On Feb 13, 2025, at 8:01 PM, Chas Freeman via Salon <salon@listserve.com> wrote:
--James Stavridis, ColumnistUSAID Really Does Protect Americans and Save Money
In Afghanistan, Colombia, Haiti and elsewhere, aid workers have been the military’s soft-power partners.
February 12, 2025James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a retired US Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO, and vice chairman of global affairs at the Carlyle Group.Throughout my nearly four decades in uniform, I frequently worked alongside the professionals of the US Agency for International Development. From my first forward deployment, as a junior officer detailed to painting orphanages in the Philippines, I deeply admired these dedicated civil servants.
Especially toward the end of my career — as senior military assistant to Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, as a four-star admiral in command of US Southern Command, and then as supreme allied commander at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — I relied on USAID for short- and long-term reasons. In combat areas, USAID workers helped create security for my troops in the field. Over the long term, they provided stability by helping prevent disease outbreaks, famine and more — and the fights and chaos that so often follow.
What USAID does is not charity. While its actions almost always have humanitarian benefit, ultimately the agency is all about helping the men and women of the Departments of Defense and State do their jobs and get home safely. Defense, diplomacy and development — the “three Ds” — work best together.
Last week, President Donald Trump essentially canceled USAID. The administration ceased almost all funding, put thousands of workers on leave and ordered those based abroad to return to the US within 30 days. (A federal judge has partially blocked Trump’s orders.) Now, Bloomberg News reports, the administration is considering shifting USAID’s taxpayer funds to invest in private-sector projects overseas alongside institutional investors.
While the agency’s critics cite inefficiency and waste, the amount of money and people is actually tiny — a budget of less than $40 billion and 10,000 workers (compared to the Defense Department’s $850 billion and nearly 3 million active, reserve and civilian employees). By shutting down the agency to trim a small amount of spending, the administration risks incurring significant long-term costs.
Why do I feel so strongly about this? I could provide hundreds of examples, but here are three that stick in my mind, from the war-torn and turbulent countries of Colombia, Iraq and Haiti.
During my tenure in the late 2000s at US Southern Command, in charge of all military activity south of the US, Colombia was at the top of my worry list. The massive flow of cocaine and other drugs was killing tens of thousands of Americans either through overdoses or gang violence.
Over time, we delivered security in Colombia not by sending hundreds of thousands of US troops, but by using a small number of forces (typically less than 1,000 at a time) and hundreds of USAID employees. Slowly, the efforts of development workers did more than the military to dismantle cartel influence.
USAID affected the battlefield by reintegrating more than 13,000 demobilized guerilla fighters back into Colombian society. I saw child soldiers who had been kidnapped by the guerrillas reunited with their families. Aid workers helped increase the stability of the eventual peace deal by helping bolster economic development and the rule of law, so that 1.2 million hectares of land could be returned to rightful owners. USAID helped reduce rural poverty by 30% and gave people alternatives to fighting or exporting drugs.
Those successes in turn helped US security by undermining drug gangs, improving economic conditions with a strong trading partner (the US has a trade surplus with Colombia) and shrinking the flow of cocaine to North America — all without massive US spending or significant Department of Defense engagement.
Or consider Iraq. After US forces deposed the dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003, we found a society in complete turmoil, with massive internal divisions. Simply walking away was not an option: because of a moral imperative to help average Iraqis, the enormous oil reserves of the country, and the likelihood it would become a breeding ground for further terrorist organizations.
In order to help the nascent Iraqi military, the Pentagon needed not only training missions, but also to help develop governance, human rights and rule of law. So, we turned to USAID, and again found a willing and capable partner.
On my visits to the NATO training mission in Baghdad (working with my US Army 3-star subordinate), I saw firsthand the results of the work done by the Iraq Governance and Performance Accountability directorate. It leveraged USAID-sponsored classroom and practical exercises to improve the behavior of the Iraqi government and military, and provided a model we later used in Afghanistan.
It was hot, dusty work in unglamorous conditions, but today the Iraqi security forces — while far from perfect — are credible partners with US Central Command in the fight against the remnants of the Islamic State.
Finally, Haiti is a strong example of direct benefit to the US. In the 1980s, massive boatlifts brought tens of thousands of Cuban and Haitian refugees to Florida. Fleeing instability, criminality and failing infrastructure of their islands, they were willing to risk dangerous voyages on unstable rafts to make it to our shores. This put considerable strain on Florida’s economy.
When a massive 7.0 earthquake devastated Haiti in early 2010, I had just departed as head of US Southern Command. From a distance I watched with immense pride as the US military and USAID stepped up together. Some 250,000 residences and 30,000 commercial buildings — as well as most government ministries and the headquarters of the UN stabilization mission — were flattened. The risk of human catastrophe, one that could have spilled into Florida and the rest of the US, was real.
Almost every military senior responder — starting with the on-the-ground commander, General Ken Keen — will tell you the real heroes were from USAID. Their efforts were integral in preventing a mass exodus, and the costs were pennies on the dollar compared to caring for Haitian migrants who would have flooded into south Florida.
