They call us radical lunatics and criminals, which is rich given the criminal record and radical lunacy of the two provocateurs.

I, for one, am not a criminal. I do not have a criminal record. I am also not a radical, nor a lunatic. I did water ski Lake Tahoe naked one time in college, but I suggest to you that was less lunacy and more a predictable behavior. In terms of radical thought, I describe myself as a realist. Not sure where realism falls on the radical scale so I will let you call it.

In addition, I have been working for or with USAID since 1990. That would be 35 years. Never been labeled a radical lunatic or member of a criminal organization until last week.

Clearly, it’s a different day.

This photo was taken in Tajikistan in a small village in the Gharm Valley during the early days of 2002. After 9/11, the United States military quickly toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan and one of our concerns after the Taliban defeat was food sources and food supply transport through Tajikistan, Afghanistan’s northern neighbor. I was deployed to Tajikistan’s capital, Dushanbe, to hook up with a small, U.S. military special forces team to help work that problem.

On a bitingly cold morning, we paid a visit to Gharm and eventually to this desolate family.

A little context. The Cold War abruptly paused with the dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 26, 1991, and the Soviet Republics began to fall away from Moscow. The United States wisely implemented a foreign policy to bring the former Republics into a new era of democratic reforms, freedoms, independence and trust.

Civil conflict erupted in Tajikistan in 1992, about a year after its independence from the defunct Soviet Union. The conflict continued with each side winning and losing until a United Nations-sponsored armistice in 1997. With help from the United States and the international community, presidential elections were held at the end of 1999.

All that to say, by the end of 1999, Tajikistan was, by most definitions, a failed state. The displaced Tajik population clocked in at more than one million people and the infrastructure, economic and government services sectors were in complete disarray. These two women were, like most of the population, subsisting on international food aid.

This certainly was a different day. America saw the door of opportunity to assist Tajikistan and walked in. We did not do it by force. We did it with diplomatic and development actions aimed at recovery. We did it through bilateral rapport and we did it through USAID.

Jump forward to January 20, 2025. Until that day, USAID was an irreplaceable component and cornerstone of U.S. international engagement referred to by many as the “three Ds:” Diplomacy (State Department), Defense (the Pentagon), and Development (that included USAID).

Now, it is not. Why blow that up? Assess and evaluate? Fine. Review and adjust? Okay. Reform and audit? Have at it. Gut and Nuke? Bad idea.

USAID, and thus the State Department, the U.S Military and U.S. world standing, are now wounded badly. Our status unclear. Our future security uncertain.

In a few words, allow me to argue this point by resolving the three, must-answer jingoistic questions for every State department action posed recently by the current Secretary of State.

Does it (USAID) make America safer? Hundreds of case studies, reports and testimony during decades of work validate an unequivocal yes. Simply, when you paint the American flag across the globe on girl’s school walls, health clinics, hospitals, food trucks, emergency shelters, fire-fighting equipment, emergency response vehicles, electrical plants, and agricultural schools, among hundreds of other examples of USAID assistance, you convey the message that America is your friend. America is the good guy.

Now, those flags will be painted Chinese red and America will become less safe.

Does it (USAID) make America stronger? Common sense answer: Yes. If USAID is present in another country, if USAID is on the ground helping, if a country’s government considers USAID a partner, be it Mexico, Gaza or Ukraine, you gain trust. If you participate in the trade negotiations or the peace accords, you earn respect. When you have that trust and the respect, you have a voice and you are stronger.

America’s voice is now weaker and Iran’s voice is now a bit louder.

Does it (USAID) make America more prosperous? I would argue that being a more vibrant and reliable trading partner makes America more prosperous. Key components of USAID economic programs include supporting market access, lowering trade barriers, providing dispute resolution mechanisms, supporting the World Trade Organization (WTO), providing reliable logistics, and improving economic cooperation among trading partners.

Without a strong, international trade posture, America becomes a weaker, less prosperous trading partner. Here is a free pass, Mr. Putin. Have at it.

Again, I can proudly write that during my travels and in the countries I worked implementing USAID programs, I was never declared a radical lunatic or a criminal. I do remember being watched, followed, threatened, accused of spying, and yelled at by numerous U.S. Ambassadors. It was all worth it because I believed in the mission. I can now answer these three questions all day long. In fact, I would submit a fourth question to the Secretary of State:

Does it (USAID) make America a principled world leader? 

I remember this day, taking this photo, and the despair of this forlorn family.  Their distressed expressions expose much. They had nothing but their tattered clothes - meager protection from the freezing Tajik winter. They were at the bottom of the poverty scale. Their government? Not there. Hope? Not there. Hunger? Everywhere.

But WE were there. Gaming politically astute policies to help Tajikistani’s struggles against land-grabbing dictators and doing what we used to do best: helping the less fortunate because it’s the right thing to do.

The answer to question four was yes.

We are now sadly, living in a different day.