U.S. officials vented their disapproval this week after Russia and China vetoed an Arab League plan to stop the violence in Syria. Most vocal was U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, who said the veto "disgusted" Americans. For more comments from other officials, check here.

Photo: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice (L) speaks to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on January 31, 2012, during a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on the crisis in Syria.

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images

The State Department announced February 6 that the U.S. is closing its embassy in Syria and calling Ambassador Robert Ford and embassy personnel home. An earlier wave of embassy personnel left in January after bombings in Damascus -- Syria's capital and the home of the embassy -- in January and December 2011.

The violence is an extension of protests against the repressive regime of President Bashar Al-Assad that began nearly a year ago during "Arab Spring." Al-Assad has repeated unleashed Syrian troops to violent crack down on protesters.

State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said in a press release that the United States had expressed concern about Syria's ability to protect the embassy in January in the wake of renewed violence.

The move does not mean that the U.S. has severed diplomatic relations with Syria. Ford will remain the ambassador, and the U.S. will conduct business through the Polish Embassy, according to the Washington Post.

The embassy closure comes just days after Russia and China vetoed a UN vote on an Arab League plan to end the Syrian violence by having Al-Assad hand over power to his vice-president. It also indicated that U.S. believes more violence is eminent with Al-Assad thus buoyed by the Sino-Russian veto.

The foreign aid that the United States is putting into Afghanistan as part of its "fight, talk, build" strategy prior to the end of the American military mission there in 2014 is -- like all U.S. foreign aid -- a descendant of the post-World War II Marshall Plan.

You can read about the Marshall Plan here, and while you're doing so, remember that there are a lot of similarities between Marshall Plan money to western Europe in 1948 and USAID money to Afghanistan in 2012.

The Marshall Plan pumped money into a war-torn region to rebuild infrastructures, promote the economy, and reinvigorate agriculture; likewise USAID to Afghanistan. The Marshall Plan tried to stabilize governments to avoid chaos; same with Afghanistan. And while it was not a stated policy of the Marshall Plan, it became almost synonymous with U.S. efforts to prevent the communist Soviet Union from infiltrating western European governments. USAID money likewise has the underlying intent of keeping the Taliban from knocking over the Afghan government after U.S. troops pull out.

None of this is any surprise. We've done it globally for 65 years, and, even though budget highs and lows dictate aid amounts, we'll be doing it for some time to come.

The United States is banking on USAID and building projects to ready Afghanistan for self-sufficiency after 2014. Foreign aid and help with infrastructure, education, health, and governance programs have been central to U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II. They are now part of the U.S. plan of "fight, talk, build" for Afghanistan.

Learn more about the "build" part of the equation here.

Photo: An Afghan woman lays out peppers to dry. USAID road projects have improved the ability of Afghan growers to get produce to markets.

Photo courtesy USAID/Afghanistan