Aid is not just for helping. Aid is buying policy, friendship, influence and interest.
For example, a third world country has huge political or economical instability or a war, yet a lot of resources. Helping them out now would make them friendly when conflict is resolved, when they get on their feet and start exploitation of those resources. Which could result in good trade deals or maybe US companies building the entire infrastructure for exploitation, and so on. Which maybe also gives you a legitimate cause to move your military there, get sea or air access for your defense forces and so on.
Also, all ambitious countries try to do that, debt or no debt. So it’s a race. China is basically building railroads and factories for entire African continent. Russia is also deep in Central African Republic, Syria and so on.
Foreign aid is not charity. Those dollars are usually given for a very good reason and reasonable expectations for some sort of benefit further down the road.
Ukraine is most obvious example – US has no other serious enemies apart from Russia, North Korea and China (and maybe Iran). So every gun, every bullet, every plane and ship more or less exists to deal with them.
So those things rusting away in landlocked US bases and costing ton of money in maintenance and training of servicemen to use those is ineffective. Like a bicycle you bought and takes up room, but you’ll never use. Giving those guns to Ukraine and using servicemen to train Ukrainians to use them will make those weapons do what they’re intended for. So, budget-wise, US is actually using that money (and weapons) for intended purposes, not wasting it away due peacetime. And if Ukraine manages to deal with Russian ambition and set them back for decades, US would need much less guns and military down the road. Threat and spending levels would go down and quality of life would go up.
Which should make every taxpayer happy, really.
Latest Answers