Instant Gratification

Much of the foreign aid that is provided to developing is typically that which may yield short-term, rather instantaneous responses of relief. However, is this the kind of relief we should really be providing? Or, at the very least, shouldn't be complement this form of aid with long-term plans to maintain the relief that is being provided.

The most obvious example of this form of short-term aid is "cash handouts." The argumet for this is that building infrastructure, for example, in an impoverished community will not help those dying of hunger, thirst, and disease. Indeed, a valid argument.

Of greater interest to me, however, is the type of aid provided in countries in the Middle East, experiencing revolutionary change. In Egypt, for example, the revolution was in response to repression, anger, and inadequate institutional development and aid by the government. Without Mubarack, what will the revolutionaries do to ensure that another corrupt leader does not take the place of Mubarak?
In Libya, bombing out Gaddafi--will we ensure that another repressive regime does not take their place?

The point here is not that change should not be advocated, or that the responses--in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere--are unjustified, unecessary or otherwise. Rather, the question is, to what extent should change be made prior t oa fully-implemented plan. In the case of Libya, there is a stronger argument to proceed without proper plans for after because lives were being taken by Gaddafi and his forces. In Egypt, however, what plans of support were offered and availabile, now that Mubarak is gone, and since he was removed from power?

It is easy to identify what is "right" and what is "wrong." However, do we have a plan towards the "right" once the "wrong" is removed? More importantly, is the plan better than what existed with the "wrong?"