Proposed diplomatic cuts put American lives at risk

In his budget proposal, which would gut any number of agencies to pay for massive military increases, President Trump repeats a mantra about achieving security for the American people. “Without safety, there can be no prosperity,” he says.

True enough, but the administration’s spending plan fails to recognize that safety comes from both military “hard power” and diplomatic “soft power.” As a result, it is profoundly shortsighted.

The budget would increase Pentagon spending by 10%, to $639 billion, and slash the State Department and related programs by 28%, to $25.6 billion.

Contrary to public perceptions, foreign aid represents a tiny fraction of the budget. According to the Congressional Research Service, in the past three decades, foreign aid has never accounted for more than 1.4 cents of every dollar spent by Washington.

Trump’s cuts would slash assistance by the U.S. Agency for International Development, relief funding through the United Nations, and Treasury investment programs aimed at stabilizing global hot spots and expanding markets for American businesses.

Stricken areas of the world are breeding grounds for instability and anti-American violence. Severe famine in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen threatens 20 million lives in what offi- cials say could be the worst humanitarian disaster since World War II. The U.S. African Development Foundation — which Trump would like to shutter — spends just $28.2 million to assist 1.5 million sub- Saharan Africans. That’s less than the cost of a single Apache helicopter.

When soldiers are in the field, diplomats are often close by. As U.S.-supported Iraqi forces drive Islamic State militants out of Mosul this year, some of the toughest work will be left to negotiators from America and elsewhere to preserve the peace in a war-ravaged city where the interests of Iraq, Iraqi-Kurdistan, Turkey and Iran intersect.

“When you deploy hard power, you actually need more diplomats,” says Charles Ries, a vice president at the RAND Corporation who served in diplomatic posts in Iraq and Greece.

Some of the strongest advocates for a robust diplomatic corps come from the military. “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately,” Marine Gen. James Mattis said in 2013. He’s now Trump’s secretary of Defense.

Democrats in Congress are already lining up against most of the proposed cuts, as are some leading Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C., who chairs the state and foreign appropriations subcommittee.

Some State Department programs could undoubtedly be run more efficiently, but it’s disappointing that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson didn’t push back harder against the magnitude of the cuts targeting his department. As more than 120 retired admirals and generals argued in a letter to Congress last month, “Elevating and strengthening diplomacy and development alongside defense are critical to keeping America safe.”

For a president who never served in the military, and who likes to say he’ll listen to the generals, that’s advice worth taking to heart.