Besides that, I don't even know what Servant is arguing for. That the United States should have a giant army of rapid-response disaster relief personal on station for the entire world all the time, just because we can theoretically foot the bill better than other countries? First of all, what gives you or anyone the right to demand that country prop another state it has nothing to do with?
Because people are dying from earthquakes, and, well, dead people aren't really a good thing. Usually.
Why else do we fight all those other Wars? Because we feel that it is a
good thing. It's good to fight terrorism, good to fight poverty, good to fight drugs, good to fight earthquakes.
I wasn't thinking a unilateral War on Earthquakes, oh no. That would be a a pointless quagmire. I was thinking a global War on Earthquakes, where the US pitches in, but so does the rest of the developed world (EU, China, etc.) If you help one country out in fighting earthquakes in its country, you can be assured that same country will help the rest of the world through other ways (although I would be hard pressed to find out how Haiti will help the United States of America. However, I could see nations like, say, Iran, might like anti-Earthquake assistance). A "scratch my back, scratch your back" deal.