[Papazsazsa]

USAID is nowhere near the most effective nor the most important source of soft power for the U.S., just a highly visible one.

Besides security guarantees/defense aegis, the heaviest lifters in U.S. soft power projection are structural and cultural forces that operate largely independent of government:

- Dollar hegemony & financial infra

- Cultural exports

- Universities & research

- Private sector (including tech)

[natpalmer1776]

I'm somewhat ignorant on this subject (by design, my mental health cannot afford too much pondering on that which I cannot control)

but in this instance I can't help but wonder from a game theory standpoint, is there anything GAINED by affecting USAID in a way in which we clearly lose some (relatively small per your comment) amount of soft power?

That is to say, a perfectly played game would involve not making any sacrifices unless it was to gain some value or reduce some loss. What is gained (or not lost) here?

[Papazsazsa]

Two games: Domestic and Foreign

Domestic 'gain' is fiscal + political + transparency. USAID was pass-through where taxpayer dollars flowed to NGOs and contractors whose missions aligned with whatever administration or congressional bloc was in power – but with enough layers of separation to obscure the nature of the spending.

Foreign 'gain' is a move away from liberal internationalism to transactional bilateralism/resetting expectations wrt American largesse. We were being outbid everywhere anyway, and the org was ineffectively doing something DoS should be doing.

[6510]

Local producers cant compete with the aid (nor in trade). The same scheme China runs in the west. On the receiving end you not just stop development but you actively shut down what you had and forget how to do it.

[mindslight]

Yes, USAID was only one part of US soft power. Everything else you have listed though, the destructionists have done effective jobs of trashing those as well!

In a thread about USAID it makes sense to talk about the damage to USAID. If these other pillars of soft power matter more to you, then try writing productive comments lamenting their destruction rather than downplaying in this discussion.

[Incipient]

I feel like currently, all four of those points you raised have also been significantly eroded too, and will continue to be for the following decades - countries seem to be rolling back US tech, contracts, dollars, and less people are going to the US for study.

[ajross]

>> The world sucks. Whataboutism only makes it worse.

> USAID is nowhere near the most effective nor the most important source of soft power for the U.S.

And the goalposts move again. Your original point was that soft power was bad. After pushback, now it's "soft power is good but USAID was inefficient".

I submit that neither of these arguments was presented in good faith and that your real goal is just defense of DOGE.