National Security Strategy: Derailed by debt?
| Washington
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton laid out a new National Security Strategy Thursday based on what she described as increasing integration of the 鈥渃ritical鈥� three D鈥檚 鈥� defense, diplomacy, and development. But she acknowledged that unless a fourth D 鈥� deficits, or debt 鈥� can be reined in, the Obama administration鈥檚 vision of a 鈥渟marter鈥� definition and deployment of American power won鈥檛 be realized.
鈥淲e cannot sustain this [current] level of deficits and debt without losing our influence and being restrained in the three D鈥檚,鈥� Secretary Clinton said, in unveiling President Obama鈥檚 first National Security Strategy. She spoke before an overflow audience at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
The National Security Strategy, which Congress mandated in a 1986 law, is supposed to be an administration鈥檚 annual statement on the goals of American power, how it will be exercised, and how the administration intends to use America鈥檚 military and diplomatic apparatus to further US security interests.
Perhaps the best-known recent National Security Strategy, or NSS, was the one issued by the Bush administration in 2002 in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. It quickly became summarized in one word: unilateralism.
The Obama strategy may fall victim to the same kind of shorthand and end up reduced to the essence of one of its pillars: multilateralism, or perhaps burden sharing. That term better captures the document鈥檚 theme of America leading but requiring old and new partners to tackle the challenges confronting an increasingly interconnected world.
In her presentation, Clinton emphasized the growing necessity in the 21st century to 鈥渋ntegrate鈥� the various components of national security. She described the NSS as the administration鈥檚 effort to 鈥渂egin to make the case that defense, diplomacy, and development are not separate entities but ... have to be viewed as an integrated whole.鈥�
But she also underscored the essential role that a domestically robust and innovative America plays in ensuring security. She alluded to the emphasis the document places on the threat of extended budget deficits and flagging technological creativity, particularly in the energy field.
(Clinton noted that the ballooning budget deficits, which she said Mr. Obama had 鈥渋nherited鈥� from the previous administration, are a 鈥減ersonally painful issue鈥� for her since her husband, President Clinton, had left office with a budget surplus.)
鈥淧erhaps the most important鈥� point made in the NSS, she said, is that 鈥渢he US must be strong at home in order to be strong abroad鈥� and 鈥渢o be able to project both power and influence.鈥�
Some analysts of Obama鈥檚 first NSS lauded its overall direction while questioning its lack of specifics 鈥� especially in how resources will be managed more efficiently in an era of assumed deficit reduction.
奥补蝉丑颈苍驳迟辞苍鈥檚 Stimson Center applauds the document鈥檚 鈥渘ew tone鈥� in terms of working with allies and strengthening international organizations, but it鈥檚 less positive about what it says is the document鈥檚 failure to either defend increased national security spending or suggest where it can be trimmed.
In an analysis by its Budgeting for Foreign Affairs and Defense program, Stimson says the NSS 鈥渄oes not suggest missions that will not be done or risks we should be prepared to accept鈥� in the name of budget reductions.
At the same time, it says, the document fails to 鈥減rovide a strong defense of the level of foreign policy spending on strengthened diplomacy and foreign assistance.鈥� Some in Congress are calling for major reductions in these areas, the critique notes.
Others say the document fails to draw the conclusions that follow from its own statements. Christopher Preble, director of foreign-policy studies at Washington鈥檚 Cato Institute, says he fully supports the strategy鈥檚 observation that the United States can no longer afford to be the world鈥檚 policeman. But the document stops there, he says, and fails to outline how the US envisions limiting its military reach.
鈥淪o long as the US spends nearly as much on its military as the rest of the world combined,鈥� he says, 鈥渁nd as long as it deploys its military in ways that discourage other countries from defending themselves, Americans will continue to shoulder the burdens of policing the planet.鈥�
Related:
