THE F.A.R. PLAN: Foreign Aid Reform

Foreign Aid Reform

 

It is in the best interest of the American people to ensure that the government spend their money wisely and get the best possible value for each expenditure.  One valuable step in that direction is to reform how their tax dollars are distributed around the world. That is at the heart of the Foreign Aid Reform Plan.

Under the current system billions of dollars are allotted to most of the countries in the world to do with as they please with no accountability and no effort to see that the funds are used for the stated purpose. When questioned about the use of American aid dollars we are often met with “sovereignty” or “national security” stonewalls. That will no longer be the case.

Under the Foreign Aid Reform Plan there will be a detailed accounting for money received and tangible proof that the money was used for the requested purpose. If the American taxpayers sent 1.5 billion dollars to build a new highway, a new harbor or a new dam, these are the sorts of things that can be monitored and verified independent of government contact. These are the sorts of things that foreign aid was originally intended for: essentially, to improve the lives of friendly nations and enhance their abilities to grow economically, respond to emergencies and adequately defend their territory. Any other use must be shown to be in the interest of the United States as well as the people of the country receiving aid.

1. INITIAL STAGE

1. All foreign aid for the subsequent fiscal year is cancelled.
2. A very limited list of countries will be granted a waiver of effect for this Plan. That list can have as few as three names but no more than ten (10).
3. Those funds will not be restored. Instead they will be used for the purposes benefitting the people who earned it in the first place: infrastructure improvement, national defense, Social Security solvency.
4. Every country will have to submit a request for aid in writing for the following year. It is to be detailed in describing the use of funds, reportage for accounting, and progress from year to year.

WAIVER OF EFFECT

1. The most controversial part of this controversial bill is the granting of waivers and who will be on that list and who will decide. Simply put: the granting of waivers of effects will be predicated on those countries that have shown loyalty to and consistent support for the interests of the American people. (Countries such as Japan, Australia and Israel come to mind.)
2. The duration of waivers has not been determined at this time.
   
   

1. APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS
    
   There are additional issues associated with the FAR Plan application. The relationship between America and the applicant nation is paramount. A nation that is consistently hostile to American interests and policies will not have a strong position from which to make a request. A nation routinely disrespectful of American culture and policies will likewise have difficulties in getting their “request” granted.
   Understand this is a request for money from the American workers. Every sovereign nation is entitled to operate in its own best interest. Every nation is entitled to hold any opinion or policy its laws and people permit. No nation is entitled to money from the citizens of the United States. Your problems are your problems. If we choose to help, we will, but no one can expect generosity from a neighbor who has suffered your abuse in the past.

1. FINAL CONSIDERATION
    
   Every nation must understand that America is also a sovereign entity and it is also a unique entity in that sovereign powers are invested in each American citizen. Since every citizen is a valuable part of the nation it follows that how nations treat those citizens within their borders is of interest to the United States. Fully twenty-five percent (25%) of any final request will be dependent on the Status of Americans Abroad Report filed by our State Department. This will include:

1. Issues of crime and official corruption affecting visiting tourist, workers abroad and ex-patriots dwelling on a ‘permanent’ basis within your borders and areas of control.
2. Treatment of those suspected of criminal offenses. The laws of the host country may be enforced as those nations see fit. However, access to prisoners by American officials is never to be denied, proper medical and nutritional needs are to be provided by the host nation or permitted through the State Department resources.
3. Even after conviction, access to prisoners is not to be denied and prisoners are to be treated humanely in the manner that nation expects its own citizens to be treated in American prisons.
4. An unsatisfactory rating from the United States government will automatically reduce any granted aid by 25%.

 

This is not an effort to exert undue pressure on the sovereign rights and independence of any nation. This is not an effort to influence policies of any nation. This is an effort to properly steward the wealth and goodwill of the American people. They are not under any obligation to fund those nations who mistreat them, who abuse them and do not agree with their policies and will expressed through Trade, Travel, Military Assistance and Personal Safety. It is in the interest of any nation choosing to request aid from the American people to ensure they are in their good graces. Otherwise, seek aid elsewhere.

An Offensive Defense

I recently read up on the Israeli missile defense system “Iron Dome.”¹  It has shown excellent real world performance in recent days shooting down over 90% of the missiles fired across the border from Gaza at Israeli population centers.

Iron Dome was developed following experiences during the 1991 Desert Storm conflict. Sadaam Hussein attempted to drive a wedge between the West and Arab allies by dragging Israel into the conflict.  He ordered SCUD missiles fired into Israel hoping to force retaliation.  Muslim countries could not stand against a fellow Muslim (even one as reprehensible as Sadaam) alongside Israel.  They would rather lose to a morally defunct dictatorship than suffer that indignity.

The United States countered that strategy in two steps.  First they deployed a radical new anti-missile system, the Patriot missile to cities in Israel in range of Scuds.  Second, American commanders retasked fully one-third of their air assets to hunting for and destroying the missiles and their launchers.  The first part is defensive; preventing damage by knocking down missiles in flight.  The second part is offensive; preventing those missiles from being launched in the first place.

That is the problem of relying on the Iron Dome systems alone; no offensive punch.  Iron Dome systems are like the goalie in a football game (or soccer for Americans).  The goalie blocks most shots most of the time but some do get through. 

One of the big drawbacks of any anti-missile system is cost.  Hamas and other terrorists can assemble large quantities of Kassam rockets and missiles in an average garage cheaply.  These rockets do not have to be accurate; they just have to “go over there and go BOOM!”

Anti-missile systems need sophisticated search and track radar and highly accurate, high-speed missiles aiming to hit a target less than a foot thick moving at high speed through the air.  The analogy of hitting a bullet with a bullet accurately describes the challenge here.  A missile that can meet these challenges is necessarily expensive.  Each Iron Dome missile costs an estimated $50,000 while the Kassam rocket costs only a few hundred dollars to build.

With this disparity, the terrorists can hobble the Israeli defense budget with a constant need for expensive replacement missiles at a very low cost to themselves.  All they need is a sponsor willing to funnel money and materials into the Gaza region.  We are certain that part is taken care of.  The evidence being that the insurgents were able to mount a sustained barrage of projectiles over a four day period on a moment’s notice; all they were waiting for was a trigger event. That came with the IDF’s assassination of Popular Resistance Committees leader Zuhair al-Kaisi.  His killing was probably justified and carefully planned to avoid collateral damage.  The Palestinian response to events or instigation of hostilities never takes that into consideration.

But the cause of this latest exchange is not germane to this piece.  What is important was how the Israelis reacted.  Iron Dome performed very well living up to its original purpose of saving Israeli lives. After four days of bombardment no ne were killed and “only several were injured.”² The same article reports 22 terrorists killed when Israeli jets responded to the launch.  Fourteen rocket launched teams were struck before they could launch their projectile.  That is offense used for defensive purposes.

No system is perfect in defending against an enemy assault. Castles seldom held out against attack for long with relief forces arriving.  Carrier battle groups have layered defensive rings to intercept aircraft, missiles and shells before the strike the expensive target floating in the middle but a determined effort by a sophisticated enemy can succeed.  However, retaliation for that success would render the initial victory irrelevant.

The lesson from the past weekend’s Middle East action is no system is perfect in defense. It must be coupled with an offensive response that is swift, accurate and relentless.  Stopping the launch of projectiles and killing those who make the attempt is far simpler and more effective than trying to shoot down a bullet with a bullet.

1. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=1530

2. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=3500

3. Image courtesy of ShalomLife: http://www.shalomlife.com/news/15049/4-more-iron-dome-batteries-by-end-of-2012/