SECURITY
May 28, 2010
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Max Bergmann, and Alex Seitz-Wald
Yesterday, the White House unveiled a new National Security Strategy that will serve to guide America's approach to the world. It signals a sharp break from the previous administration whose unilateral, reckless, and ideologically-driven policies left America isolated, overstretched, and weaker. This strategy outlines a clear vision that reflects the the last decade of progressive thought; it demonstrates a comprehension of the geopolitical landscape and of the challenges confronting the United States and the world; and it firmly states that America remains a country at war and determined to eliminate al Qaeda. But importantly, this strategy does not conflate or confuse these threats. Like the national security strategy produced by the Center for American Progress in 2009, "Integrating Security," the strategy recognizes the complex nature of the challenges and the need to use all elements of our power, not just our military, but diplomatic, economic, and cultural tools as well to combat them. Ultimately, this is a strategy about maintaining and enhancing American power and influence. But maintaining America's global strength and position as global leader does not mean working to weaken or aggressively confront other rising powers, such as China, India, and Brazil, because global order is not a "zero sum game." The strategy stipulates that the U.S. is undeniably the world's global leader, but as such its objective must be to work to build a stronger rule-based international order to address global challenges, to get others to do more, and to further global prosperity. The strategy also firmly recognizes America's global strength stems from its strength at home and that the U.S. must always strive to live up to the values and principles that has made America so admired around the world. Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott said it is "the most comprehensive National Security Strategy ever." Yet, while the strategy lays out the path, the challenge will be to follow it.
REJECTING WHAT FAILED: The new strategy "aims to draw contrasts with President Bush's 2006 version" that adopted a unilateralist bent, advocated preventive war, poorly defined or understood the America's terrorist enemies, and furthered a foreign policy approach that was overly reliant on the American military. The Bush administration's approach left America's military forces stretched, alliances frayed, and image tarnished around the world. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice noted that the new strategy "is a rather dramatic departure from the most recent prior national security strategy." On the use of military force, the strategy rejects the reckless approach of preventive war: "while the use of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaust other options before war whenever we can, and carefully weigh the costs and risks of action against the costs and risks of inaction." And when it is necessary, the U.S. "will seek broad international support." While President Bush overstretched our armed forces and American tax payers, this new strategy as the New York Times notes, "describes a coming era in which the United States will have to learn to live within its limits -- a world in which two wars cannot be sustained for much longer and the rising powers inevitably begin to erode some elements of American influence around the globe." The new strategy also demonstrates a much clearer comprehension of the nature of 21st century threats, as Matt Duss explains, "[O]ne of the starkest differences between the Obama administration's new National Security Strategy and the Bush administration's is its tighter focus on Al Qaeda and affiliated extremists, and its recognition that responding to Al Qaeda with fear and overreaction is playing right into Al Qaeda's hands."
AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM: The strategy laid out by the Obama administration firmly recognizes that the United States is without a doubt the world's most powerful and influential country, but to maintain America's exceptional status, the U.S. needs a strategy designed to maintain and enhance America's power and influence. the Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman assesses that "every single focus outlined in the National Security Strategy is about the maintenance of American power on the international stage" in an era of rising powers and transnational threats. In this new more multipolar world, the United States must work to build "a rules-based international system that can advance our own interests by serving mutual interests. International institutions must be more effective and representative of the diffusion of influence in the 21st century. Nations must have incentives to behave responsibly, or be isolated when they do not." As Joe Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund notes, this approach on strengthening the international system and isolating outliers "offers a better chance of containing the Iranian nuclear program than the more unilateralist pursuits of the George W. Bush administration." One of the principle differences in the new strategy is the understanding that one of the central goals of U.S. foreign policy must be to shape "an international order capable of overcoming the challenges of the 21st century." Addressing transnational threats like terrorism, climate change, and nuclear proliferation require gaining the support and buy-in of others, as these challenges cannot be unilaterally solved. This approach clearly understands that the United States cannot do everything, making it critical to get others to do more to share the burden of maintaining the global order. As CAP's Brian Katulis and Nina Hachigian argue, "Today, conservatives talk about an outdated conception of power -- saying that to be safe, the United States must dominate the world. Stuck in a 19th-century mind-set, many conservatives view international rules and institutions as an entangling web of interdependence designed to constrain U.S. freedom of action. ... From this perspective, Washington must alone assume responsibility for global security. ... The new national security strategy will emphasize the importance of getting other countries -- especially emerging powers -- to pull their weight when it comes to these shared problems."
FOLLOW THROUGH: While the strategy lays out a decidedly progressive approach to national security, the real test will come in the months and years ahead. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the new strategy argues the U.S. cannot engage in these wars indefinitely, the administration will have to stick to its strategy to transfer authority to local forces and withdraw American troops. The strategy says that America will increasingly have to live within its means, but that will also mean more seriously confronting bloated defense spending at the Pentagon and rebalancing national security spending. In order to stay true to American values and the rule of law, as the strategy insists is vital for maintaining America's moral authority, the administration will have to actually close Guantanamo. On terrorism, the administration must take continue to take vigorous action to prevent global and homegrown terrorist threat, while at the same time pushing back against those calling for discrimination and racial-profiling. It must also resist approaches that enhance state power at the expense civil liberties. To confront the growing threat of climate change, the administration must continuously push for far reaching action. On Middle East peace, the administration must remain engaged, even-handedly pushing both sides toward a two-state solution. While progress has been achieved to eliminate the danger from nuclear weapons, the harder steps are yet to come. Finally, the administration must be ready to work multilaterally to solve global challenges even when it's difficult. As Obama said, "We will promote these values above all by living them -- through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it's hard; and through our commitment to forever pursue a more perfect union."
No comments:
Post a Comment