It is hard for people to grasp the concept that the US military needs to help people hurt in war. The United States is different from every country because it goes to great lengths to prevent civilian casualties. It has more resources than any country on the planet. Its people care about human rights. It’s a no-brainer; we should just assist people we hurt, right? It should be easy; it should be an A-B-C thing. But such a process does not exist, so that is what CIVIC is trying to change.

When you start something new, it takes time. Money has been appropriated but not allocated. The process takes months. So we are waiting to see what the appropriated money will translate into.

What prevents the United States from issuing direct reparations or compensation to victims of war?

International law says that states do not have to compensate victims during war. What we try to do is get the United States to improve programs it already has through the US Agency for International Development (USAID). We do not push for compensation, because we push for what we can get. The United States does have processes of compensation, but they are not clear. We need a clearer process that moves faster, that is not confusing for me as an advocate and for Iraqis who are seeking assistance. We want something systematic that benefits as many people as possible.

Compensation programs would be easy for people to understand, but it is hard for people to understand USAID programs and the surveying process. People want a number; they do not consider the individuals.

To what extent do you think the United States is fulfilling its obligations, legal or moral, as an occupying power and party to war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I think the United States needs to do more. It has a responsibility to provide security, to help people who get hurt in new terrorist attacks, to help the policemen who get bombed all the time. It is moving forward on what we are pushing. But it is bureaucratic, so dramatic change is not going to happen immediately.

Things are not better in Afghanistan. There, security remains the number one issue. Far more troops are needed in Afghanistan. The aid process for helping victims of conflict just started four or five months ago. That country [Afghanistan] needs US$20 billion. Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE) did a report called Afghanistan: A One Night Stand: The Morning After. If you look at the amount per capita that’s been pledged to each citizen in Afghanistan, it is something like US$25—in a country that has had 30 years of war, that has been devastated. It is just not enough for Afghanistan at all. The need is not just that of victims of conflict—the 2,000 people who lost their lives in about 20 villages—but an overall need to get the country on its feet.

How does the US military respond to your advocacy?

I meet everyone: the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the military, the big commanders. The whole military does not have this single response. Each individual person, each individual commander, has a different one. There is no process, and it is frustrating and bureaucratic. They of course do not say, “Get out of here, get out of our face.” They are open to listening. But I get frustrated because they do not really respond. They are just disorganized in Iraq, on all fronts, all levels. They will not say, “We do not like you, go away.” They are just disorganized.

What are some specific, small steps the CPA and US military could take right now to help victims of con- flict?

They could start with medical help and investigate larger cases in which civilians were harmed in the war. Also, the US military could write a policy regarding compensation and help for those who were injured after May 1, 2003, because many Iraqis are confused about the compensation process.

How do you track down families in Afghanistan and Iraq given the difficulties posed by geography, security, and lack of infrastructure?

We have survey teams do the investigations. We start in the hospitals. It is pretty obvious where to start if you are from the community, because you know the areas that were attacked. So you go to the site where the injuries occurred. We put together teams who are from the area, who have no ulterior motive but who just want to give people help. We have a questionnaire: How were people hurt? What are their needs? What happened? We get as much background as we possibly can and then summarize the data.

How do Afghans and Iraqis react when you introduce yourself as an American who wants to help them?

It ranges. They are grateful, they are angry, they are happy—but they want something immediately. You are very vulnerable. You try to explain, “I cannot give you money. We are trying to give you help; we are doing the best we can.” They are grateful that you come, but it is hard when you have to keep going back and you have nothing to give them. But that is not my job. My job is to advocate for them and to get actors like CARE or the US government or the United Nations, who have the resources, to do it.

Have you noticed a change in Afghans’ and Iraqis’ attitudes toward you? Are they increasingly hostile or receptive?

In Iraq, with the complications after May 1, 2003, they are angry, because the process is confusing and they do not understand how to get money. Even I do not understand it. So sure, they are frustrated, they want relief now, and I am the person who goes out and sees them. But it is not as if they are going to hurt me or that they do not appreciate our trying.