Foreign aid proposal is silver lining to Perry campaign

By Ryan Kaminski

Updated 7:43 pm, Tuesday, January 24, 2012

As the drama of the GOP primary continues, it may be time for the remaining candidates, and even the Obama administration, to take a second look at Texas Gov. Rick Perry's ill-fated presidential run. Among many lessons learned from Perry's campaign, the ground-breaking concept of strategic defensive aid appears most significant.

The short history of the term - SDA for short - began in a November 2011 debate, when Perry called for zeroing out U.S. foreign aid budgets for all countries. This naturally flowed from Perry's suggestion to engage in a "serious discussion" about defunding the United Nations just a month earlier. But after getting flak from threatening to eliminate all foreign aid, which many political analysts noted would include Israel's aid, Perry clarified his stance. Via Twitter, he called Israel a "special ally," hinting it would be exempted from aid cuts.

Subsequently, at a December 2011 Jewish Coalition event, Perry first enunciated the concept of strategic defensive aid in reference to Israel. In particular, Perry claimed "Strategic defensive aid, strategic aid in all forms, will increase to Israel," while calling Israel "the cornerstone of my larger global strategy."

Media outlets and political analysts generally interpreted, probably correctly, SDA as mere spin by Perry's campaign to wiggle out of suggesting cutting U.S. aid to Israel. After all, given Perry's vociferous calls to slim down government - including the wholesale elimination of three agencies - the idea of the candidate advocating a new wonkish term referring to just one country's aid appeared awkward at best.

Regardless of the Perry campaign's original motives, the SDA concept deserves a second look. For the Obama administration, this may be especially important as it works to do more with less as well as implementing its foreign policy with a GOP-controlled House.

In particular, the notion of SDA should be cultivated beyond its current application to one special country to include other special institutions, initiatives or countries that play a decisive role in promoting the critical national security interests of the U.S.

This, for example, could include applying SDA status to U.S. resources for U.N. peacekeeping operations, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as well as for initiatives like the president's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, among other possibilities. Falling under the umbrella of SDA could theoretically engender protection from funding cuts through promises of presidential vetoes of bills that reduce U.S. aid commitments. Another option is requiring that the president, secretary of state or secretary of defense certify SDA-related funding cuts would not hamper U.S. national security, as was legislated for zeroing out Don't Ask Don't Tell.

U.N. peacekeeping operations keep global conflicts from spiraling out of control and ensure the U.S. military does not have to be everywhere all the time. Elsewhere, the IAEA is crucial in efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The U.S. also has a national security interest in preventing the spread of AIDS/HIV, a disease that carries the potential to kill millions and overwhelm public health infrastructure.

In a political environment obsessed with deficit reduction, SDA status may well prove a useful firewall to protect these and other critical U.S. foreign assistance commitments. Taking a machete to foreign aid is as dangerous as it is impractical. In fact, even former GOP presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann called the idea of rescinding U.S. aid to nuclear-armed Pakistan "highly naïve." Certainly, there is some U.S. foreign aid that can be better spent, but carelessly trashing aid commitments makes little strategic defensive sense for the U.S. or its allies, including Israel.

True, for many, Perry's 2012 presidential run will be memorable more for its repeated gaffes than for policy innovation. However, the unsung concept of strategic defensive aid could evolve into one of the campaign's most significant substantive policy achievements. While the SDA framework still requires additional details and debate, it may well be the silver lining of Perry's failed presidential campaign.