The primary benefit of USAID to the US is as a tool of soft power, internationally. You think the US just does things to be nice? That they don’t have any strategy in mind when throwing cash at other countries? That the CIA wouldn’t play any role in US foreign policy?
I probably just misunderstood what you mean by “front”. I read it as something like a feigned appearance. Maybe I’m just having trouble understanding how a something can be both openly avowed (not covert) and yet non-openly avowed (a front) at the same time.
I agree with USAID being a tool for soft power. So are many things, like Hollywood. Doesn’t mean Hollywood is a CIA operation.
I probably just misunderstood what you mean by “front”.
Sure.
I read it as something like a feigned appearance.
That would be the long and short of it.
Maybe I’m just having trouble understanding how a something can be both openly avowed (not covert) and yet non-openly avowed (a front) at the same time.
Definitely don’t look up these terms, they might be above your reading level:
ulterior motives
chess for the intermediate player
palace intrigue and scheming eunuchs
I agree with USAID being a tool for soft power.
Great!
So are many things, like Hollywood. Doesn’t mean Hollywood is a CIA operation.
Putting aside the equivocation, that’s a lousy counterexample. Are you just going to pretend like propaganda doesn’t exist?
I still don’t get what a non-covert front is. You said USAID is a front for CIA operations and it isn’t covert when it does these operations.
Like I’m picturing a pizza parlor which is a front for a mafia operation, but instead of being covert, it is open. So it says “Mafia’s Pizza” instead of “Tony’s Pizza”. Are you thinking USAID is something like that?
Propaganda certainly does exist. I never said that it didn’t. I’m disputing that USAID is a CIA operation and not an independent organization with it’s own goals and directives.
That’s a term you made up, so that’s a classic “you problem”!
You said USAID is a front for CIA operations and it isn’t covert when it does these operations. […] Like I’m picturing a pizza parlor which is a front for a mafia operation, but instead of being covert, it is open. So it says “Mafia’s Pizza” instead of “Tony’s Pizza”. Are you thinking USAID is something like that?
Again, you’re the one coming up with this. Stop thinking. You aren’t good at it.
Propaganda certainly does exist. I never said that it didn’t.
Great!
I’m disputing that USAID is a CIA operation and not an independent organization with it’s own goals and directives.
Honestly, this looks like you don’t have any evidence to show that USAID is a front for the CIA, so you are resorting to ad hominum as a way to save face.
Hey, buddy, listen. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean it like that. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I love the CIA. And USAID. Really, I do. Please don’t accuse me of ad hominum [sic], that would break my heart. And evidence? Of course, there’s no evidence. The US is a perfect little angel; everything it does is moral and good. It’s just that big old meanie trump making a mess of things, that’s all. Does that make it better?
To be honest, not really. Usually when there is a claim it goes, I believe that X is true because of Y reasons. Not what ever this is that you are attempting.
nah what’s happening here is I am making claim X. Then you go: are you claiming Y? Prove it! And then I go: no. Then you start talking all this shit about covert CIA ops and mafia pizza joints and whatever, showing no signs of understanding that I said X. What choice do I have but to conclude that you are an idiot
I think the bigger problem is that it assumes that the CIA is the center of US foreign policy and that all other parts of the government are fronts for it. Obviously USAID is a vehicle for US soft power, and the CIA is absolutely a bunch of ghouls and vampires masquerading as a government agency. But a legacy of villainous stupidity doesn’t make them the shadowy secret masters of the world that the kinds of conspiracy theories that call USAID a “front” would suggest they are.
The way that I look at the US (when it is not operating under trump*) is that it is a machine that is trying to maintain and/or grow its hegemony. To that end, the CIA is a vital part of that machine. Is it the centre of foreign policy? Well, barring some sort of conspiracy, no, the US State department is the centre of foreign policy. However, the CIA is categorically the foreign intelligence-gathering arm of the US. As incompetent as I’d like to pretend the US is, I don’t think the State Department is operating without CIA intelligence and analysis. In sum, I don’t believe that the CIA is a shadowy evil organisation secretly controlling the US; I think the US is a shadowy evil organisation trying to control the world, and the CIA is part of it.
I think the thing that sucks about all this is that, on paper, USAID does good! They provide a ton of aid around the world, and that’s great. However, they have enough blemishes on their record that show that the US isn’t necessarily purely charitable in its actions. Aid shouldn’t be weaponised!
*trump and his goons, of course, are just stripping the US of its copper wiring for a quick fix, while letting the establishment lapdogs deal with the drudgery.
I think history justifies a sufficient level of jadedness and cynicism to believe that, at least at the scale that a government can operate on, foreign aid as a soft power tool is kind of the best we’re ever likely to see. And if we’re going to be looking for soft power I think it’s better for everyone to do so by doing good things and making us look less like goddamn supervillains.
