I’ve probably rewritten this piece seven times. I waver back and forth between wanting to give a lesson on economics, geography, and politics or throwing my computer against the wall and tweeting that half the people who talk about government and policy are idiots. Since I’ve typed this much (on my 8th try), I think I’m going to try and strike a balance between the two.
Apparently our country spends about $29 billion dollars in foreign aid. When I saw that number, I thought it was a typo. I mean Mark Zuckerberg is worth $13.5 billion. And recently I learned that GE made $14.2 billion in profits last year. Between those two, our whole commitment to foreign aid is sewn up. Sweet. Facebook and those light bulb people who dabble in banking can pay foreign dictators to let us borrow their land. And that’s what we’re doing. Well, that and shaking the haters off. I’ll explain both… But first, let me start with the latter of the two.
Shaking off the haters: When you think of the biggest American celebrities, I mean the AAA talent, they all have at least one thing in common. They all have a charity or cause that they promote, and they make sure you know about it. Madonna and Angelina Jolie adopt kids from foreign countries. Wycleff goes to Haiti, runs a telethon, and gets shot. Lady Gaga wraps her naked body with raw meat at an awards show. And a special place in my heart goes to Bono, who’s not American, but he takes the cake when it comes to putting his good deeds in your face. (and getting others to put them in your face too)
Let’s start with why Bono wants to shake the haters off. In 2009, U2 embarked on a tour was described as one of the most expensive performances in the history of the rock world. The stage used for said tour was so elaborate that it was transported on six Boeing 747′s and 55 semi trucks. Now Bono, big rocks star with a big ego that he is, wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He was faced with that age old question: How do you destroy the atmosphere for the sake of creating spectacle and not stir the ire of your (mostly liberal & environmentalist) fans? Well, he planted some trees and promoted a system of cap and trade. Easy peasy one, two, threezie. Shake the haters off!
Humans beings can be schizophrenic. We want to adore celebrities and throw all of our money at them. Then we want to yell at them and disparage them if they enjoy themselves TOO much with the money we just gave ‘em. (what would you do if you grew up with nothing and then made $10 million in one year?) We demonize them and call them greedy. The “smart ones” (often the richest too) have figured out that as long as you smile on TV, plant a tree, and build somebody a house every now and then, your excesses will go mostly unnoticed. This is how celebrities shake the haters off. And it’s also a tactic employed by the richest nations on this earth.
Yeah, we might party like a rock star, but we grab photo ops and give to good causes like one too. When Mother Natures lays a haymaker on some country that most people haven’t heard of, you can bet the United States will lend aid in one fashion or another. Just one of our Navy ships can make a huge impact in some of these places. We pull a floating city up to their coast and bring food, clothing, and doctors just when they’re needed most. And if it’s a quake in Haiti, then we’ll send down a few dozen celebrities, put up a “donate page” on iTunes and russell up tens of millions of dollars in just a week. We might even send down a former president or two. These are some of the flashier things we do to make sure countries know we “care”. And it’s effective. I’ve spoken to people from around the world and contrary to what the media constantly tells us, it seems that a lot of people appreciate what we do. But… there’s a less glamorous, even cynical side to giving aid…
When you have a country like Haiti that can be decimated by a single natural disaster and they can practically see Florida from their back yard, it helps to throw a couple of Benjamin’s their way. European nations have entertained similar thoughts with African countries for centuries now. You would think that throwing a few hundred million dollars at a country would do little good, but you’d be wrong. These poorer nations are like pan handlers in the Wall Street district. As long as they get some food and some money, you can walk past them in your fur coat and climb into your limo with relative “safety”. And just like with pan handlers, the aid from various nations adds up to enough money to satisfy them. To continue the metaphor, it’s cheaper to give a beggar ten dollars than it is to replace a limo that’s been flipped over by hungry, homeless people. The same can be said for giving aid to poorer countries. Especially in Europe where they struggle against an ever increasing number of Africans who come in and put a strain on their infrastructure. It’s cheaper to give money to a small nation in hopes that their citizens STAY in that country than it is to have immigrants over run your welfare system.
