Helping people out before things get really bad and there are more wars abroad is a good investment. That's why the military has generally been supportive of USAID.
In general, it's also better to have friends in the world rather than going around being loud-mouthed jerks that no one likes.
Yes, though it's unclear USAID is fit for that purpose considering it also funds civil unrest and regime change so some might say is a jerk that no one likes. But questions of its effectiveness and efficiency aside, none of that answers my question about US economic dominance. Why is USAID very important when US economic dominance is high.
I was specifically wondering about that particular part of the comment by the original poster, it just seems quite interesting to me what the connection there is.
Working against apartheid in South Africa would also count as "fomenting unrest" so I don't know how useful that metric is. Even what you linked is basically equivalent to the US projecting soft power and pro-capitalist sentiment (inappropriate, IMO, but probably within agency mission parameters).
It really doesn't matter if you know how useful that metric is or not, it is what I was specifically talking about and what the parent poster asked about. I'm just glad to be able to blow their mind by proving these "huge allegations".
In general, it's also better to have friends in the world rather than going around being loud-mouthed jerks that no one likes.
It's also a tiny amount of the budget.