I agree, to some extent, but with the caveat that I have second order cynicism that might present as hope or naivete. I think a lot of the messaging from mainstream US politics is that “this is the only way, there is no alternative.” Of course this extends to weaponised foreign aid.
Don’t put words in my mouth, bud.
The primary benefit of USAID to the US is as a tool of soft power, internationally. You think the US just does things to be nice? That they don’t have any strategy in mind when throwing cash at other countries? That the CIA wouldn’t play any role in US foreign policy?
I probably just misunderstood what you mean by “front”. I read it as something like a feigned appearance. Maybe I’m just having trouble understanding how a something can be both openly avowed (not covert) and yet non-openly avowed (a front) at the same time.
I agree with USAID being a tool for soft power. So are many things, like Hollywood. Doesn’t mean Hollywood is a CIA operation.
Sure.
That would be the long and short of it.
Definitely don’t look up these terms, they might be above your reading level:
Great!
Putting aside the equivocation, that’s a lousy counterexample. Are you just going to pretend like propaganda doesn’t exist?
I still don’t get what a non-covert front is. You said USAID is a front for CIA operations and it isn’t covert when it does these operations.
Like I’m picturing a pizza parlor which is a front for a mafia operation, but instead of being covert, it is open. So it says “Mafia’s Pizza” instead of “Tony’s Pizza”. Are you thinking USAID is something like that?
Propaganda certainly does exist. I never said that it didn’t. I’m disputing that USAID is a CIA operation and not an independent organization with it’s own goals and directives.
Well, at this point, you’re just being obtuse.
That’s a term you made up, so that’s a classic “you problem”!
Again, you’re the one coming up with this. Stop thinking. You aren’t good at it.
Great!
Good for you!
Honestly, this looks like you don’t have any evidence to show that USAID is a front for the CIA, so you are resorting to ad hominum as a way to save face.
Hey, buddy, listen. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean it like that. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I love the CIA. And USAID. Really, I do. Please don’t accuse me of ad hominum [sic], that would break my heart. And evidence? Of course, there’s no evidence. The US is a perfect little angel; everything it does is moral and good. It’s just that big old meanie trump making a mess of things, that’s all. Does that make it better?
To be honest, not really. Usually when there is a claim it goes, I believe that X is true because of Y reasons. Not what ever this is that you are attempting.
please for the love of basilisk read the sidebar
nah what’s happening here is I am making claim X. Then you go: are you claiming Y? Prove it! And then I go: no. Then you start talking all this shit about covert CIA ops and mafia pizza joints and whatever, showing no signs of understanding that I said X. What choice do I have but to conclude that you are an idiot
I think the bigger problem is that it assumes that the CIA is the center of US foreign policy and that all other parts of the government are fronts for it. Obviously USAID is a vehicle for US soft power, and the CIA is absolutely a bunch of ghouls and vampires masquerading as a government agency. But a legacy of villainous stupidity doesn’t make them the shadowy secret masters of the world that the kinds of conspiracy theories that call USAID a “front” would suggest they are.
The way that I look at the US (when it is not operating under trump*) is that it is a machine that is trying to maintain and/or grow its hegemony. To that end, the CIA is a vital part of that machine. Is it the centre of foreign policy? Well, barring some sort of conspiracy, no, the US State department is the centre of foreign policy. However, the CIA is categorically the foreign intelligence-gathering arm of the US. As incompetent as I’d like to pretend the US is, I don’t think the State Department is operating without CIA intelligence and analysis. In sum, I don’t believe that the CIA is a shadowy evil organisation secretly controlling the US; I think the US is a shadowy evil organisation trying to control the world, and the CIA is part of it.
I think the thing that sucks about all this is that, on paper, USAID does good! They provide a ton of aid around the world, and that’s great. However, they have enough blemishes on their record that show that the US isn’t necessarily purely charitable in its actions. Aid shouldn’t be weaponised!
*trump and his goons, of course, are just stripping the US of its copper wiring for a quick fix, while letting the establishment lapdogs deal with the drudgery.
I think history justifies a sufficient level of jadedness and cynicism to believe that, at least at the scale that a government can operate on, foreign aid as a soft power tool is kind of the best we’re ever likely to see. And if we’re going to be looking for soft power I think it’s better for everyone to do so by doing good things and making us look less like goddamn supervillains.
I agree, to some extent, but with the caveat that I have second order cynicism that might present as hope or naivete. I think a lot of the messaging from mainstream US politics is that “this is the only way, there is no alternative.” Of course this extends to weaponised foreign aid.