Hard Power and Soft Power

[Swanee]

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?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/05/politics/video/kfile-marco-rubio-usaid-foreign-aid-praise-ebof-digvid

This is highlights another problem in the current American political landscape. It seems that it doesn't matter what our Congressmen say during a campaign, or how they have acted previously. They all cave the to man in power, what he says and what he wills.

I have heard, from a few friends I have still in DC working for the government, that the plan is to roll USAIDs functions into State. Some of the things coming out of DOGE are supposed inefficiencies that cause friction. As for DoD, I’ll play the devil’s advocate here, there hasn’t been a genuine shakedown of Defense since the Revolt of the Admirals so maybe it is time. Past actions by Trump (like the creation of Space Force) seemed rather inefficient to me so I’m not sure what we’ll see.

There is (was?) a big section of the soft power series of command and staff that spoke to the importance of USAID's ability to work outside of our government restrictions while still working for, and furthering the interests of, the American people both regionally and globally. "Condom bombs" give us access and maintain relationships.

Our DIMEFIL+ acronym really boils down to two things that we have to use on the international level: relationships and guns. If we cut off our ability to use our relationships to further our interests it only leaves our guns.

What's that saying about flies, honey, and vinegar?


Make no mistake, China is not just watching, they're manevuering against us. We're handing them the win in certain places.


Oh, and leaving USAID officials out to dry by stranding them in the shit hole countries we've sent them to is NOT the promise the American people gave to them when we sent them there.

 

[sevenhelmet]

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.

Not sure where your self-pity is coming from. I don’t think @cfam or anyone else was disregarding your opinion. Maybe there was a deleted post I missed?

Mr. Musk believes humanity on Earth is doomed and marches to the beat of his own ketamine-fueled “hero’s journey” drum. That person mucking around in government’s guts should have everyone concerned. Particularly after watching what he did to Twitter.

 

[Griz882]

I agree that the move by the administration was ham-fisted, but let’s not rush to canonize USAID. More importantly, we shouldn’t assume USAID runs as a benevolent organization - if you think the agency isn’t rife with CIA covers then you aren’t thinking. I’m all for the idea of spreading food and medical aid as a “gift” of the American people, but since my time in Afghanistan and Iraq I’m not sure USAID is the right vehicle and even back then I felt it would be better served under the State Department (which has its own set of issues).

Now, on the flip side, the actual political side, Trump has every right to rummage through the bureaucracy and break some crockery. You may not like it, but presidents should set their own strategic agendas on the global playing field. Biden did it by winking away USAID grants for some very frivolous stuff - and that was his right. On the public support side, the so-called strategic thinkers are going to lose on this one. Foreign aid, no matter how important, simply isn’t popular with voters. Arguing that USAID is only 1% of the federal budget is “wonk think” and means nothing while saying out loud “$40 Billion Dollars” means something to Joe Shirtsleeves. Ask most Americans if they would prefer to spend $40 billion a year on foreign aid or just $29 billion to take care of the entire U.S. National Park service maintenance backlog (and send every living person in the U.S. a check for $50 dollars) guess where they’d put the money? But that, is politics.

 

[Spekkio]

As for getting our fiscal house in order, USAID's budget for FY23 was ~40 billion. Total federal expenditures were ~6.1 trillion. So roughly .65%. People who are serious about reducing our deficit would focus on defense and entitlement spending.

Medicare and social security are currently net $0 for the US government because they are funded by specific taxes.

Social security was actually profitable until recently. It should've been a major issue for the 2024 election cycle, but I guess we're going to wait until it goes into crisis mode during the 2028 or 2032 cycle and someone gets stuck with the benefit cut football. Of note, Bush 43 had a pretty elegant solution to the problem by allowing the Treasury to invest a portion of the trust fund into private equities vice buying US Treasuries back when we still had 20+ years of surplus left, but someone said "Bush wants to privatize social security!" (which wasn't true) and since like 20% of the population at the time understood 401k plans his plan died on the altar.

Getting the budget under control will require significant tax reforms. Chief of which will be repealing the ACA tax credits to businesses and now the energy credits from the Inflation Reduction Act, which together combine for more than $1 trillion of outlays. The linked analysis assumes that policymakers don't want to dramatically increase tax rates, which would have extremely bad economic consequences even though it may placate the 'pay their fair share' crowd.

