President Barack Obama recently released his administration’s National Security Strategy–which outlines his vision for America’s role in the world and presents a broad blueprint for how the country can achieve security. Grand strategy is an academic term used to describe the highest level of statecraft. The theoretical formula for crafting a grand strategy is pretty straightforward: first, you define the interests of the state; second, you identify the threats to those interests; and third, you figure out how to protect and advance those interests using the political, economic, and military resources you have. Crafting an effective grand strategy in the real world, however, is much more difficult because you have to contend with the complex realities of the world: domestic political considerations, irrational dictators, undeterrable non-state actors, limited resources, the media, and a host of other issues.
The National Security Strategy released every so often by the president of the United States is the closest thing to a pure grand strategy document. This is President Obama’s first, and potentially last grand strategy document, if he’s not re-elected in 2012. There’s some very good analysis of his National Security Strategy, such as Peter Feaver’s commentary. I have a few points I would like to address.
Despite the best efforts of the Obama administration, the mainstream media, and Democratic talking heads to paint this strategy as a radical departure from his predecessor, George W. Bush, there is remarkable continuity between the two administrations. Granted, there are major differences in style, but at the end of the day–as painful as it may be for many to admit–the substance is largely the same. Both presidents view the United States as the global leader and find such a role desirable.
The language in Obama’s document is softer, as one might expect, and is characteristic of a liberal Democrat. For example, the document explains that the United States is at war with a “far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” This is code for Islamic extremists, radical Islamists, or whatever you want to call them. This type of obfuscation isn’t helpful, but this is vintage Obama. I’m a firm believer that you should always identify threats in the clearest of terms. It is unclear to me what this type of vague, bureaucratic language gets us. Are extremists going to read this and realize that terrorism is bad? This type of epiphany seems unlikely. Iran is also not mentioned by name, though the current regime is a major threat to U.S.’s interests in the region.
As with so many public policy decisions and documents, the U.S. Constitution is merely an afterthought. Rather than serving as the guiding blueprint for America’s engagement with world, the Obama administration references the Constitution only in the context of the ongoing conflict with Islamic extremists–to assure the world that the U.S. will not overstep its bounds while working to thwart terrorists (i.e., we’ll be sure to Mirandize terrorists every chance we get). For example, the document states: ”Advancing our interests may involve new arrangements to confront threats like terrorism, but these practices and structures must always be in line with our Constitution, preserve our people’s privacy and civil liberties, and withstand the checks and balances that have served us so well.” This is communicated several times throughout the document.
What this latest document highlights is the flawed strategy-making process in Washington. Obama’s team issued the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) earlier this year. The QDR outlines America’s defense policy priorities and objectives. The QDR should be driven, however, by the National Security Strategy. Issuing a QDR prior to issuing a National Security Strategy doesn’t make sense. It’s putting the cart before the proverbial horse. It is the National Security Strategy that should outline America’s grand strategy. The QDR should be a follow-on document that operationalizes the strategy outlined in the National Security Strategy.
A final point has to do with the national debt. You can’t really talk about grand strategy without talking about domestic political realities. After all, we should only engage in foreign affairs in order to secure our national interests. Any talk about debt reduction from this administration is simply disingenuous after their binge-spending sprees during their first 16 months in office. Personally, I believe our current grand strategy is ill-defined, too costly, and unsustainable as a result. I’ve been thinking about this issue for about a year now and I’ll be laying out an alternative vision for American grand strategy in the not too distant future.