My CNAS
colleague Patrick Cronin sat in
yesterday on Pentagon strategist Amanda Dory's conversation with some bloggers.
Here is his report.
By Patrick M. Cronin
Director,
Best Defense office of plans and strategy
We live in a dangerous world. That was certainly the conviction of
President W. Bush after September 11, 2001. And it would appear to be the major
presumption of President Barack Obama. According to Amanda Dory, deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, who yesterday reached out to the blogosphere
via teleconference, the White House's recently released National Security Strategy hammers home the
threat posed by transnational terrorism but also places greater emphasis on
linkages with the weapons of mass destruction. Issues such as the danger
posed by fissile materials that are not locked down and the risk posed by
biological weapons are highlighted in the new document. Hence, terrorism
remains a focal point of American security, albeit now fitting into a wider and
more complex security panorama.
Among possible differences between the rhetoric of the National Security Strategy
and the reality of national security and defense policy, five points might be
offered:
- The National Security Strategy, echoing the QDR, underscores the critical
importance of overseas engagement with allies and partners, as well as regional
and international institutions that over time become far more capable than they
are today. Yet making traditional alliances like NATO or the U.S.-Japan
alliance more effective and durable may well be more challenging than supposed.
There is also a problem of sheer time management, because traditional
alliances have a welter of consultative machinery that requires a good deal of
care and attention.
- A second cluster of issues concerns U.S. relations with partners and
erstwhile adversaries. Iran's recent diplomatic gambit over nuclear fuel
and North Korea's recent use of force at once demonstrate just how difficult it
is to implement the sensible precepts of the National Security Strategy.
Another issue in both documents arises from the largely unspoken tension
between growing partnerships with major powers like China and Russia, from whom
threats could emerge in new domains, especially cyberspace and space.
Clearly a public strategy document is not the place to harp on such
complexities, but reconciling these dueling aspects of relations with the same
countries is likely to bedevil putting the words into action.
- A third issue not highlighted (for understandable reasons) has to do with
unexpected contingencies. The document does an admirable job at
discerning trends. It makes only veiled hints at how much elasticity is
left for shocks or "black swans," those rare events that often end up defining
an era or in this case an administration's security policy. There is
considerable anxiety in political circles about the impact of a terrorist
attack on the homeland, and this document rightly places homeland security and
our society's resilience on the very top of national priorities.
- A fourth issue concerns the gap between ends and means, especially when it
comes to the U.S. budget. A great deal of the National Security Strategy
focuses on the economy and the need for the United States to get a grip on its
long-term deficits that could erode its power. But although Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates has recently spoken out about keeping down defense
spending, his previous budgets have not exactly emphasized fiscal austerity.
- Finally, the National Security Strategy barely mentions the subject of
strategic communications. What gives? According to deputy assistant
Secretary Dory, it remains up to each department and agency to execute policy
and articulate it in what she dubbed a 'federated approach.' At the same
time, she pledged, the State Department is in process of shoring up public
diplomacy and the Department of Defense will continue to grapple with strategic
communications. Surely her deft outreach on the National Security
Strategy might well be viewed as a welcome sign that the White House and the
Pentagon, at least, appear to be working from the same playbook.
Read More
(4)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE