Why are there starving children in Afghanistan?

[bkgirl]

Appalling footage on channel 4 right now.....how can the west spend so much on guns and bomb and let so many kids starve to death? Surely the way to long term win this war through hearts and minds.

So sad.

The reason is that much of Afghanistan remains too dangerous for aid agencies to reach. The western forces and the Afghan forces they have been training have had some successes in maintaining security in parts. But it has repeatedly broken down and no-one is prepared to spend even more on international forces to achieve the basic level of enduring security to allow agencies to work.

We aren't exactly at war now. We are there with the full consent of the recognised government.

Bearing in mind how many people would like DfID to stop all overseas spending at the moment, it would be interesting to know how you would propose to do this....
Afghanistan is a desperately poor country with a horrendous history. It's not suddenly become poor, since 2001, it's been devastated by various wars and insurgencies for a long time. A beautiful country that has been abused by so many different people.

I just think one bomb would feed lots of children, these arms traders have a lot to answer for....they profit big time, when I see war torn countries normally I reckon someone is makinng a fortune at most peoples expense. They alsways blame religion or nationalism, all crap..... a small amount of people getting rich and off their heads with ego and power.

Its no reason to turn our back on children,maybe even a banker or twos bonuses could go that way or maybe even a mega rich footballer could contribute. Small chance in hell eh?

How would you get the aid bought by the proceeds of selling a bomb or whatever to those who need it?

I think you are being very naive bkgirl.

Afghanistan is a country which hasn't been able to be governed effectively...well ever. Russia tried it for over a decade. Now we're there fighting a losing battle.

There's barely any infrastructure, literacy is minimal and the only thing the people seem to know how to do is fight. Corruption is rife and endemic. Women are second class citizens which can be sold and if raped are the ones to be thrown in prison.

It's also a huge country which despite the huge numbers of soldiers we've sent over there, the billions we've spent 'pacifying' the Taliban, it isn't nearly enough to form stable security.

In that context just how do you propose we feed everyone? It's not a case of not buying a bomb and delivering a food parcel. If only it were that easy.

We'd have to send over hundreds of thousands more troops, all heavily armed to ensure food aid is secured, delivered and didn't just disappear. That will mean shooting more locals and more of our troops returning maimed or in body bags.

So in short, the only way to achieve what you want is to actually send over more bullets and bombs.

I just saw the news - 30,000 children a year die there for want of food.

I would like to help - does anyone know which agencies are working there directly with the families?

there must be something we can do

If you google, you'll find several.

But you might also like to be aware that in 2010 foreign aid to Afghanistan was $15.7 billion (equalling the country's entire GDP), and that the country co-ordinator for International Rescue Committee is on record as saying that "Within the aid community there's a general feeling that less could actually be better, because the amount of money poured into Afghanistan is absolutely ridiculous and not sustainable... Last year there were huge amounts of development money, but there is no question that not much of that has trickled down to those who were in need".

well not much development money is better than nothing, surely?

I'm not sure why you refer to nothing.

US is the biggest donor (USAID gives roughly $320m every month), followed by EU institutions, followed by UK (over $1.8b since 2002).

you say that not much of the aid money trickles down to those who need it most. That doesn't seem to be a reason for not giving aid. Not much is better than nothing.

I'm not saying it, exactly. I'm quoting the country coordinator of a major aid organisation, who confirms that an enormous amount is given. But cannot always be well spent because (if I understood correctly) of a double whammy of corruption and of inadequate security.

Which, um, the guns and bombs are being used to try and solve. So that the aid can actually get to where it needs to go.

Chicken and egg.

But if you can solve afghanistan's problems, bkgirl, crack right on. No bugger else has managed it. Ever.

Doesn't mean you should give up trying. Which is why so much more money is still being poured in, in both aid and er, peacekeeping/stabilization work.

Given that the majority of people think we should remove the military and get the hell out, I don't think there'll be much of an appetite for more cash... (it's a nice try by the media to rally support for continued presence in Afghanistan though)

Afghanistan has a long history of trouble. The British and French had issues there in the 18th/19th century. The Russians were bloodied there and its terrain and tribal feuds contribute to it's woes. The Taliban are also in the mix and like other 3rd world places the aid money prob. goes into Mercedes,Rolex and overseas bank accounts.