What if the US Spent Money to Provide Food to Support Ukrainian Refugees Instead of Spending it on Arms?

Bombing war torn countries with butter would be a better strategy than giving them bombs to wreak even more havoc

Over 20 years ago after 9-11, before the advent of Twitter, Facebook and other social media, a friend sent me an email titled: “Bomb Them With Butter”. At that time, the US was gearing up to engage in military action against Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden was in hiding. The email described an alternative to the US offered by Rabbi Moshe Waldoks, of Temple Beth Zion, Brookline, Massachusetts:

“A military response, particularly an attack on Afghanistan, is exactly what the terrorists want. It will strengthen and swell their small but fanatical ranks. 

Instead, bomb Afghanistan with butter, with rice, bread, clothing and medicine. It will cost less than conventional arms, poses no threat of US casualties and just might get the populace thinking that maybe the Taliban don't have the answers. After three years of drought and with starvation looming, let's offer the Afghani people the vision of a new future. One that includes full stomachs. 

Bomb them with information. Video players and cassettes of world leaders, particularly Islamic leaders, condemning terrorism. Carpet the country with magazines and newspapers showing the horror of terrorism committed by their "guest". Blitz them with laptop computers and DVD players filled with a perspective that is denied them by their government. Saturation bombing with hope will mean that some of it gets through. Send so much that the Taliban can't collect and hide it all. The Taliban are telling their people to prepare for Jihad. Instead, let's give the Afghani people their first good meal in years. Seeing your family fully fed and the prospect of stability in terms of food and a future is a powerful deterrent to martyrdom. All we ask in return is that they, as a people, agree to enter the civilized world. That includes handing over terrorists in their midst.

In responding to terrorism we need to do something different. Something unexpected. Something that addresses the root of the problem. We need to take away the well of despair, ignorance and brutality from which the Osama bin Laden's of the world water their gardens of terror.”

I expect that many readers will dismiss Rabbi Waldok’s approach as unrealistic and fanciful. But, as I wrote in an op ed piece a few months ago for our local newspaper, offering this level of humanitarian aid is neither unprecedented nor impractical and doing so might set our foreign policy on a different course. After World War II the US enacted the Marshall Plan which provided the equivalent of $114 billion dollars in economic aid to our allies in Western Europe. That money stabilized the governments there, provided US agribusinesses with much needed support, and created good will among Western European countries who accepted the aid. (A sidebar: the Soviet Union rejected the US aid and blocked it from reaching other nations under their influence… a decision that contributed to the launching of the Cold War).

I read today in Eric Schmitt’ NYTimes article that the US is prepared to give the Ukraine $200,000,000 in arms… on top of aid it has already provided:

The latest arms package, which officials say includes Javelin antitank missiles and Stinger antiaircraft missiles, follows a $350 million arms package that the Biden administration approved last month. Altogether, the administration has authorized $1.2 billion in weapons for Ukraine in the past year, officials said.

Mr. Schmitt’s article explains the efforts of the US to support the Ukraine by providing them with over 17,000 anti-tank weapons.

The good news is that the US just passed a budget that IS providing

“…$6.8 billion to care for refugees and provide economic aid to allies, and more to help federal agencies enforce economic sanctions against Russia and protect against cyber threats at home.”

As one who would like to see the US economy move away from military spending and toward humanitarian spending, it was distressing to read that the same budget provided: “…$6.5 billion for the U.S. costs of sending troops and weapons to Eastern Europe and equipping allied forces there in response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion and bellicose threats.”

The real test to the US’s commitment to caring for refugees is how our nation will deal with the existing refugees from Afghanistan (2.6 million) and Syria (6.8 million). The 9.4 million refugees from those two nations who are seeking food, clothing, and shelter dwarf the 2 million who fled the Ukraine… and they have not been welcomed into Europe in the same fashion as the Ukrainians even though their plight is analogous.

The US has the resources to assist our allies who are trying to absorb the refugees fleeing from totalitarian rule…. but instead of engaging in a dialogue within our country on how to deal with this issue and redefine our country as a beacon of humanitarianism we are falling back on our typical role of being the arms merchants for endless wars.