As It Happens

Retired U.S. generals urge Trump to rethink 'devastating' cuts to foreign aid

U.S. President Donald Trump wants to pay for increased defense spending by cutting foreign aid. But a group of retired military officials, including retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Daniel Christman have sent him a letter saying that's a bad idea.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks as Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis and Vice President Mike Pence look on in the Hall of Heroes at the Department of Defense. (Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images)

Retired U.S. military officers are speaking out. More than 120 of them have written a letter to Congress urging lawmakers to not cut foreign aid.

The move comes after the White House said it would boost military spending to $54 billion. At the same time, President Donald Trump would cover the increase by slashing foreign aid.

Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman. (James E. Jackson/U.S. Army)

Daniel Christman signed this week's letter. The retired U.S. Army lieutenant general spoke with As It Happens guest host Helen Mann. Here is part of their conversation.

Helen Mann: Lieutenant General Christman, what exactly are you asking from President Trump in this letter?

Daniel Christman: The group of us that signed this have all been experienced senior officers that have worked side-by-side with diplomats and development experts in our foreign service. What concerns us is that the initial readings from the Trump White House on their budget cuts shows that they are taking a hacksaw to what is the foreign aid budget, or technically, it's called the Function 150 Account, but it funds our diplomats.

What's happening, evidently, is a 30 per cent cut to this particular budget that funds those agencies and those programs. It's devastating. It's a hacksaw that's applied to an account that is really important to U.S. security interests around the globe and for the well-being and welfare of the inhabitants of the countries that are affected.

HM: So just what repercussions do you think cutting this aid by 30 per cent could have on these U.S. agencies and programs?

DC: The U.S. diplomatic recognition in the embassies that we keep around the globe would be savaged. Those embassies are staffed not just with diplomats that represent the diplomatic face of the country but they're also staffed with economic and development experts that assist U.S. interests and assists the countries in which those embassies are located to develop — to grow their GDP, to withstand the effects of some of the radical theology that might be around them or even within them. In fact, even within that 30 per cent there are indications that particular programs would be sliced even more — even 40 per cent for the U.S. Agency for International Development.

It's a profound concern, again for those of us who have worked side-by-side with diplomats over our careers, to see what that would mean in terms of undercutting programs that are so important to maintain stability in troubled parts of the globe.

HM: In fact, we're told that this 30 per cent cut will also come along with a 10 per cent increase, at least that's what the president wants, in funding for the military, for defense spending overall. As someone who has served overseas, how do you balance those? How does a cut in foreign aid affect soldiers and operations on the ground in a place like Iraq or Afghanistan?

DC: In the combat zones, to be candid, if we're talking about Northern Syria or Western Mosul right now, it's boots on the ground that are carrying the battle. What we are concerned about is what happens after the battle is over. What we don't want to see is a regression into further instability. We've seen that cycle repeated already, in Iraq. When governance structures are put in place in Northern Syria, we need to make sure that the media, press freedoms and economic development are viewed side by side with maintaining stability with that part of the country. So it really does impact American and coalition boots on the ground. What we want to make sure going forward is that boots on the ground are a last resort.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. For more on this story, listen to our full interview with Daniel Christman.