A few years ago, the U.S. Agency for International Development sought to invest in regions of Afghanistan where soil conditions were most conducive to agriculture. Funding new technologies in these regions would have the greatest impact on the country's living standards, the agency argued at the time. Department of Defense officials, however, wanted to eradicate poppy fields in other parts of the country as part of its fight against the Taliban.
In the end, money was divided and USAID's effectiveness in Afghanistan greatly diminished, according to Andrew Natsios, the agency's administrator at the time.
Natsios spoke about the growing encroachment of the U.S. Department of Defense in USAID funding Sept. 12 at John Hopkins' The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. The increased tying of American foreign assistance to strategic interests abroad is undermining the United States' ability to help developing nations, Natsios indicated.
The militarization of U.S. foreign assistance and indeed of U.S. foreign policy is a grave concern for USAID and non-governmental organizations operating abroad. In 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld endorsed Department of Defense Directive 3000.05 on military support for stability, security, transition and reconstruction operations - a directive that elevated humanitarian missions to a priority level previously reserved for military operations.
At first blush, this move may seem like a step in the right direction. But in practice, it has led to the Pentagon's involvement in operations once executed by the State Department and USAID. Some aid experts believe it has complicated congressional oversight and contributed to a drop in USAID staff and aid effectiveness.
Could this ultimately endanger U.S. security?
