American Compassion Always Had a National Security Mission: Is There Something Wrong With That?

Real Talk.

Not that it’s in short supply. In fact, on the question of federal funding, both sides of the debate are more outspoken than ever. What strikes me as I attempt to process this powerful polemic about the need for USAID is the absence of a dialectical stance.

While the term is esoteric, its meaning is pretty basic: two things can be true at once. Google it and you’ll see this: an internal conflict where someone experiences opposing needs, beliefs, or desires that seem mutually exclusive, essentially meaning they are faced with a situation where two seemingly contradictory truths exist at the same time, causing uncertainty about how to proceed.” This is also known as black-or-white thinking. In interpersonal relationship theory, a dialectical stance is having a point of view that may be the polar opposite of another but is willing to arrive at the truth through reasoned argument. For me, it’s been helpful in my personal and professional life. I’m learning to inform my thinking in myriad situations. Exhibit A: when I consider validating my five-year-old who claims he will die if he can’t have ice cream for dinner (“seriously?!” vs. “aww, I know”). Exhibit B: how to help a client navigate a tricky conversation about the need for both cleaner energy AND the importance of energy security (#climatechange vs. #energypoverty). Recognizing that two opposing “truths” are valid is a dialectical theory in practice.

The whiplash we’re experiencing as we see one salvo after another destroy longstanding government institutions prevents us from taking a dialectal stance. And yet, the nuance is evident. On Tuesday’s episode of The Daily (“The Demise of U.S.A.I.D– And American Soft Power“), Stephanie Nolen, the NYT global health reporter, said that most people who have worked for USAID would agree that there are bureaucratic layers that impede efficiency and cost-savings but she also presented strong evidence that the agency that is the epitome of soft power as a foreign policy tool, is far from frivolous.

Here’s a concrete example of a dialectical stance in a polarized world. Last week on Face the Nation, Republican Congressman Mike McCaul from my home state of Texas acknowledged the necessity for USAID even as he declined to wade into the extrajudicial manner in which the agency is literally being erased. 

“I personally believe that USAID has a national security mission. If you go back to its inception in the ’60s under President Kennedy and the Cold War, it was to counter the Soviet Union. We need to return to the core mission principles,” said McCaul, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

McCaul didn’t disavow accusations of misguided programs or wasteful spending but he noted the other, seemingly contradictory truth that the agency was vital to U.S. interests. Think foreign investments if you’re pro-business, consider low overhead and more on-the-ground impact if you’re a supporter of foreign aid (and really, who in their right mind can argue that every single aid program is a boondoggle?).

I have no doubt that millions of dollars are spent on programs that were cleared on a wing and a prayer. But as an American of Pakistani descent, I have also also seen how the absence of infrastructure and economic opportunity for local populations can create fertile ground for insurgency.

I do not doubt that there are many examples of government waste and millions of dollars spent on programs that were cleared for takeoff on a wing and prayer only to crash and burn. Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Azmat Khan revealed how that can happen in her 2015 expose for BuzzFeed about “ghost schools” built by USAID and the U.S. DOD in Afghanistan. Azmat, who I know and respect and is of Pakistani descent like me, has also seen how the absence of infrastructure and economic opportunity for local populations can create fertile ground for insurgency. 

My grandfather devoted his life to working for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. It afforded my mother and her four siblings an enviable childhood. They lived in different countries and learned multiple cultures and languages as mini expats. It also allowed me to visit my grandparents in Freetown, Sierra Leone and Colombo, Sri Lanka for full, unforgettable summers. Though lush and breathtakingly beautiful, there was no doubt these were Third World places. I remember asking my grandfather why every one of his postings (except Tokyo) was either in or on the brink of civil war. I believe my question was delicately framed as, “Why has every country you’ve worked in been ravaged by civil war on the heels of your departure?” It wasn’t until I became a foreign correspondent and embedded with the NGO Action Against Hunger, known by its French acronym ACF (Action Contre La Faim), that I understood the complexities of foreign aid programs.  

One formative experience occurred during the 2005 famine that gripped West Africa in Mali and Niger where I witnessed the impact of globalization. I saw toddlers who looked like newborns because they were dying of malnutrition. At the same time, produce stands in the capital of Niger were overflowing with fruits and vegetables rotting on carts because prices were too high for the impoverished population to afford. One could make a strong argument against the evils of corporations driven by greed and they would be correct. But as I visited one therapeutic feeding center after another, I saw that the most effective remedy to save starving children was a high-calorie pouch of a peanut-butter-like substance, aptly called “Plumpy Nut”. Fights over the patent would later threaten to block its distribution but back then, PepsiCo was helping to manufacture and scale it. People smarter than me about food insecurity and the forces of globalization could punch huge holes in this account but, for me, it gave me a fleeting moment of pause as others railed against evil corporations. 

On that same trip, I contracted malaria and was the beneficiary of the antidote provided by a local physician. I don’t recommend that level of “reporter involvement” but it drove home the importance of life-saving drugs that were prevalent in America yet the leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation came very close to eradicating malaria but there has been a massive resurgence that will tragically claim more lives as their partnership with USAID disintegrates.

Two things can be true at once. We feel impotent in the face of unchecked power, yet we have the power to affect change. It may feel hopeless, but I have to believe that all hope is not lost because black-and-white thinking is simply too myopic. When it comes to geopolitics, we need to play the long game.

(Top image, courtesy of Air Force Tech. Sgt. Isaac D. Garden.)

---

Kiran Khalid is a freelance writer and Vice President of the South Asian Journalists Association. With over 15 years of experience as an award-winning correspondent and producer, she has worked for major broadcast outlets including CNN and Good Morning America. Shortly after 9/11, Kiran was on the ground in Pakistan, where she gained rare access to a madrassa to report on what many presumed were “terrorist breeding grounds.” A decade later, she returned to Pakistan to fill in for CNN International’s bureau chief in Islamabad. Most recently, she worked at Edelman, the world’s largest public relations firm, advising clients across the energy sector on climate change issues. Kiran made history as the first Pakistani-American broadcast journalist when she debuted on-air at KZTV, the CBS affiliate in Corpus Christi, Texas. She lives in Maryland with her husband and two children.