War & Foreign Policy Flashcards
Why the US Went to War in Vietnam - Foreign Policy Research Institute - 2017
The U.S. intervention in Vietnam was a gradual process rooted in Cold War tensions, fears of communism spreading, and concerns over American credibility. Starting with financial aid to the French in the 1940s and continuing with support to South Vietnam after the Geneva Accords in 1954, U.S. policymakers believed they needed to counter the communist threat in Southeast Asia. The Geneva Accords were a set of agreements reached at the Geneva Conference in 1954 that aimed to bring an end to the First Indochina War between France and the Viet Minh in Vietnam. The accords resulted in several key decisions:
- Vietnam’s division: Vietnam was temporarily divided along the 17th parallel into a communist-controlled North Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, and a non-communist South Vietnam under Emperor Bao Dai. The division was meant to be temporary, with national elections planned for 1956 to reunify the country.
- Withdrawal of forces: France agreed to withdraw its military forces from Vietnam, while the Viet Minh forces were to regroup north of the 17th parallel.
- Non-interference pledge: Both the North and South were prohibited from joining military alliances or receiving foreign military assistance during the temporary division.
The “domino theory” articulated by Eisenhower held that if one country fell to communism, others would follow, making Vietnam critical to maintaining stability in the region. Presidents from Truman to Johnson subscribed to this belief, though their approaches varied, with Johnson escalating U.S. involvement after the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The Vietnam War was shaped by a combination of regional concerns about communism and superpower rivalries, as the U.S., Soviet Union, and China all vied for influence in Southeast Asia. As newly independent nations emerged from European colonialism, the U.S. saw Vietnam as a test case for containing communism and proving its commitment to global democracy. Despite public rhetoric about supporting democratic nation-building, the war’s escalation faced growing domestic opposition, particularly after the Tet Offensive in 1968. The Tet Offensive, launched on January 30, 1968, by North Vietnamese forces and the Viet Cong, was a massive military campaign during the Vietnam War that coincided with the Vietnamese Lunar New Year, Tet. It involved surprise attacks on over 100 cities and military bases across South Vietnam, including a high-profile assault on the U.S. embassy in Saigon. Although the offensive resulted in significant casualties for the North Vietnamese and did not achieve its immediate military goals, it marked a pivotal shift in the war by shocking U.S. public opinion and eroding support for the conflict, ultimately influencing President Lyndon B. Johnson’s decision not to seek reelection. The offensive is widely considered a turning point in the Vietnam War, highlighting the disconnect between official government reports and the realities on the ground. Nixon, upon taking office, shifted U.S. strategy, focusing more on pragmatic alliances than ideological battles, as the strategic importance of Vietnam diminished by the end of the 1960s.
March 25, 2024: Kyiv endures a third air attack in 5 days as Russia steps up bombardment of cities
Russia intensified its aerial assault on Ukrainian cities with a third missile strike on Kyiv (Kyiv is the capital and most populous city of Ukraine - pronounced like “keev”) in five days, causing nine injuries and significant damage to residential areas and a college gym. The missiles, launched from occupied Crimea, were intercepted, but the attacks underscore the escalating violence despite a relatively static front line. Recent intense Ukrainian shelling near the Russian border prompted Russia to announce the evacuation of around 9,000 children, while Russian President Putin sought to link a deadly concert hall attack in Moscow to Ukraine, potentially using it to garner support for further military action. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy reiterated the urgent need for Western assistance, particularly air defense systems, to safeguard against ongoing attacks and protect civilian lives.
USAID - Chat GPT
USAID (United States Agency for International Development) is the U.S. government agency responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance. It was created in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy to promote global economic development, humanitarian assistance, and democratic governance.
USAID focuses on various global issues, including poverty reduction, disaster relief, health care, education, economic growth, environmental protection, and democracy promotion. The agency works in partnership with governments, NGOs, and private sector organizations to implement programs that support U.S. foreign policy objectives while helping developing countries become more self-reliant.