The odds of a bipartisan omnibus tax-code rewrite passing Congress is miniscule, so we instead will continue to tilt at organizations like USAID, SNAP benefits, and the VA.

 

[Spekkio]

I agree that the move by the administration was ham-fisted, but let’s not rush to canonize USAID. More importantly, we shouldn’t assume USAID runs as a benevolent organization - if you think the agency isn’t rife with CIA covers then you aren’t thinking. I’m all for the idea of spreading food and medical aid as a “gift” of the American people, but since my time in Afghanistan and Iraq I’m not sure USAID is the right vehicle and even back then I felt it would be better served under the State Department (which has its own set of issues).

The corruption within government charity organizations (both internal and external) is taught in academic settings, so it's not like it's a well-kept secret.

More importantly, we often lack a transition plan to get the local population to be self-sustaining. You could imagine if a third-party country just air lifted a ton of free food into the US that it would wreak havoc on people who rely on farming and selling food for a living.

 

[Flash]

Noooo....I am not one of those kind. The alphabet soup of government agencies should be self-explanatory: the whole ocean of three and four letter government agencies. " Unelected bureaucrats" refers to the sheer number of such who operate the whole alphabet soup.

The federal government civil service is the smallest it has been as a percentage of the population since before World War II. Of those folks, ~56% work for the DoD, DHS or the VA.

It's not like this is some alien concept either. Everyone knows about the Military-Industrial Complex which can operate as an entity unto itself. And while on paper our intelligence and law enforcement agencies like the CIA and FBI operate with the consent of Congress and the people, the reality is the CIA has engaged in a variety of independent actions over the years and many would argue the FBI is too large and very corrupt.

As said, obviously the issue isn't cut-and-dried.

The only thing 'cut-and-dried' is that is an atrociously bad take on how government operates. Almost as bad as a coworker of mine who was blabbering, while at work, about the 'Deep State' one day.

 

[Swanee]

if you think the agency isn’t rife with CIA covers then you aren’t thinking.

I don't think anyone is thinking otherwise.

We're going to lose relationships that give us access and influence in the name of getting on TV and speaking of cost savings to Joe Bag'o'donuts, but Joe can't comprehend either part it and what that money does or doesn't buy us. The message just makes him feel better if the person he supports delivers it in a victoriously angry way.

It's a strategic decision with consequences (good or bad) that will outlive the man who is making them.

I also believe the Chinese MSS is doing the same in all of the belt and road initiatives outside of mainland China.

The thing China has on us is that we have no ability to play the long game. Our political infighting and grandstanding for the consolidation of power at the polls, and identity politics, will never be good for this nation.

 

[Random8145]

The federal government civil service is the smallest it has been as a percentage of the population since before World War II. Of those folks, ~56% work for the DoD, DHS or the VA.

Perhaps number of government regulations has massively increased.

The only thing 'cut-and-dried' is that is an atrociously bad take on how government operates. Almost as bad as a coworker of mine who was blabbering, while at work, about the 'Deep State' one day.

I didn't say the whole thing operates like that. And that is just not true. Both the FBI and CIA were extraordinarily corrupt until the Congress reigned them in. The Department of Education is extremely corrupt, the. EPA has had a huge self-righteousness, and the government enormously abused its authority when it came to gun owners until reigned in some under the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. The IRS also heavily abused its authority until reigned in in the 1990s by Congress.

 

[Spekkio]

We're going to lose relationships that give us access and influence in the name of getting on TV and speaking of cost savings to Joe Bag'o'donuts, but Joe can't comprehend either part it and what that money does or doesn't buy us. The message just makes him feel better if the person he supports delivers it in a victoriously angry way.

I'm not sure if having not-so-good CIA covers in foreign nations is really doing a whole lot to build international relations and influence. Kind of gives credibility to a whole bunch of totalitarian dictators who claim the US is meddling in their politics to galvanize nationalism to discredit their challengers, which ultimately does more harm than good.

Putin and his oligarchs make sure he has no legitimate challenger, but the people tolerate it in no small part because they suspect whoever challenges him must be a CIA implant.

 

[mmx1]

I'm not sure if having not-so-good CIA covers in foreign nations is really doing a whole lot to build international relations and influence. Kind of gives credibility to a whole bunch of totalitarian dictators who claim the US is meddling in their politics to galvanize nationalism to discredit their challengers, which ultimately does more harm than good.

Putin and his oligarchs make sure he has no legitimate challenger, but the people tolerate it in no small part because they suspect whoever challenges him must be a CIA implant.

