-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hard Power and Soft Power
- Thread starter taxi1
- Start date
Not a War College grad, but a Command and Staff College grad.
This is a difficult issue, especially in light that we don't know all the details (length of USAID hold, plans for USAID after large staff reduction, USAID mission/operations that might be moved to other agencies/organization, etc.).
There is no doubt in my opinion that China has been growing rapidly in this arena (soft power), but mostly with a strong armed quid pro quo (food for natural resources, or new harbor for sole Naval access to that same harbor). Panama's rejection of China's influence is an example of how tenuous a strong armed aid relationship can be, when offered aid and guidance from a long term allied partner.
I believe the USAID actions reflect a larger issue, stop the financial bleed and then evaluate where best to put our efforts, both home and abroad.
USAID is just one of hundreds of such programs being stopped during review.
Is it the right approach, only time will tell.
This is a difficult issue, especially in light that we don't know all the details (length of USAID hold, plans for USAID after large staff reduction, USAID mission/operations that might be moved to other agencies/organization, etc.).
There is no doubt in my opinion that China has been growing rapidly in this arena (soft power), but mostly with a strong armed quid pro quo (food for natural resources, or new harbor for sole Naval access to that same harbor). Panama's rejection of China's influence is an example of how tenuous a strong armed aid relationship can be, when offered aid and guidance from a long term allied partner.
I believe the USAID actions reflect a larger issue, stop the financial bleed and then evaluate where best to put our efforts, both home and abroad.
USAID is just one of hundreds of such programs being stopped during review.
Is it the right approach, only time will tell.
It’s not really being stopped during review. It is being killed.
They have given the huge majority of our USAID people downrange 30 days to get home or they are on their own. It’s “fall of Saigon” or “Fall of Kabul” level retraction. Boom. Gone.
Here’s the notice posted on our government webpage to our civil service USAID workers on Tuesday. Our people. No, that’s not your web browser at fault. These are non-military US government employees in some huge shitholes too.
We are (were) deeply wired into Africa, and used that soft power to influence all kinds of things - stabilize conflicts, track and keep pandemics in the bottle, facilitate our trade, dampen mass migration, basically influence things in our interests. Gone.
Another good article.
It just seems like a monumental own-goal, less carefully planned than the post-war part of the Iraq invasion.
@taxi1 you nailed it on the Africa discussion.
Our entire approach there is predicated on a collaborative effort between USAID, State, and DOD. Without USAID, we’re losing access/influence that we’ve worked years to attain. These programs aren’t things that you can turn on and off overnight, especially given Aid’s contractor heavy construct. It’s already made it much harder to work with our African partners, even in the defense-only arena.
USAID could certainly have done a better job of focusing its efforts, and increasing efficiency, but its demise will definitely set us back on the continent. Frankly, we don’t have the resources or motivation to achieve the same effects in Africa without USAID.
Our entire approach there is predicated on a collaborative effort between USAID, State, and DOD. Without USAID, we’re losing access/influence that we’ve worked years to attain. These programs aren’t things that you can turn on and off overnight, especially given Aid’s contractor heavy construct. It’s already made it much harder to work with our African partners, even in the defense-only arena.
USAID could certainly have done a better job of focusing its efforts, and increasing efficiency, but its demise will definitely set us back on the continent. Frankly, we don’t have the resources or motivation to achieve the same effects in Africa without USAID.
And as I already stated, we don't have all the details, so really can't comment without them, other than opinion.
From where I sit/work, I can definitively tell you that those programs are being turned off. Our aid team has submitted essential/life-saving efforts for waivers, but those essentially aren’t being processed due to a lack of personnel triggered by the mass staff reductions. I would love to say there is a plan in place to replace those efforts, but if there is, it hasn’t been communicated.
This doesn’t even begin to cover the mass flail triggered by trying to pull so many people out of country all at once, and them being kept out of embassies in many cases. Politics completely aside, there are people at the end of these decisions, and they simply aren’t being provided the support they need. Here’s just a sample of what they’re dealing with: https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy...os-and-confusion-as-usaid-shuts-down-73cfab6c
Last edited:
Why don’t we have the details? Why wasn’t this thoroughly thought through in Project 2025, which was developed over multiple years?
It’s a 90 day halt for a review. Why couldn’t it have been a 90 day review concurrent with ongoing operations? We had multiple reviews of ops in Iraq and Afghanistan, we didn’t stop all combat operations and send everyone home during. That would have been stupid beyond belief.
