...or at least trailing in others wakes. The Diplomad points out how they apprently are making quite a splash with the Libereliti (my new phrase for "Liberal Elitists", tell me if you think it works or not) and points out a nifty little tool called "Technorati" where one can look up various blogs and just who is linking to whom. Lo' and behold your favorite (I can dream can't I?) Secret Agent is linked to by an "Adam Smithee" who seemed to misunderstand my response to Jan Egelends "stingy" remark, or at least didn't get my biting and witty point. Mr. Egeland was not referring to total western spending on humanitarian aid as Adam Smithee claims, but was very pointedly snubbing the United States. As for Adam Smithee's statements supporting his belief that U.S. military aid doesn't count for much, I still point to the operating expenses of SeaHawk and other military assets as a better arguement. Yes, they aren't purchased with humanitarian aid strictly in mind, but they are used for humanitarian aid. If UNICEF buys a hammer for use in their prestigious Manhattan offices and it gets used in Indonesia (little chance of that happening, but bear with me here) does that mean that their contribution of the hammer is lessened because it wasn't originally tasked to that purpose?
Would you say that the National Guard, being a military unit doesn't serve a role in search and rescue? Of course not, they have the best assets for search and rescue missions and hence are dual tasked. Check your local paper, NG or ANG unit and find out how many times they've been involved in SAR missions in the United States. Same goes for full-time military; Coast Guard, Navy, Air-Force, Marines. Does this mean they have a set, allocated amount of money to spend on SAR? Or that they can't assist in areas outside their normal purvue (cognizant of possee comitatus blah blah blah)? Of course not.
All branches serve and assist whenever and whereever needed...budget line items be damned.

Just because the military doesn't have a large line item dedicated solely to humanitarian aid doesn't mean that they don't provide humanitarian aid. Adam Smithee in his zeal to counter the arguement makes a good attempt to minimize the contributions the United States makes, while overlooking the obvious benefits that the United States brings to the world...even if they aren't spelled out in black and white.