Don’t be obtuse. That’s not what this is. These are the folks buying American grain with USAID dollars in Africa, competing with MSS folks doing the same.

Whether or not the reporting chain goes through one agency or another, we’re petulantly leaving a soft power game and making warfighting harder.

As if what went wrong the last two decades was that we weren’t good enough at the kinetic part.

 

[Faded Float Coat]

if you think the agency isn’t rife with CIA covers then you aren’t thinking.

This kinda seems framed as a problem...?

 

[number9]

I agree that the move by the administration was ham-fisted, but let’s not rush to canonize USAID. More importantly, we shouldn’t assume USAID runs as a benevolent organization - if you think the agency isn’t rife with CIA covers then you aren’t thinking. I’m all for the idea of spreading food and medical aid as a “gift” of the American people, but since my time in Afghanistan and Iraq I’m not sure USAID is the right vehicle and even back then I felt it would be better served under the State Department (which has its own set of issues).

Now, on the flip side, the actual political side, Trump has every right to rummage through the bureaucracy and break some crockery.

On the contrary, the President has no legal right to rummage through Congressionally-created organizations and funds and simply stop things that he doesn't like or thinks are a waste of money.

You may not like it, but presidents should set their own strategic agendas on the global playing field. Biden did it by winking away USAID grants for some very frivolous stuff - and that was his right. On the public support side, the so-called strategic thinkers are going to lose on this one. Foreign aid, no matter how important, simply isn’t popular with voters. Arguing that USAID is only 1% of the federal budget is “wonk think” and means nothing while saying out loud “$40 Billion Dollars” means something to Joe Shirtsleeves. Ask most Americans if they would prefer to spend $40 billion a year on foreign aid or just $29 billion to take care of the entire U.S. National Park service maintenance backlog (and send every living person in the U.S. a check for $50 dollars) guess where they’d put the money? But that, is politics.

Most people think foreign aid is double-digit percentage of the federal budget, when in fact it is about 1%. The problem is Joe Shirtsleeves is misinformed, and no one tries to correct him.

 

[gparks1989]

The federal government civil service is the smallest it has been as a percentage of the population since before World War II. Of those folks, ~56% work for the DoD, DHS or the VA.

The gulf between people's perceptions of the civil service/government employees and the reality never ceases to amaze me. The 80/20 split with where federal workers actually work falls under that category. That doesn't mean the government doesn't need reform, but the genesis of that reform should be better rooted in fact.

 

[Griz882]

On the contrary, the President has no legal right to rummage through Congressionally-created organizations and funds and simply stop things that he doesn't like or thinks are a waste of money.


Most people think foreign aid is double-digit percentage of the federal budget, when in fact it is about 1%. The problem is Joe Shirtsleeves is misinformed, and no one tries to correct him.

Sorry, he has every legal right. In fact, I dare you to quote me the law that says the executive can’t manage the executive functions of the government. As to funds…are you kidding? Agencies are always shifting and moving funds without Congressional oversight.

Some might argue about DOGE, as is their right, but Musk and his team are operating under the auspices of an entity created by the Obama administration called the US Digital Service. Trump simply renamed the group the U.S. DOGE Service (even keeping the acronym) which simply gave a new focus to an established, appropriate, funded, and existing department to ensure its legality.

As I noted, foreign aid is about 1% of the budget…but that is wonk speak. The number is $40 Billion and that seems like a lot of cash to the common voter. You mock the average citizen as being less intelligent than you, the move of an unintelligent person, because even the dumbest American gets a vote.

 

[number9]

Sorry, he has every legal right. In fact, I dare you to quote me the law that says the executive can’t manage the executive functions of the government. As to funds…are you kidding? Agencies are always shifting and moving funds without Congressional oversight.

Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution makes it pretty clear, no? If Congress -- in its infinite wisdom -- were to pass a law that says we must spend $10B of taxpayer dollars on rubber duckies then the President does not have the legal right to say "Wait a minute, that's stupid, let's not do that" even if it is a stupid idea.

As I noted, foreign aid is about 1% of the budget…but that is wonk speak. The number is $40 Billion and that seems like a lot of cash to the common voter. You mock the average citizen as being less intelligent than you, the move of an unintelligent person, because even the dumbest American gets a vote.

I didn't mock the average citizen as being less intelligent than I did; I said he is misinformed when it comes to foreign aid spending.