But if there is one thing that we have learned in Uganda, it is that it is difficult to limit expectations or manage perceptions – especially in uniform. This is not Iraq or Afghanistan: our ACU uniform does not help us blend in with the landscape or with thousands of other soldiers. We are often the sole representatives of the U.S. government (and certainly the powerful U.S military) in the areas where we work – and by this virtue and others, we are a spectacle everywhere we go. This does not put us in danger, but it means that we must limit the time we spend on the ground assessing a potential project, for example, so that our presence does not start to raise expectations as well as eyebrows.

This is just what we did in Bududa. Alongside our Uganda People’s Defense Force partners, we traveled to the disaster site and the IDP camps, where we briefly observed the goings-on, and spoke exclusively with military and government officials. In the end, our mission consisted of very few hours actually spent on the ground.

Still, we should not have been surprised to find ourselves on the cover of the New Vision – one of the main national newspapers – the following day.  Indeed, the story about us even overshadowed the story about the Pope’s response to the disaster – and this in a country with a largely Christian, and substantial Catholic, population.

Sunday Vision 07MAR2010

According to the article, we had arrived at Bududa to, “assess the situation and coordinate support.” The words are modest enough, but pictures sometimes speak louder than words – especially large, color, front-page type pictures.  As the UPDF Major General in charge of the disaster relief effort told us again and again, whatever we might do, “Expectations from the U.S. Army are very great.”

He mentioned something else too about our presence, and about expectations.  He said that our response was making people think: If the US Army can coordinate a response to Bududa, why isn’t this or that local or national official doing more?  Indeed, with the election year 2011 around the corner, the pressure is on for politicians to respond powerfully and publicly to the Bududa disaster.  In fact, the politicization of the disaster has gotten to the point where local politicians have been barred from the IDP camps so they can’t stir up conflict.

President Museveni himself has flown to the site, and earlier this week he ordered the UPDF to continue digging until all the bodies had been recovered.  All 250+ of them.  Most of them already decayed to the point where they are unrecognizable to their own relatives.  Most of them simply inaccessible to the hundreds of soldiers who have been digging away at the layers of soil and mud for days with a few dozen shovels and wooden stakes.  In fact, local officials and disaster managers had already met last week and agreed that the site should be declared a mass grave, and that focus should be shifted to the IDP camps. Whether any of this informed President Museveni’s decision, I cannot say.

What I can say is that ultimately we came to support the Ugandan government in whatever course of action they deemed appropriate.  Our mission did generate some thoughts on how US military assets might be of service in the short, medium, and long terms: lending immediate airlift support was initially considered, but the focus now will likely be on planning future joint disaster training or medical military-to-military training.  But here I must limit my own expectations.  The military is not the lead actor in the Horn of Africa theater, and our actions must be vetted through the U.S. Country Team (State Department, USAID, etc.), our Ugandan partners, and our chain of command before they gain approval. It is a cautious process.

Whatever the outcome, a cartoon from page two of a recent newspaper seems to signify that our side-mission to Bududa has become part of the national dialogue on the disaster:

New Vision 09MAR2010, p.2. Caption reads: "A team of officers from the US Reserve force on Saturday visited the scene of the tragic landslide that buried three villages in Bududa District."

Becoming a headline is one thing, but certainly none of us were expecting to get spoofed ! – especially in the context of such a tragedy.  It is hard to say whether the cartoonist is questioning our motives for being in Bududa – or in Uganda more generally – or whether his humor is simply motivated by convenient wordplay.  Regardless, it is clear that the Ugandan public has kept an eye on us, and will likely continue to do so as we continue our mission in Karamoja.

At the end of the day though, our objective is not to generate positive publicity for ourselves, but rather to strengthen the capabilities of our military partners.  For their rapid and dedicated response to the Bududa disaster, the UPDF are really the ones who should be enjoying the spotlight, anyway.

I wish I could think of a more original reason for this besides blaming CNN for creating a negative feedback loop as reporters strive for ever more news to fill the 24/7 cycle, and the public becomes more and more jaded about the quality of the news, and instead flips back to the Daily Show on DVR, but right now I can’t.

Having never even seen an iPad, I can’t say that the premise – that it is easier to use than the XO (which is pretty easy to use) will help bridge the digital divide with the elderly.

The ‘digital divide’ is the general term for the gap between those writing blog posts about the digital divide and those who won’t or can’t as easily adopt every new technology. Common reasons include price, education level, applicability of services, and lack of support infrastructure. Andrea DiMaio, the post’s author, makes an excellent point that the digital divide has an element of usability, not just availability.

What is intriguing about the iPad is not only the friendly user interface and the great Internet surfing experience, but also the likely usage patterns and the unlikely users. Many commented that this device will be carried around in the home (also depending on what accessories will be available to ruggedize it). But I would argue, it could be used by people who would never use a computer.

Which governments is DiMaio talking about? Wealthier governments that need help getting their older (or less computer literate) employees up to speed? That is a worthy goal. Even employees that are computer literate will likely have their efficiency increase once they are able to bridge the technology gap with their coworkers. But is that better than the XO?

He suggests that governments could give the iPad to students instead of a laptop. The XO is less than half the cost of the iPad. Students that are dependent on the XO don’t generally get their own of anything, not even ridiculously cheap laptops. Here, the limiting factor isnot only the cost, but supply lines that aren’t totally dependent on foreign aid workers; reliable energy sources; security; protection from bugs, animals, dust, etc which can damage even very sturdy equipment and the availability of maintenance; this list could continue for paragraphs. OLPC has been working to address these problems for years (they now make ‘green’ laptops which are able to use solar power), Apple’s primary clients mostly live and work in very different conditions.

None of this is to say that the iPad won’t be useful for development purposes (at the very least, the ridiculous name has generated donations of sanitary pads for girls in developing countries). But to say that the iPad, or any other form of technology (even the XO), will be a panacea, is to completely misunderstand the nature of technology. Technology is a tool. Not only is it neutral, but it is very rarely revolutionary, at least not the way we expect. Governments may in fact decide to make use of the iPad, possibly even in the ways DiMaio predicts, but it won’t be because a package from Apple shows up. Governments act based on incentives. People and institutions determine incentives. Let’s keep our focus there.

In honor of all of our activities, here’s our list of Top Posts to review the year.

Top Posts

• The war on Flying
• Kosovo as a model for Afghanistan?
• Obama needs a vision check
• Why do people protest?

And while the stats aren’t in yet, Barak’s ‘Development first crowd‘ series is likely to be a hit as well.

Most Commented

‘Obama needs a vision check’ also has the distinction of being our most commented post of the year.  Other top commented posts include:

• Growth without government
• Another coup government consolidated in Africa

Thank you for making it such a great year, but I think we can all agree it’s time to move on to the next one.  Happy New Year from all of us at D&S and Georgetown CDACS!

HT to Bill Easterly. Happy Snowpocalypse!  Stay safe everyone.