Military Humanitarian Aid: Cost effective?

It seems as though an Aircraft Carrier is the best platform available for a lot of the aid missions that need to go on, but isn't it a grossly wasteful way to provide that aid? Wouldn't it be interesting, economical, and possibly beneficial to our image if we had a dedicated platform that is similar to an aircraft carrier in scale but with out the extra sailors necessary to provide strictly military missions (such as the jets and support, anti submarine staff, armaments, etc).

I would think that there are enough tragedies around the world annually to keep such a vessel in use, and would (as we see here) provide an instant working platform to deliver aid that is not going to be hampered by terrain, guerillas, and refugees?

I would bet we could take a carrier out of mothball, convert it to peaceful use (and helicopter and cargo plane only), and use it as our sailing ambassador to tragedies around the world. It would be cost efficient (assuming instead we are using full carriers + support fleet instead), would not have the problem of having "foreign troops" delivering aid, and would not take our aircraft carriers away from defensive missions or actuall wartime use. Perhaps a floating peace corps could operate it.

I think it would be something that only the US really has the resources to provide, and would have significant benefits besides the obvious one of effective relief.