From the Propublica article…
In Mogadishu, Somalia, the State Department instructed security guards who were protecting an arms depot from insurgents to simply walk off the site, according to a company official. When the guards asked what would happen to the armory, their government contacts told them they didn’t have any answers. (Concerns about the armory were first reported by The Wall Street Journal.)
The contractors in Syria and Somalia have since been allowed to return to their sites.
Congrats on adjusting fires, but it is hard to unfuck a goat. Did they not think this through?
Is this a rhetorical question?
They thought it through. They just don’t care.
I believe the current administration is intentionally breaking things at an accelerated rate in order to further consolidate its power.
Good name for a punk rock band
It is the most short-sighted thing that this administration has done so far, but we're only a few weeks in so I'm sure they'll do even more stupid things in the coming weeks and months.
I was quite close with some USAID people in sub-saharan West Africa a long time ago, and they were doing excellent work in one of the world's least hospitable places. The fact that we are shutting this all down is as sad as it is disgraceful. But hey, at least we're giving China an easy win?
Offering another thought and before anyone filets me, it is a thought to consider, not necessarily what I personally believe. DIME works.
1) Wealthy benefactors like Gates changed the donation landscape a while back by not just throwing money at issues, but making the organizations looking for money provide metrics on what the money would impact and where foundations like the Gates Foundation could have the most impact. There may be a thought within the executive branch that funds might be more effectively used a la the foundations that I mentioned.
2) USAID was utilizing grants - so there was a middle man, which leads to additional costs. For example, Catholic Relief Services had a $4.6B grant from USAID (https://www.christianpost.com/news/catholic-relief-services-facing-massive-cuts-amid-usaid-cuts.html). I am guessing they are not the only one. What additional impact could we have had if we worked directly with the specific nation? How did a church group receive that amount of aid when church / state should be separated?
3) The current administration campaigned on cutting spending that they saw as wasteful and 'America First'. They telegraphed their intentions pretty well. Cuts like these should not come as a surprise.
The real question is where will that money be funneled - it will probably be needed to pay for deployments to border. Not sure that the other cuts will be go to things that they campaigned for like reducing the deficit.
1) Wealthy benefactors like Gates changed the donation landscape a while back by not just throwing money at issues, but making the organizations looking for money provide metrics on what the money would impact and where foundations like the Gates Foundation could have the most impact. There may be a thought within the executive branch that funds might be more effectively used a la the foundations that I mentioned.
2) USAID was utilizing grants - so there was a middle man, which leads to additional costs. For example, Catholic Relief Services had a $4.6B grant from USAID (https://www.christianpost.com/news/catholic-relief-services-facing-massive-cuts-amid-usaid-cuts.html). I am guessing they are not the only one. What additional impact could we have had if we worked directly with the specific nation? How did a church group receive that amount of aid when church / state should be separated?
3) The current administration campaigned on cutting spending that they saw as wasteful and 'America First'. They telegraphed their intentions pretty well. Cuts like these should not come as a surprise.
The real question is where will that money be funneled - it will probably be needed to pay for deployments to border. Not sure that the other cuts will be go to things that they campaigned for like reducing the deficit.
I apologize for daring to offer an opinion to the OP's original question.
I know, let's tell everyone everything, eliminate security classifications, give anyone (internal and external) who might want to see the US fail all the ammunition they need.
Since certain ones of you are so expert on the subtle nuances of everything the US, it's allies and enemies are doing, why are we even having this discussion? Since anything that you don't agree with you lambaste.
I, for one, have tried to approach this thread with an open mind, with no visible malice towards either side of the issue. Apparently, if I'm not against what the WH has done with USAID, then I must be ignorant and my opinions are of no consequence.
I'll refrain from being so ignorant in the future, and ask what you think I should say, before being so bold as to offer my opinion. Power though silence!
I'll reengage, eventually, but not today.
I know, let's tell everyone everything, eliminate security classifications, give anyone (internal and external) who might want to see the US fail all the ammunition they need.
Since certain ones of you are so expert on the subtle nuances of everything the US, it's allies and enemies are doing, why are we even having this discussion? Since anything that you don't agree with you lambaste.
I, for one, have tried to approach this thread with an open mind, with no visible malice towards either side of the issue. Apparently, if I'm not against what the WH has done with USAID, then I must be ignorant and my opinions are of no consequence.
I'll refrain from being so ignorant in the future, and ask what you think I should say, before being so bold as to offer my opinion. Power though silence!
I'll reengage, eventually, but not today.
Not sure what prompted this, but I think most are commenting on the ham-fisted nature of how this has gone down.
Shouldn't we remember the wise words of former Senator Rubio? What's changed since his years of comments?