And even more cynical yet is the point that no one wants to think about. Some of this “foreign aid” is nothing more than tribute that we pay foreign governments to let us use their airspace, roads and waters. I know a lot of people won’t like to hear that, so I’ll let it soak in for a minute…
As a veteran I can tell you that it doesn’t matter how powerful our weapon systems are, if we can’t deploy them. To put it in perspective, when I was stationed in Louisiana, the gear that we had in Louisiana was the same gear we would use in Afghanistan. Trucks, weapons, and all. They didn’t magically appear in Afghanistan. We put them on ships and sailed them to the Middle East through “friendly” countries that let us use their water and roads. In case you lack imagination, I’ll go ahead and tell you that some of these nations are “friendly” because we give them cash.
And while I’m on the subject of obtaining war-related goals through the use of cash, I would like to point out the spending of U.S. tax dollars in Pakistan. We’re set to spend about $3 billion in Pakistan for fiscal year 2011. Before you reach for your fast acting inhaler and blast this expenditure of money, you might wanna think about what we’re paying for. Not only has Pakistan been an “ally” throughout George W. Bush’s war on terrorism, they’ve helped Barack Obama in his war too. To accentuate that point, when WikiLeaks was released, we learned that Pakistan was allowing us to conduct drone strikes in their country even when they publicly said they wouldn’t.
It’s not all about equipment, supplies, and drones though. It’s about lives. I spent some time at one of the Army’s most important medical bases in the U.S. It was at Brooke Army Medical Center that I learned how we bring so many Soldiers home alive. When someone is injured in Iraq, we can fly them to Germany and then to the United States. Because of that, we can save lives and even rehabilitate them. But to do so, we need to fly across Turkey. In case you weren’t aware, in 2003, Turkey balked at allowing the U.S. to fly over their country (in regards to attacking Iraq). After their initial hesitation, they voted to allow us to use their airspace. Some would say that they realized it was in their best interest to work with us. Others (like Ron Paul) would say that copious bags of U.S. money are what eventually greased the wheels to let this happen. Either way, as someone who has met hundreds of family members of injured soldiers, I can tell you that they feel those bags went to a good place.
And that’s really the crux of it. $29 billion is the reason we can park our ships and planes anywhere we want. It’s also why we can place our ships in effective positions to ward off pirates. It lets us help nations who have been devastated by natural disasters, it helps us fight wars, and it helps us saves the lives of our service members too.
Our new “more fiscally responsible” Congress that wants to save us 61 billion dollars (and get a cookie for doing it) thinks that cutting foreign aid is a good idea. I openly question that. We’re running a trillion dollar defecit. To put it in perspective, even if we gave zero foreign aid this year, we would still have a $1 trillion deficit. Actually, even if they save the whole $61 billion, we’ll still have a $1 trillion deficit. I can’t help but to think Congress has looked at our finances, decided that the gym membership was what was causing all or our problems, cut it, and then asked us to treat them like heroes. I’m not impressed, and you shouldn’t be either. The Republicans and Democrats are fighting over the steering wheel while the car is headed for the cliff. And what’s worse is that even if one of them firmly had control, the car would go off the cliff anyway.
While I don’t philosophically agree with “paying countries” to be nice to us or giving aid to countries that otherwise don’t “need” it, I do realize a good investment when I see it. And as cynical as it sounds, $29 billion is a good investment. Especially if you consider how much influence we have in this world; it’s downright cheap. Compared to our overall budget, it really is like giving a homeless man ten dollars once or twice a week to avoid being hassled. With that said, I think it is possible to strengthen relationships in certain countries to where they would behave more like genuine allies. I think we can lower the amount of foreign aid we spend based on principle. But as a means to fix our budget crisis? It’s amateurish at best. Only a dummy would whittle away our ability to influence the world (while China is increasing theirs btw) and ask to be celebrated for it.
Update:
(02 May 2011)
In light of our recent operations against Osama bin Laden and the logistics required to pull them off, I feel this post bears repeating. I’ve also added a diagram that shows where Osama’s compound was in relation to the aircraft carrier that finally disposed of his body.
