Security, Stability, and the Projection of Soft Power: The Strategic Criticality of USAID

President John F. Kennedy signing the Executive Order thus creating USAID.

The adage "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is one that I was taught during my upbringing in the 1960s and 1970s. While this phrase is frequently applied in the context of health and disease prevention, it is equally relevant in various other domains, including geopolitics. This leads me to discuss the role of U.S. aid programs, particularly USAID. Over the past fifteen years, I have engaged in multiple USAID projects worldwide. Most recently, I contributed to the development of a USAID proposal aimed at promoting alternative commerce, encompassing non-illicit farming, agro-businesses, eco-tourism, and other sustainable enterprises in five of the most challenging departments—equivalent to U.S. states—in Colombia. The primary objective of this initiative, akin to many other USAID endeavors, is to assist friendly or non-adversarial countries in cultivating a stable and secure environment for their citizens, thereby fostering political stability. This, in turn, aids the United States in mitigating health outbreaks, enhancing education, providing humanitarian relief, and, in this instance, offering mechanisms for local populations to improve their living standards.

Most definitions categorize this as a form of soft power. The U.S. military refers to these initiatives as Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW), which typically encompass peacekeeping, peace-building, disaster response, humanitarian aid, military engineering, law enforcement, arms control, deterrence, and multilateralism. The military has also recognized that employing non-lethal 'hearts and minds' strategies can be effective in stabilizing nations. A former Army cadet of mine, who worked with me in business development, would frequently assert, "People do business with people they like." Both military operations conducted under MOOTW and USAID promote these principles.

Returning to the subject of USAID, in the aftermath of World War II, a succession of U.S. Presidents who had endured the atrocities of war recognized the gravity of engaging in warfare, understanding that while warfare may sometimes be necessary, the decision to enter a conflict should not be taken lightly. Let us examine the leaders of post-World War II America and their respective histories:

• President Truman served as an Artillery Battery Commander during World War I, participating in the Meuse-Argonne offensive in 1918.

• President Eisenhower served as the Supreme Allied Commander in World War II, leading the Western Allies from the D-Day invasions to the conclusion of the war in Europe.

• President Kennedy commanded a PT boat in the Pacific, survived an incident in which his boat was rammed and sunk, and, following his recovery, returned to command another PT boat.

While all of these Presidents engaged in warfare and implemented alternative strategies to avert conflict, it was President Kennedy who fully embraced the concept of foreign aid. For example:

• The Peace Corps was established in 1961 to promote global peace and friendship, with a mission to assist other nations in their development and to foster American understanding of diverse cultures.

• USAID was created via an executive order, subsequently ratified by Congress, to consolidate pre-existing foreign aid programs and agencies under a single umbrella. The objective of USAID was to counter Soviet influence during the Cold War, and in the 1970s, its focus shifted towards addressing fundamental human needs.

• Notably, the size, role, and scope of the U.S. Army Special Forces, known as the Green Berets, were similarly expanded in 1961. At that time, and continuing through to the present, Special Forces trained in counterinsurgency, foreign internal defense, and specialized action missions. Special Forces embody the "Hearts and Minds" motto, representing a significant integration of soft power concepts with kinetic warfare, the former being the preferred approach while the latter is employed only when necessary.

Most Americans are primarily aware of the costs associated with USAID and question the rationale behind allocating such significant funds abroad. Firstly, it constitutes less than 0.5% of the U.S. budget, and often necessitates the use of U.S. hardware and vendors, consequently benefiting the U.S. economy by creating jobs domestically. Furthermore, in addition to stabilizing governments, USAID fosters strong and positive relationships with host nations, particularly with individuals within those governments. These relationships have proven invaluable during past natural disasters, humanitarian crises, global pandemics, and periods of heightened political instability. Another advantageous aspect of the program is the exchange of knowledge and data that occurs as both the U.S. and the host country collaborate. Ultimately, USAID serves as a strategic asset that enhances the U.S. image through tangible actions. In essence, it functions as a highly cost-effective insurance policy, enabling the U.S. to circumvent the far more expensive alternatives of significant warfare and other disruptive events, such as destabilizing famines or global epidemics. This is fundamentally what we relinquish by diminishing or eliminating USAID.

It is important to acknowledge that USAID is not without flaws; inefficiencies can arise within any large governmental entity or private enterprise, for that matter. Nevertheless, the mission remains sound, and I have personally observed USAID's evolution from somewhat academic "desktop reports" to real project or policy development, yielding a significantly greater positive impact. Discontinuing USAID would result in the loss of a strategic asset developed over more than sixty years, which could be dismantled in a mere six weeks.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that while the United States has not been entirely free of conflict since the two major world wars, we have experienced a period of relative peace where the majority of U.S. conflicts have been considerably smaller in scale, both in terms of human and financial costs. Indeed, the last major conflict resulting in substantial loss of life, particularly when compared to the world wars, was the Vietnam War, which concluded in its entirety fifty years ago this year. The decision to terminate USAID and other foreign aid programs is short-sighted and will ultimately increase the likelihood of the United States becoming embroiled in significant conflicts, suffering from major pandemics, or other highly detrimental events in the future.