Both are useful in achieveing American political aims abroad, so getting rid of them seems like a bad choice from the perspective of the US government

  • bestmiaou@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 days ago

    the theory that i have heard is that this is a result of a long intelligence community debate. there has been a marked shift away from field work and other direct interventions. instead they have promoted desk work and funding friendly foreign NGOs (i.e. “soft power”). this is them saying that those more recently emphasized efforts have been not performing as well and shifting back toward a more direct involvement in a smaller number if areas. this is a consolidation of the collapsing us empire by prioritizing areas with more direct involvement where they think they can beat back BRICS and other foreign power blocks by letting go of areas that they think they won’t be able to compete in.