“In Haiti, the USAID team worked seamlessly with American military partners from Lieutenant General Keen down to more junior officers and enlisted service members across the island,” Rajiv Shah, then the agency’s administrator, said later. “The same was true in Afghanistan during the war, Liberia during the Ebola pandemic, and elsewhere.” He’s right.
I could continue to provide example after example — in Africa, the Philippines, the Balkans and elsewhere — to make the case for keeping USAID. Should there be vigilance to reduce waste, abuse or frivolous projects? Of course. But dismantling an organization this vital to US national security will damage our standing in the world and negatively affect us at home.
Here’s the bottom line: If you want to try to save money by cutting USAID, you will only end up spending more on costly Pentagon programs. Like smart preventative medicine, the work of USAID nips problems in the bud before they need very expensive major surgery. Maintaining a strong and capable USAID is both the right thing to do and the smart one.
Stavridis is dean emeritus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University . He is on the boards of Aon, Fortinet and Ankura Consulting Group, and has advised Shield Capital, a firm that invests in the cybersecurity sector.
==============At USAID, I Prioritized the Wrong Argument
As Republicans seek to demolish the agency, its defenders should appeal to a higher principle than self-interest.
February 12, 2025By Maany PeyvanAs Elon Musk and President Donald Trump attempt to unlawfully obliterate USAID, its advocates have focused on the many ways that shutting off foreign aid damages U.S. interests. They argue that it exposes Americans to a greater risk of outbreaks such as Ebola and bird flu, stifles future markets for domestic producers, and cedes the great-power competition to China. These arguments are accurate and important, but they have overtaken a more fundamental—and ultimately more persuasive—reason for the U.S. to invest in foreign aid: It’s essential to America’s identity.
Following World War II, every U.S. president until Trump used his inaugural address to champion foreign aid and invoke the country’s long-held ideals of decency and generosity. They maintained that Americans had a moral duty to help the deprived. Once Trump was elected in 2016, however, U.S. leaders and aid advocates grew reluctant to talk about altruism. President Joe Biden made no mention of the world’s needy in his inaugural address.
I’m as much to blame for this shift as anyone. I served as USAID’s head speechwriter for six years under the past two Democratic administrations. In that role, I prioritized tactical arguments about America’s safety and well-being in order to persuade the shrinking segment of Republicans who were sympathetic to foreign aid. For a time, it worked. During the Biden administration, Congress spared USAID’s budget from the most drastic proposed cuts, and the agency received unprecedented emergency funding to deal with a series of humanitarian disasters, conflicts, and climate catastrophes.
[Read: The cruel attack on USAID]
Today, however, that line of reasoning is failing. Trump, Musk, and their allies are convinced that administering foreign aid weakens America, rather than enriching or securing it. Marco Rubio used to be one of the agency’s biggest supporters; now, as secretary of state, he’s maligning its staff and abetting its demolition.
A more compelling message lies in the fact that Trump and Musk’s foreign-aid freeze could be one of the cruelest acts that a democracy has ever undertaken. In 2011, when Republican members of Congress proposed a 16 percent cut in annual foreign aid, then–USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah conservatively estimated that it would lead to the deaths of 70,000 children. That is more children than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Depending on how thoroughly Trump and Musk are allowed to dismantle USAID, the casualties this time could be worse. (A federal judge has temporarily blocked their plan to put staffers on leave.)
By assaulting the foreign-aid system, Rubio, Musk, and Trump are redefining what it means to be American: small-hearted rather than generous; unexceptional in our selfishness. To respond by arguing that foreign aid simply benefits Americans is to accede to their view, not combat it.
Instead, advocates of foreign aid should appeal to a higher principle: To be American is to care about those in need. The country is already primed for this message. Americans are an exceptionally charitable people, donating more than $500 billion each year. And although polling shows that a narrow majority of Americans want to cut foreign aid in the abstract, they strongly support the specific programs it funds, including disaster relief, food and medicine, women’s education, and promoting democracy.
[Read: Trump’s assault on USAID makes Project 2025 look like child’s play]
That support derives above all from a moral belief. According to a poll by KFF, only 25 percent of respondents cited economic or national-security interests as the most important reason for America to invest in the public health of developing countries. Nearly double—46 percent—said that it’s the right thing to do.
A modern blueprint exists for tapping into Americans’ concern for the world’s poor. During the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, proponents of foreign aid emphasized America’s values ahead of its interests, inspiring communities of faith and galvanizing a nationwide youth movement. Rock stars and celebrities echoed the message, which penetrated pop culture. When an earthquake struck Haiti in 2010, a telethon featuring performances by Beyoncé and Taylor Swift raised $61 million; stars including Leonardo DiCaprio and Julia Roberts staffed the phones. No one mentioned security or prosperity. Empathy was enough.
Today, the political and cultural coalitions that championed foreign aid are severely diminished. The Republicans whom USAID once counted on have gone silent. Few faith leaders or celebrities are calling for foreign aid to resume. No widespread youth movement is demanding that we end poverty now. Proponents, myself included, stopped focusing on inspiring the American people, so it’s no surprise that they are uninspired. But we can motivate them again. We just need to appeal to their hearts as much as their minds.
Salon mailing list
Salon@listserve.com
https://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/listinfo/salon