Dealing with the military - a double edged sword for NGOs

Coalition forces have all but declared victory in Iraq, yet there has not been any significant movement of humanitarian relief. Instead there are looted hospitals without medicines struggling to treat the sick and the injured.

So why the delay? Why haven't organizations such as World Vision started their work?

The reality is that the situation in Iraq is still unstable from a humanitarian perspective, and the UN - whose guidance we rely on to say when to enter a country safely - are still unable to go into parts of Iraq to undertake even the most basic of security assessments. The recent delivery of food took four days to travel 300 kms from Jordan to Baghdad and faced danger at several stages along the journey.

The situation is concerning for all, including governments and the military.

The allied forces have tried to fill the void and undertake some humanitarian work, and indeed the delivery of vital supplies should be commended.

The airlift of medical supplies, delivered by the RAAF, will undoubtedly be welcomed in Iraq. However as we saw from the chaotic food distribution images from a few weeks ago, the military don't have the expertise to distribute emergency aid. Nor should they be expected to - it's not their job.

It is the job of aid agencies.

But the recent military airlift highlighted the level of instability within Iraq, requiring an armed presence to ensure the safe landing and unloading of these supplies.

The answer would seem clear - why not work with the military to deliver humanitarian aid?

The reality is that in this conflict, aid agencies are facing unprecedented challenges.

For the first time we have a coalition of governments and military forces who want to play an active role in delivering humanitarian assistance themselves.

Aid agencies are having to decide how closely to work with the military, and it is not an easy decision.