Developmental Assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region in Africa

I apologize for my delayed response, but as for my argument:As to my opponent's suggestion that we should focus on military on food aid so we can decrease poverty, although this is flawless in theory, logistically this hasn't worked out, for ultimately, there are two ways that food aid is being administered; through emergency food aid and through selling internationally grown food after failed harvests, and neither way accurately attacks the problem at hand. According to the Economist, published on July 7th of 2012, “Though they are getting better at responding fast when an alarm is raised, emergency food aid often makes only a marginal difference. What the Sahel really needs is to make itself able to cope with the recurrent threat of famine.” Due to the low overall impact from emergency food aid, it is illogical to prioritize it over more pressing concerns, such as security. In addition, according to the Economist published in December of 2010, “ Imported food is almost always available after failed harvests, but it is costly. Crippling poverty means that some families go hungry even after good harvests. Moreover, the Sahel's population is growing at 2.6%, more than twice the global rate, outpacing economic growth.” Since the affirmative implies a continuation of the present aid policy which is heavily dependent on providing food, it is clearly inefficient and misguided since it lacks a focus on improving wages, continuing the cycle of poverty in the Sahel.In addition, although I'd admit there is problems with military aid, but no less than developmental aid in the bueraucracy, but it does present the notion that faults of both are almost equal, thus neither should be prioritized over each other. And in addition, the purpose of military aid does not have to put a dictator into office through pure brute strength, actually, since most of the aid comes from the UN and US it is highly unlikely that such a person would be put into office, the purpose of military aid would be to make sure that that DOESN'T happen, that no dictator is put into office that would be corrupt and steal the aid supposedly used towards developmental assistance projects, and this should be just as important, if not more so, than beginning projects that in an ideal world would lead to decreased poverty under a just leader wouldn't loose it in financial fraud. Also, my opponent continously presses the issues of Nigeria, however there is insuing violence in that region, which has 'scared' away some companies who were interested in helping Nigeria develop in exchange for some natural rescources. For example, according to National Security Research Division in 2009, “Today, Shell Nigeria’s activities include investing in the community; supporting microenterprises; and providing health care, education, and agricultural services.” “Shell contributed $158.2 million to the NDDC and spent an additional $25.2 million directly on development projects.“ Clearly Nigeria does not need an abundance of additional aid towards developmental assistance, but it would rather be preferable to prioritize military aid to allow for more companies to partner with area, since many companies, such as Willbros, have left Niger and stopped funding them due to dangers in the region that “exceed our acceptable risk levels.” In order for Nigeria to receive the highest possible amount of aid, it must be granted military aid in order for the danger levels to be stable for interested companies. (I'm not entirely confident about the Non-squitur term however, being a novice PF debater, so if you dpn't believe that I have adressed that, feel free to mention it, I've started this to learn all I can, also for future referance, I am female)