Kavoos Kolahdouzan

Professor Zayn Kassam

Divine Body: Religion and Environment
May 5th, 2016
Reflection on Todd Moss Lecture
For my fourth event, I attended Todd Moss talk as he described the overarching themes seen in
U.S. bureaucracy and its relation to the execution of its foreign policy. Overall, Todd Moss talk could be
summarized as a survey analysis of how the US government is thinly-spread out in regards to its foreign
policy goals. While this may not come as a surprise, Todd Moss talk was very elucidating for me in one
aspect: the abstract ideas and goals that we have for foreign aid vs. what we actually achieve. In these aid
missions, the privileged American who believes in American exceptionalism wants to help out the lessfortunate poorly developed countries (even though our own organizations and economic policies are
largely responsible for the lack of development that they have experienced). In the next few paragraphs, I
will briefly explain my frustrations.
American exceptionalism is oftentimes coupled to the notion that the American people are simply
superior to the rest of the people on this planet. Our ingenuity, resourcefulness and independence has
made us the biggest economy on this planet (according to this theory). Yet, these theories largely forget
that the United States was in a very priviledged place to begin with. Unlike many other countries, it was
separated by an entire ocean. Its lands boast (or boasted) extremely large amounts of reserves. For
instance, would the American people have ever been as successful as they are now if they were given the
barren deserts that encompass most of the lands of Saudis? Or could their trade has been successful as
those who live in land-locked countries? Or could their plantations as profitable as those who actually had
to pay for their labor? You get my point.
The American people were simply at the right place and the right time. Throughout their history,
they have only dealt with three engagements on their home turf (the War of 1812, the Japanese invasion
of Pearl Harbor and Bin Ladens 9/11 attacks). I would like to allow the reader to compare these

engagements with the engagements that some other countries have faced (i.e. entire European continent
during WWI and WWII). While Europeans were allowed to recuperate and rebuild through time and
resources such as the Marshall Plan, so-called third world countries seem like they dont want to
develop. In this racist narrative, the third world is seemingly incapable of developing while the rest of the
developed world is pitiful towards its starving inhabitants.
Allow me to digress: I am from one of these third-world countries (Iran). My birthplaces name
certainly carries a lot of baggage that most readers are familiar with. When I answer the where are you
from? question, my American peers answer with pitiful looks and worried looks as well as What is it
like over there? I imagine theres a lot of violence. I distinctly remember someone who asked whether I
have ever experienced a suicide bombing before. I used to correct people that Iran was a very stable
country. While it is certainly not a model for human rights, its people enjoy relative stability and comfort,
which is not something that should be taken for granted when compared to some of the other residents of
Middle Eastern countries.
The American exceptionalists do not want to change their racist beliefs. They believe in their
righteous causes. They print their own dollars and fund their own foreign aid missions without fully
considering the implications and circumstances of a given people and culture. Furthermore, since we
believe that we know everything that there is to a country, we oftentimes go in without really knowing
anything about a country. This can be seen throughout the landscape of our foreign policy. Engagements
in Iraq and Afghanistan ring some bells. Todd Moss brought the example of Haiti and former Secretary
Clintons failed attempts to rebuild the nation. Even though six years have passed since the earthquake,
many still live in temporary camps that lack basic protection and services. Even though the money has
been raised(about 1.2 billion dollars), most of the funds have remained unspent. Todd Moss provided this
example to show how US foreign bureaucracy is inefficient and ineffective at achieving the goals it sets
out for itself. While I believe that the US government and the American public have good intentions
during these missions, I argue that these funds and resources must be largely given to the local
organizations and governing bodies since they are the ones with the true knowledge of the culture and the

geography. Developing countries must be given large, block grants of money. This would also reduce the
oversized bureaucracy of the United States, since it no longer has to micromanage every corner of the
world with its own agencies. In a way, these grants would emulate the Marshall Plan (an arguably
successful aid mission conducted by the United States). In short, the U.S. government must realize that it
does not know everything about the complex cultures of the world. Instead of micromanaging its foreign
aid and policy, the U.S. foreign bureaucracy must go back to giving large, flexible grants to countries in
need.