It would be easy to say $2 billion spent in South Sudan for infrastructure projects is a waste of federal funds.  I, however, might have to disagree.  As we are well entangled in bombing and building campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, our effort in South Sudan seems far more productive.  Not only are we not bearing the expense of maintaining a massive number of boots on South Sudan soil, but we’re also not severely antagonizing the population we’re attempting to help (or free; or spread democracy among; or you pick your favorite euphemism for what we do in foreign nations.)

$2 billion spent helping a developing nation build an infrastructure which may lead them to greater prosperity is morally the right and charitable thing to do.  Bombing the hell out of somebody and then claiming to help them rebuild their society is largely counter-productive.  We only increase expense each time we bomb a potential friend then help them rebuild.  At the same time, we largely generate negativity toward our cause when we kill the friends and family members of those with whom we seek peace.

I like the idea of helping South Sudan financially with no military might.  Which makes me wonder, why can’t we do this kind of thing more often?  There has to be many countries around the world which would love the opportunity to have the United States of America use its technological innovation to build utilities for prosperity within their own borders.  We do this in places we’ve invaded, but why don’t we offer our services on the world market?

We—as a country—should be getting paid for providing security to the world, rather than paying to provide this service in places where it’s largely unwanted (which is what we're doing now.)  The biggest obstacle for building freeways and sewers in many countries around the world is someone coming along behind us and blowing up what we’ve started.  There, I say, is an opportunity to not only offer construction services but upsell our service of exporting security professionals.  The U.S. Armed Forces are filled with many expert soldiers capable of providing high quality security services (while they receive hazard pay of course) and the beauty is they’re already trained and ready to work on Day One. 

Individuals thinking about starting their own business are often told to first think about what it is they do well and then figure out a way to do it for a profit.  That's what I'm now trying to do for my friend, the United States of America.

In someway, security and infrastructure should be what we export as a country.  Stop sending troops at our expense to places where they were not asked to come.  Let’s start sending troops at the behest of a consumer of security and infrastructure to generate income for the U.S.  It seems like a proposition in which we would not only save money (as opposed to starting wars) in the long run, but also generate a stream of revenue into national coffers while performing a service we’ve mastered.

Imperialism as a method for generating security costs too much (see: British and Roman Empires.)  Let’s use one of our greatest resources (namely our people and knowledge) to help the world stabilize while generating a profit on the world market.  South Sudan may not be able to pay us anything today for the services we could provide, but neither can most American homeowners afford to pay off their mortgage today.  Host countries could sign a contract like a lease for security and infrastructure.  Written in the terms of the contract could be a clause stating either party may withdraw from the contract under certain, specified terms.  After the work is complete, we could put the host country on a payment schedule for 15 to 30 years.

If they default, it’s much like giving South Sudan $2 billion in foreign aid since 2005.  In this case, we tried to help them and they still mostly feel good about us.  If they pay us back over time, then its revenue generated from foreign expeditions rather than leaving a cycle of debt for American tax payers to make good (see: Wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.)  If handled right, the U.S. could balance its budget while helping create a more stable world (which is actually quite beneficial to the business and finance community as well.)