The images from Haiti keep coming, and they keep getting worse.  At first, before the press arrived with its digital cameras and satellite communications equipment, we could only imagine the developing horror.  Now, we see it live and in high definition on our big screen TV’s.  Viewing the devastation is unavoidable, and rightly so.  It is heartbreaking to watch, but we need to see it. 

As individuals, we send our money to what we hope are responsible and effective charitable organizations.  This time, the amount of money my family has at its disposal is smaller than during the last great crisis, but still, we send.  And we feel guilty for not sending more.

 I know the money helps.  It saves lives.  Still, I am discouraged.  Will a Haiti rebuilt be an improvement on the Haiti destroyed?  Will our donations enable the survivors to do anything more than just survive?  Will their suffering be diminished?  Will they resent us for not doing more?  Will they be any less vulnerable to the next natural disaster that will surely hit again, and hit soon?

How often are we confronted with such devastation?  Is it really 4 years since the tsunami?  As individuals, my family sent more money for that disaster.  We had more to send then.  But the sheer number of victims – maybe as many as 230,000 -- far exceeded the number of those affected in Haiti, so our per capita contribution was actually smaller.

The disasters keep coming.  Less than two years ago, the cyclone Nargis slammed into Burma, killing at least 138,000.  That was just a two months before the more famous Sichuan earthquake struck China, resulting in the death of 70,000 people there.

A tropical cyclone hit Bangladesh in 1970 that killed as many as 500,000 inhabitants of that country and neighboring India.  Some cities lost nearly half of their population, and smaller towns were literally washed off the face of the earth.

There was a time not all that long ago when mega-disasters hit the United States.  At least 8,000 likely died during the hurricane that practically destroyed Galveston, Texas, in 1900.  That was more than 1 of every 6 inhabitants of the island. 

The Johnstown, Pennsylvania flood of 1889 killed over 2,200 people, over 7% of the town’s population.

Of course, fatality numbers like Galveston’s 8,000, or Johnstown’s 2,200, pale next to the numbers coming out of Haiti.  The population was much less in the Galveston of 1900 than it is today, so a similar storm today would result in far more fatalities, right?  Wrong.  In 1983, Hurricane Alicia hit the same area of Southeast Texas that was affected by the Galveston hurricane of 1900.  A category 3 storm, its tidal surge along the low-lying communities on Galveston Bay reached 12 feet, not much different from the surge that hit Galveston in 1900.  In 1983, however, there were millions living in the storm’s path, not thousands.  Yet, the death rate for Alicia was only 21.  Sad certainly, but not the mega-disaster it could have been.

Even Hurricane Katrina, as bad as it was, was still nowhere near as devastating on a per capita basis as the 1900 Galveston hurricane, and cannot be compared to the cyclones that have wrought so much tragedy in places like Bangladesh and Burma.

Why don’t mega-disasters strike the United States, or other developed nations?  We all know the answers.  Building codes are strict, and strictly enforced.  Early notification systems are in place.  There is an infrastructure that enables entire communities to evacuate when catastrophe looms.  Following the Galveston hurricane of 1900, the city built a 12 foot sea wall that still stands today as a bulwark against another storm surge of similar proportion.

Similar measures that could be taken in the world's poorest nations to reduce their risk to mega-disasters would be very expensive.  A country like Haiti cannot afford them on its own.  To reduce its vulnerability to future catastrophes, American aid will be needed, and it won’t come cheap.  Can we afford it?  Of course we can.

The Iraq war has already cost Americans close to $1 trillion.  As of July, 2009, the Department of Defense’s financial obligations in support of the Iraq mission totaled $7.3 billion per month.  DoD’s monthly obligations for Afghanistan, prior to the recently announced surge, were $3.6 billion.  This means the total financial obligation for the two wars comes to nearly $11 billion per month.

The United States has pledged $100 million for emergency relief to Haiti.  This is in addition to the economic and military assistance that is a normal part of our foreign aid to that country.  In 2008, Haiti received $265 million in foreign aid from the United States.  Assuming the figures for 2010 would be similar, the total amount of aid and disaster relief for Haiti will be about $365 million, less than 0.3% of the amount we will spend to prosecute our wars on the other side of the globe.

If the United States has the economic ability to wage two wars at a cost of trillions of dollars, do we not also have the ability to ensure one of our neighbors does not descend into further chaos and despair?  Do we really want another Somalia a few hundred miles off of our coast?  Can we afford to allow a narco-state to develop there, where the only security is that which is offered by competing warlords?  A failed state in Haiti could be far more expensive to manage than a serious and effective program to rebuild that nation in such a way that it can withstand the next natural disaster that comes its way.

Is it too much to ask that our government redirect its resources to support something constructive in our own back yard, rather than pursue a policy on the other side of the world that too often builds hatred and distrust, rather than security and comity?