarian aid spending, so I thought I'd take a minute this morning to briefly lay out the valid points that I think each side is making in the debate.

First, on the broad question of American generosity, conservatives like James Joyner are correct; much of what the US spends in this area isn't counted in the official statistics, which leads to some rather misleading analyses, such as those that suggest that we spend only two cents per person per day on humanitarian aid. (In addition to the excellent points James makes on the deceptively narrow definition that these analyses tend to use for "humanitarian assistance," it should also be noted that virtually every aid package on the face of the Earth could arrive at its destination stamped, "Delivered from our nation to yours through the good offices of the United States Navy." Therefore, it seems only fair to factor at least some of the dollars that US taxpayers shell out to provide the security umbrella under which the entire humanitarian aid infrastructure stays warm and dry into these sorts of calculations.) Moreover, private charities in this country do raise and distribute rather large sums, and, while I think some on the right have a tendency to overstate the magnitude and effectiveness of these kinds of efforts, their good works should not go unrecognized.

That said, much of the Democratic criticism of this administration's response to the current disaster in South Asia is spot-on; yet again, President Bush appears to have squandered an opportunity to reach out to the very people whose hearts and minds we need to win in order to defeat both bin Laden and bin Ladenism, and that's just plain dumb. Publius, over at Legal Fiction, is particularly strong on this point:

For those who don’t know, I am not a world leader. Given my writing over the past year, I have a sneaking suspicion that I will never be a world leader. But if I were a world leader, I would think that humanitarian disasters in other countries would be the political equivalent of hanging curve balls. You really don’t have to exert that much effort to earn global goodwill. In fact, it's one of those rare opportunities where every single person on the planet would agree with you and appreciate your words. Even if you truly don’t give a s**t that 100,000 people have died, even if you would rather clear brush for four days than worry about it, all you have to do is have a five minute press conference, express sympathy, and promise money somewhat in excess of what you could get at a couple of political fundraisers. In fact, the only way to blow such a golden opportunity to gain sorely needed goodwill (especially in the Muslim world) is to do exactly what Bush did – nothing. It was a rather remarkable feat.

In closing, and on a semi-related matter, I'd like to second every word that Henry Farrell has to say here. Thoughtful criticism of individuals and their ideas is one thing. But at a time like this, when so many blogospherians are doing what they can to help alleviate the suffering of millions of their fellow human beings halfway around the world, we could really do without the puerile cheap shots.