Tom Usher commented or added the following:
" The United Nations has characterized the destruction caused by the floods in Pakistan as greater than the damage from the 2004 Asian tsunami, the 2005 Pakistan earthquake, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake combined."
Why is aid per capita way down from the levels of other recent disasters? Well, before I read the article, I'm going to state what seems to me to be the obvious. First, Americans are more out of money than at any other time in my lifetime. Second, the US (and somewhat NATO) are supposedly at "war" in Pakistan. Third, floods don't look as horrid as the aftermath of hurricanes and earthquakes. Fourth, people are starting to think more locally in terms of aiding the poor right around them.
Now, as for the body of the article, I'm seeing a disconnect between the pain and suffering of the Pakistanis and the author, Mosharraf Zaidi, in terms of evaluating why Pakistan hasn't received more help. I don't agree that government corruption, Pakistani intelligence, Islam, nuclear weapons, or any of those other things is the reason many people haven't opened their wallets who opened them concerning other disasters. Most people don't think along those lines when it comes to such disasters. Most people just think about the plight of human beings regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, etc.
Also, not that the article emphasized this (it didn't), it is true that people respond more when things are closer to home or when people who are more similar are impacted, but that doesn't mean that phenomena should be carried to the extreme in answering the question of why Pakistan hasn't been given the same dollar amounts per capita.
Besides, the more people impacted, the farther a dollar has to be stretched regardless.