Its mission is to advance U.S. national security and economic prosperity while demonstrating American generosity and supporting the well-being of people worldwide.
USAID is a U.S. government agency that primarily serves as a tool of American foreign policy, promoting economic development, humanitarian aid, and democracy worldwide. While some conservatives criticize it as a “liberal slush fund” due to its funding of projects related to climate change, gender equality, and global health initiatives, others—especially within national security and business circles—see it as an essential instrument for stabilizing regions, preventing conflicts, and opening markets for U.S. businesses.
Historically, USAID has operated under both Republican and Democratic administrations, adapting its priorities based on each administration’s foreign policy goals. For example:
• Under Republican administrations, USAID has emphasized economic growth, private-sector development, and security cooperation.
• Under Democratic administrations, the agency has often placed more focus on climate initiatives, global health, and human rights.
Critics argue that some USAID programs lack oversight, waste taxpayer money, or fund ideologically driven projects. Supporters counter that it is a strategic investment that strengthens U.S. global influence and prevents more expensive military interventions.
Ultimately, whether USAID is viewed as a “liberal slush fund” depends on political perspective, but its core function remains tied to advancing U.S. interests abroad.
Yes, here are some specific examples of how USAID programs have provided tangible benefits and success stories across different areas:
- Global Health: Eradicating Disease
• Fighting HIV/AIDS: USAID has been instrumental in the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which has helped save over 25 million lives worldwide by providing antiretroviral treatment and prevention programs. Countries like South Africa and Kenya have seen dramatic reductions in HIV transmission due to these efforts.
• Eradicating Polio: USAID has partnered with organizations like the Gates Foundation and WHO to reduce polio cases by 99% worldwide, particularly in countries like Afghanistan and Nigeria, helping protect millions of children. - Disaster Relief: Helping After Natural Disasters
• Haiti Earthquake (2010): USAID provided $1.5 billion in humanitarian aid, including food, medical care, and rebuilding assistance. The agency also helped restore Haiti’s infrastructure, including schools and roads.
• Philippines Typhoon Haiyan (2013): USAID’s disaster response provided clean water, emergency shelter, and food to over 3 million people after the devastating typhoon that displaced millions. - Economic Growth and Development
• Supporting Farmers in Afghanistan: USAID helped local Afghan farmers transition from growing poppies (used for heroin production) to alternative crops like saffron and pomegranates, providing new economic opportunities and reducing drug trade reliance.
• Mobile Banking in Africa: USAID supported the development of M-Pesa, a mobile banking service in Kenya, allowing millions of people without traditional bank access to send and receive money via mobile phones, improving financial stability. - Democracy and Governance
• Election Support in Ukraine: USAID has provided funding for independent media, anti-corruption initiatives, and free elections in Ukraine, helping the country strengthen democratic institutions.
• Women’s Rights in Afghanistan (Pre-Taliban Takeover): USAID-funded programs significantly improved literacy rates among Afghan women and provided microloans for female entrepreneurs. Many of these gains were unfortunately reversed after the Taliban takeover in 2021. - National Security Benefits for the U.S.
• Countering Extremism: USAID programs that promote education and job training in unstable regions (such as the Middle East and Africa) help reduce the appeal of extremist groups, indirectly improving U.S. national security.
• Strengthening Trade Partnerships: By helping countries develop stronger economies, USAID indirectly opens new markets for U.S. businesses, boosting exports and creating American jobs.
Criticism & Challenges
While USAID has many success stories, there have been criticisms regarding wasteful spending, corruption in recipient governments, and inefficiency in aid delivery. Some argue that certain programs are too focused on ideological goals rather than practical development.
Bottom Line
USAID’s work has clear, measurable benefits—whether in disease eradication, disaster relief, economic development, or democracy promotion. While its role is often debated politically, it has undoubtedly saved lives, strengthened U.S. influence abroad, and contributed to global stability.
