Logistic Planning and Collaboration in Complex Relief Operations by Steven J. Romano
It seems to me that Romano is addressing his article to the Department of Defense (DOD) pointing out various issues in their humanitarian missions that he thinks need addressing. I found the article heavy and intense, although it is lightened up, to some extent, by photographs. Nonetheless, I wondered how the photographs were related to the issue at hand.
Romano is unhappy with the way that the DODF conducts its humanitarian missions saying that the DOD violates many logistical concerns in their operations:
Most humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR) operations are characterized by rapidly changing circumstances and a lack of clear and accurate information; they are also distinguished by substantial pressure to quickly provide relief supplies and materiel to an affected area.
Romano maintains that DOD does have "the airlift capacity, disaster funding, critical supplies, and logistics systems to be an effective interagency partner in responding to these crises" and that they need to only exert more effort in meeting the challenges that are inherent in their humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR) operations. He concludes that the experience of U.S. European Command in bringing relief in the Georgia crisis of 2008 contains significant lessons for improving...
He also categorizes his points according to headings and provides a summary that informs us of the essay's intentions. The summary is clear, crisp, and to the point. Romano also explains why he intends to use the Georgia humanitarian assistance crisis as example and, equally important, foresees possible criticism that the Georgian operation was "a relatively small operation compared to DOD's support to the Indonesian tsunami in 2004." His reasons for, nonetheless, employing this model include the fact that the Georgian incident serves as microcosm for UN humanitarian missions as well as pointing to ways of improving the missions.
Romano bullets his article with facts and each one is thoroughly explained. Details are substantiated with facts and figures. This, too, is a positive point.
On the other hand, the photographs that Romano provides, although interesting, omit details as to why they are included in the essay. Reference to the photograph in the body of the work and reason or its inclusion would have been helpful. I also found photographs to be inserted in incongruent places…
