What is the US. foreign policy on the Syrian conflict?
The US and other western countries have been supplying the foreign rebels in Syria since 2004. The uprising is led by a group of exiles from about 40 years ago (if I'm not mistaken) who live in Europe now. Since the conflict officially reached a peak, involvement has gone up and we've been supplying them with more aid money. Many of the arms come from France, although it all goes through Turkey anyway. Recently Obama claimed that use of chemical weapons (via government) would be cause to join the 'civil' war. There have been accusations of chemical weapons use from both sides. Information is sketchy but there are some trigger happy people out there who'd prefer we dive into another foreign conflict. Recently the rebels split into two groups after a feud. The western-style democrats, secularists, and the Jihadists. The Jihadists undoubtedly have more influence over the whole thing, and in areas they've occupied they enforce Jihadist law. Religious education, women and foreigners don't have rights, and they chase Christians and Jews away from the area, or kill them. This was acknowledged by France recently but hasn't stopped the aid from flowing to them.
What does UK gain by its foreign aid policy?
As an Indian currently residing in the UK, and privy to how aid organizations operate, I can say that 90+% of the money allocated for aid, is rerouted back to the UK through various channels. The purpose of international aid programs is primarily three-fold:1. To increase British soft-power by creating an impression of a generous state willing to help poorer nations.2. To directly benefit British companies, aid-workers and other professionals who are the main recipients of the government & private sector funds allocated as aid.3. To further indirectly benefit British industry by using aid as leverage to get trade concessions, mining rights etc. from desperate countries looking for immediate financial help.Very little money is actually spent on the purported aid recipients, and there are virtually no positive outcomes in these aid recipient countries as a direct result of UK tax payer money. Unless, of course, there is an imminent threat to UK interests, such as an Ebola outbreak.The problem currently in the UK, is that the common folk have drunk this kool-aid to an extent that they believe UK is spending too much tax-payer money on aid. So you have the really ironical situation of one section of the populace calling for an end to aid programs, while another section, whose livelihoods depend on those very programs, opposing these cuts using sentimental arguments.In the end, these aid programs are unlikely to stop because their ultimate beneficiaries are UK residents and UK industry. One could rightly say that international aid programs are actually a government stimulus package to domestic industry, in disguise.
Why does the U.S. give out billions in foreign aid while it is in debt?
The U.S. gives relatively little foreign aid. It looks like a lot of foreign aid because of the following equation:(A little effort + big international interests) X (a huge economy) X (a huge population) = a fair amount.But relatively, we’re pretty stingy. Less than 1% of the budget goes to foreign aid. The largest chunk of that goes to Afghanistan: it’s targeted toward rebuilding that country in a way that heads off a renewed Taliban takeover and further terrorist threats to the U.S. coming from there.The rest of the foreign aid budget goes for a mix of strategic and compassionate purposes. See U.S. foreign aid: A waste of money or a boost to world stability? Here are the factsThe U.S. ranks toward the bottom of developed countries in terms of how much foreign aid it gives per person and per total income. As shown in the chart below:Annual Foreign Aid Spending per CapitaSource: (my chart based on data from List of development aid country donors - Wikipedia)So, the premise of the question, that the U.S. gives a lot of foreign aid, is mostly false. What about the implication, that we ought to direct that money to reducing the national debt instead?The foreign aid budget is $31 billion, out of a federal budget of $4.1 trillion, or about zero point seven percent (0.7%) The total massive national debt is currently $21 trillion. If the debt didn’t keep going up, and we just used that federal aid budget to pay it off, we could be debt free in a mere 677 years.Oh wait, the Trump tax reform from last December is scheduled to add another half a trillion to one point three trillion to the debt over the next ten years. Here's how the newly passed GOP tax bill will impact the economy, businesses, the deficit, and your wallet. So 677 years won’t be enough.But does saving money from the foreign aid budget actually save any money at all? Here’s what Defense Secretary Mattis had to say:"If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately," Mattis said, before members of Congress at a National Security Advisory Council meeting, the US Global Leadership Coalition notes."So I think it's a cost-benefit ratio. The more that we put into the State Department's diplomacy, hopefully the less we have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome of an apparent American withdrawal from the international scene," Mattis continued. Mattis once said if State Department funding gets cut 'then I need to buy more ammunition'
How does the U.S. foreign aid budget under Obama compare to that of previous administrations?
Foreign Aid plummets in FY -2018–2019. It was frequently over $50B during the Obama years and is presently at $3.2B, a 95% drop. (disbursements are up, exceeding commitments) Syria funding is now 10% of what it was in 2017.Obligation versus disbursements.Beginning in 2017, AID funding to Russia has been significantly reduced from a peak of half a billion a year after 1991.This is probably the most accurate tool, which also factors in most Military spending and is a result of Congressional mandate. It has been developed over the last few years and provides some interesting trends.Some countries are often budgeted, but the budget changes with relations and other factors.The site is hard to find, probably on purpose.FAE: Dashboard
Why are Democrats upset that Trump cut foreign aid?
Anonymous asks,”Why are Democrats upset that Trump cut foreign aid?Because foreign aid is part of ‘statescraft’, along with the ‘stick’ of military. Since Trump has proven to be completely ignorant of world policies, world politics and shows no inkling of knowing about any part of government and has appointed mostly those who are also ignorant of these fields. Note his son-in-law, who’s sole experience in these very critically important fields is only an expert in a failed real estate purchase.The US spends less than 1% of our GDP on all foreign aid How Much Foreign Aid Does the U.S. Give Away? and 54% of all discretionary spending on the military Military Spending in the United States it would seem much more justifiable to cut military spending to pay for foreign aid. Much of foreign aid is to help keep the US out being forced into a military solution. It is far, far better to talk and help a foreign power to understand and perhaps change their minds, than it is to bomb or invade them.