As of fiscal year 2023, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) managed approximately $43.79 billion in foreign assistance funds.  This funding supports a wide range of programs, including humanitarian aid, economic development, health initiatives, and disaster relief in over 120 countries.
The majority of USAID’s budget is sourced from U.S. taxpayer dollars allocated by Congress through the federal budget process. However, USAID also collaborates with various partners, including private sector entities, non-governmental organizations, and international institutions, which can contribute additional resources or co-funding to specific projects. Despite these partnerships, the primary funding for USAID’s operations comes from federal appropriations.
It’s important to note that USAID’s budget represents a small fraction of the overall U.S. federal budget. For instance, in fiscal year 2020, the U.S. government allocated $51.05 billion to economic and military assistance, with USAID administering a significant portion of the economic assistance.  This amount constitutes less than 1% of the total federal budget, underscoring the relatively modest financial footprint of U.S. foreign aid programs.
In recent developments, the Trump administration has proposed significant changes to USAID’s structure and funding. Plans include merging USAID into the State Department, reducing its autonomy and workforce, and implementing a 90-day pause on most foreign aid to reassess its alignment with American interests. These proposals have sparked debate regarding the future role and funding of USAID. 
How USAID Benefits the U.S. and Opens Business Markets
USAID and U.S. foreign aid serve multiple strategic purposes beyond humanitarian assistance. One major benefit is opening and expanding foreign markets for American businesses. Here’s how:
- Strengthening Economic Ties & Trade
• By developing economies in recipient countries, USAID helps create new consumers for American products.
• Many developing nations lack the infrastructure to support large-scale imports, but USAID projects improve roads, ports, and energy systems, making it easier for American businesses to operate.
• As these economies grow, they become potential trade partners, reducing reliance on aid and increasing U.S. exports.
Example: South Korea
• U.S. aid after the Korean War helped rebuild South Korea’s infrastructure and economy.
• Decades later, South Korea transformed into a major economic power and one of the top buyers of U.S. goods (cars, tech, agriculture).
• In 2022, U.S. exports to South Korea totaled over $90 billion, a massive return on early investments.
- Preventing Economic Instability & Conflicts That Affect the U.S.
• Economic instability can lead to political unrest, migration crises, or security threats.
• U.S. aid helps stabilize regions, reduce conflict, and prevent the rise of hostile regimes.
Example: Post-WWII Marshall Plan
• After WWII, the U.S. provided over $13 billion (over $100 billion today) to rebuild Western Europe.
• This prevented economic collapse, reduced Soviet influence, and helped turn countries like Germany and Japan into major U.S. allies and trading partners.
• The U.S. economy benefited immensely, as these countries became key markets for American companies.
- Direct Business Opportunities for U.S. Companies
• Many USAID projects require materials, services, and expertise that American businesses provide.
• U.S. companies often win contracts to build roads, supply food aid, or provide medical equipment.
Example: Boeing & African Aviation
• USAID has funded aviation safety and infrastructure projects in Africa, allowing U.S. companies like Boeing to sell more planes to African airlines as the industry grows.
- National Security & Countering Influence from Rivals
• Economic development aid prevents countries from falling under the influence of China or Russia, which use investments to expand political control.
• USAID offers an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, ensuring allies remain economically aligned with the U.S.
Example: Competing with China in Africa
• China has aggressively invested in Africa, often creating debt traps.
• USAID programs offer grants instead of loans, fostering goodwill and long-term partnerships without economic coercion.
• This secures U.S. access to critical resources like rare minerals used in tech and military applications.
- Humanitarian Efforts That Boost U.S. Global Influence
• Foreign aid strengthens America’s global image and soft power, making it easier to build alliances.
• It also reduces refugee crises, which can create political and economic strain.
Example: Haiti Earthquake Relief (2010)
• After the devastating earthquake, USAID provided over $1.5 billion in aid.
