Elaine McCusker
First, a few positive observations. The strategy is, well, positive. It has the inspirational, can-do tone that is useful for us all to keep in mind. Optimism and resilience are things Americans tend to share, so it is good to see them captured here. The NSS also rightly emphasizes the importance of the digital environment—as a threat and as something in which we must operate, trade, and connect. It clearly states that the US is a global power, with global responsibilities. It does not clearly state that it is important to resource the military for the tasks and presence required to support those responsibilities.
Second, the strategy bluntly declares what had previously been strongly implied and directed through the budget submissions. Everything is national security. Domestic issues are national security. Environmental issues are national security. Social issues are national security. Once dividing lines are broken down between foreign and domestic policy, the strategy points to “far-reaching investments here at home in our industrial and innovation base that will increase our competitiveness and better position us to deal with everything from climate to global health, to food security, to energy.”
Does this translate into a further blurring of the lines and budgets between defense and non-defense programs and activities, possibly leading to abandonment of budget “parity” between the two? This could certainly help the administration further diminish actual military capabilities as a priority, which has been their poorly disguised intent all along.
As a reminder, the entire federal government is currently operating under a continuing resolution awaiting congressional attention on a budget agreement and full-year appropriations. Though some of the most contentious issues may fall outside dollars and cents, setting final budget top lines for defense and non-defense is always an issue.
Third, it is difficult to read the repeated emphasis on human rights and human dignity and the importance of supporting women and girls without noticing that Afghanistan, and the plight of its population under the Taliban, particularly women and girls, is as horrible as we knew it would be. In fact, Afghanistan is mentioned in the strategy only as an aside related to over-the-horizon counterterrorism. Continued statements about “standing with” the people around the world on human rights ring hollow without any consequential outcomes for those under oppression and constant threat of death.
Fourth, as one of its three lines of effort, the NSS discusses the importance of modernizing and strengthening the US military and the oft-repeated Integrated Deterrence approach. It also repeats the intent expressed in the interim guidance that the military is a last resort and to be used “only when the objectives and mission are clear and achievable, consistent with our values and laws, alongside non-military tools, and the mission is undertaken with the informed consent of the American people.”
It is hard to argue with much of that, but it does continue placing military capability at the back of a long line of resourcing priorities. During the strategy roll-out National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan was asked to describe in more detail the president’s vision about modernizing the military. His response described strategy and resourcing alignment in vague terms while pointing to other forthcoming documents—Nuclear Posture Review, Missile Defense Review and the unclassified National Defense Strategy—where he indicated we would “see the ways in which we have tried to fit together the broad National Security Strategy with a National Defense Strategy built on the notion of integrated deterrence and on this notion of modernizing.” Not a response that instills much confidence that the person who is in charge of advising the president on defense issues is really interested in talking much about them.
Lastly, can anyone question the White House priority on climate? As it is mentioned 67 times in the 48-page document and touted as an “existential challenge of our time,” probably not.
Taken as a whole, though it contains some useful insights into White House thinking, the new NSS seems hardly worth the wait.
No comments:
Post a Comment