‘Tip of the Spear’ Is a Military Term That Refers to the First Unit Leading an Assault.

Opinion Columnist, Chester “Trip” Buckenmaier III, MD, COL (ret.), MC, USA

Throughout my military career, I would hear the phrase ‘tip of the spear’ to describe units or leaders who were first to the fight. The metaphor refers to the business end of one of the oldest weapons of warfare, the spear. As Madeline Miller in “The Song of Achilles” says, “You can use a spear as a walking stick, but that will not change its nature.” Everyone understands what the spear represents and what it is for. As military medical physicians, we often discuss our role as the “soft side of the spear.” We were not at the pointy end, but we certainly supported the effective implementation and application of force embodied by the spear tip.

The famous Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz famously said, “War is the continuation of policy with other means.” As a career military officer, I understood the disquieting reality of this euphemism describing the failure of diplomacy resulting in humanity’s worst state, war. As a medical officer, I have witnessed the product of “policy with other means” firsthand, and I would argue von Clausewitz’s witticism is a gross misrepresentation of man’s saddest state. I believe most servicemembers who have participated in our country’s wars would have preferred our government to find other means to advance political goals beyond brute force. I am not so naive to believe that avoiding using the spear as intended is always possible but only after all the “soft side of the spear” options have been exhausted.

The use of, and investment in, spear tip bullets and bombs to achieve our nation’s goals is the proverbial “easy button.” This violent approach is straightforward for the public to understand, immediately effective, and the outcome is readily apparent. Soft-side spear options are enormously more subtle and challenging to comprehend, take considerably longer to produce results, and the impact of the effort is often muddled. Most notably, soft-side spear options rarely result in flag-draped coffins returning home.

While a card-carrying member of the Spear Tip Club, I am always rooting for greater utilization and funding of the soft spear side. In my career, I have seen the power of the soft spear side in action. My unit avoided being mortared for two weeks because we gave an Iraqi child a needed operation, and his grateful father pointed out the enemy mortar teams surrounding Balad. I trained several military anesthesiologists on austere environment medicine while helping medically underserved Vietnamese patients, leaving a positive impression of America in this historic enemy, now economic partner. I was told that imams surrounding our medical mission to Burkina Faso were praying for our safe travel home just months after 9/11. There are so many soft-sided war stories, so little time.

The soft side of the spear approach to American diplomacy is far superior to alternatives. I imagine most Gold Star mothers would agree with me. For these reasons, I am gobsmacked and incensed that the current administration would callously (and perhaps illegally) gut the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for unsubstantiated claims of fraud. This bankrupt plan was the brainchild of billionaire Elon Musk (not elected) through the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE—not really a government department). Musk, through social media, has labeled USAID “a viper’s nest of radical-left Marxists who hate America,” “evil” and “a criminal organization.”¹

Last time I checked, most of the USAID work and budget was used for famine relief worldwide. I rather doubt the folks working tirelessly to distribute aid are “evil Marxists.” Moreover, USAID aid gives U.S. officials access to troubled regions of the planet to combat diseases before they reach our shores, positively influencing desperate populations and reducing their desire to harm U.S. interests. I am willing to accept that there may have been USAID funding for projects inconsistent with the current administration’s political views. Why burn down the entire house to kill a few cockroaches?

Yes, dear reader, this editorial has been a long walk to the point. Hating USAID for perceived abuses of ideology is all too easy in Musk’s warped information world of “X.” I am not opposed to efforts to improve fiscal responsibility and efficiency in the many government institutions on which we depend. We have a mechanism for that called laws through legislation and government inspectors general (Oh, wait, we’ve been firing those.). That said, a spear point, scorched-earth policy to these vital activities is nonsensical and dangerous. As I write this, people are dying around the world because of the decision to end USAID. I do not believe this reality makes Americans safer or reduces our overdependence on bombs and bullets.

Like most consumers of this column, I have spent a career defending the idea of America. It is an idea embodied in the Constitution that is worth spreading. USAID, as President John F. Kennedy intended in 1961 through the Foreign Assistance Act, was in the business of disseminating the idea of America. Federal medicine, like USAID, is the epitome of soft-side spear power. We should not take the downfall of this federal partner lightly or without reservation. USAID should be restored to its critical mission immediately.

1. How Elon Musk boosted false USAID conspiracy theories to shut down global aid. Feb. 7, 2025. Brandy Zadrozny and Lora Kolodny, CNBC. Accessed 12 February 2025.