• This not only saved lives but helped stabilize Haiti, reducing migration pressure on the U.S.
• American companies and NGOs were also involved in rebuilding efforts, benefiting construction and logistics firms.
Final Thought: A Small Investment for Big Returns
While some criticize USAID as an expense, it’s a tiny fraction of the federal budget (less than 1%). The long-term economic and security benefits—trade growth, new markets, stability, and geopolitical influence—far outweigh the costs.
Would you like more specific examples of business benefits or security impacts?
Destiny on What Ukraine is Fighting For - Reddit
Destiny Transcript:
“You know, we go to work in the summer and then go back to our shitty Eastern European countries. But we want to fight our corruption. We want to join the rest of the world. We want to be real countries with real people—free of corrupt and crazy leaders and bureaucrats who are constantly trying to screw us over. We’re trying to become something better.
Ukraine has historically had a lot of issues with corruption and with breaking free from the stereotype of Eastern European destitution. But they were on the path to changing that. They had a leader, and the populist support behind him was like, “Hey, we’re finally going to have access to European markets. We’re finally going to make a deal with Europe. We’re finally moving in that direction.”
And then that leader said, “Actually, no—we’re going back to Russia. Get fucked.”
As a result, after all the protests, all the riots, and everything else, they had their huge 2014 Euromaidan movement. And what they saw in front of them was:
“Oh. It’s business as usual. Here comes Russia. There goes Crimea.”
And now they’re back in a world where they’re being subjugated by Russia again.
They’re not a Western country. They’re not even treated like a real country. They’re seen as a group of fucking losers that no one in the rest of the world wants to help or do anything for. Obama’s not doing fuck-all for them. Western Europe’s not doing fuck-all for them.
And now Russia is fucking with their shit again.
This is a group of people who desperately want their own country—something they can be a part of, something they can be proud of. A country that has a narrative, a place on the world stage. And now they’re slowly watching themselves be eaten and consumed by the Soviet Union again.
So to look at those people and say, “Well, isn’t it bad? A lot of you have died. You should just make peace”—
That’s easy to say as an American with your own country, your own government, your own elected leaders, your own national story. You have all of that.
But it’s a completely different thing to look at Ukrainians, who are bleeding away entire sections of their country while the rest of the world stands by and watches, and say,
“Shouldn’t you guys just stop? So many of you are dying.”
Do you understand how horrible that is to say?
It’s such a Western take—not that death is good, but there’s something more at play here. There has to be something more than just some people dying. Because what moves nations and peoples isn’t just concern for individuals, or even just your family, or even your neighborhood.
It’s something bigger. And that’s what they’re fighting for.”
Desire for Reform:
Ukrainians want to overcome corruption, modernize, and become part of the Western world—with democratic governance, access to European markets, and national pride.
Historical Struggles:
Ukraine has long battled the stereotype of being a poor, corrupt Eastern European country and has worked hard to break free from that image.
Turning Point in 2014 (Euromaidan):
Ukrainians protested when their pro-European path was reversed by a leader who chose to align with Russia instead. This led to the 2014 Euromaidan uprising.
Russian Aggression:
Russia’s annexation of Crimea and continued interference represent, to Ukrainians, a return to imperial subjugation and loss of national sovereignty.
Feeling Abandoned:
Many Ukrainians feel let down by the West—particularly the U.S. and Europe—for failing to offer substantial help while Russia reasserts control.
The Fight for Identity:
Ukrainians aren’t just fighting for territory—they’re fighting for national identity, autonomy, and a future as a real, respected country.
Western Misunderstanding:
Calls for Ukraine to “just make peace” overlook the deeper significance of their resistance. It’s not just about avoiding death—it’s about survival as a people and a nation.
Larger Meaning of the War:
The Ukrainian struggle embodies the idea that sometimes people must fight and sacrifice for something greater than personal safety—like national dignity and freedom.
