Obama to Unveil National Security Strategy
Voice of America
President Barack Obama is set to present his plan to deal with foreign policy concerns, ranging from the Islamic State to the rise of China, in a report to lawmakers.
No major policy changes are expected to be unveiled Friday in the 33-page National Security Strategy document.
Some Republican lawmakers have criticized Obama for what they feel is an insufficient response to global threats, including the Islamic State group and Russia's actions in Ukraine.
In a brief introduction to the report, President Obama defended his policies. "In a complex world, many of the security problems we face do not lend themselves to quick and easy fixes," he said.
Obama's introduction affirmed the importance of American leadership in the 21st century and said the U.S. will continue to fight extremists. But he also warned against "the overreach that comes when we make decisions based on fear."
Under a 1986 law, the president is required to submit a National Security Strategy to Congress every year, though in practice this is usually only done periodically.
The president last submitted the strategy document in 2010. Since then, he has pulled U.S. troops from Iraq and begun to wind down the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.
But Obama now faces the question of how to deal with Islamic State extremists that have taken over large parts of Iraq and Syria and committed mass atrocities there.
White House officials are also considering providing weapons to the Ukrainian government to help in Kyiv's battle against pro-Russia separatists.
Such concerns have overshadowed President Obama's attempt to focus U.S. diplomatic, security and economic attention on Asia, where the rise of China has rattled many U.S. allies.
White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice will deliver a speech in Washington Friday that is expected to lay out the president's foreign policy plans for his final two years in office.
Comments
One of the reasons the NSS got it wrong on Russia---some see it as well as I do--we are in fact already at war with Russia and the US leadership seems to have "missed it".
Remember war in the 21st century has and does take many different forms and does not have to be tank on tank as is in the Ukraine. That simple fact got lost in the diffuse debate on what is or is not a hybrid war.
If one goes back and reviews articles and various comments on "hybrid warfare" just how many of those articles and or comments do in fact point to specific phases of the Russian UW strategy to support their arguments?--no one does that but yet to discuss "hybrid warfare" it requires an intense understanding of those eight phases and how they support each other which allows then an extremely effective political warfare to unfold.
‘The West and Russia are already at war’. An interview with NYU’s Mark Galeotti https://meduza.io/en/feature/2015/02/13/the-west-and-russia-are-already… …
Bill C.: I think one would be hard pressed to identify a former POTUS with whom President Obama contrasts more sharply than President Eisenhower. President Eisenhower's foreign policy was distinctly realist, while President Obama's has been pretty consistently constructivist. I also think you've introduced a logical paradox with your citation of President Obama's "tolerance of diversity"; while I realize that his policies champion diversity in an American context, making women's and LGBT issues a central tenet of his national security policy is, quite frankly, rather culturally imperialistic, and intolerant of foreign value systems which, for better or for worse, treat these issues much differently than do Americans. If there's one single element of the current administration's foreign policy which could accurately be described as "attempting to transform outlying states more along Western cultural and social lines", it's this issue.
And all of that skirts around my original thoughts and your own conclusion: "we're going to lead by example" isn't really a national security policy. The 2015 NSS lacks the sort of quasi-actionable guidance that is meant to guide the Executive Branch's national security contributors. To quote James Joyner, <A HREF="http://warontherocks.com/2015/02/is-obama-realist-confused/">writing for War on the Rocks</A> (which doesn't tend to be a conservative outlet): "The Obama administration’s updated National Security Strategy (NSS), released Friday morning, has been widely panned by defense analysts, including yours truly, as a wish list lacking in strategy, being overly focused on placating the U.S. domestic audience, and 'really just a PR exercise.'"
Regarding the "domestic" focus of the 2010 and 2015 NSSs -- as discussed by "thedrosophil" below -- should we see the decision by Obama to use this approach through the following lens; which seems to emphasize persuasion by "example" rather than coercion via force:
"This did not mean that the United States had to dominate the world in order to be secure in it. Both Eisenhower and Dulles saw the capacity to tolerate diversity as a strength, one not shared by the Russians. 'We do not assume that we have any mandate to run the world,' the Secretary of State insisted. 'Nothing indeed would be less in keeping with our traditions and our ideals.' Eisenhower was particularly sensitive to the possibility that the United States might become too overbearing in its dealings with other countries. 'We are so proud of our guarantees of freedom in thought and speech and worship,' he wrote in a note to himself early in 1954, 'that, unconsciously, we are guilty of one of the greatest errors that ignorance can make -- we assume that our standard of values is shared by all other humans in the world.' Later that year, he resorted to a military analogy to make the same point: 'A platoon leader doesn't get his platoon to go that way by getting up and saying, 'I am smarter, I am bigger, I am stronger, I am the leader.' He gets men to go with him because they want to do it for him, because they believe in him."
(From page 130 of the paperback edition of John Lewis Gaddis' "Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar [WWII] American National Security Policy," Oxford University Press 1982.)
Thus, the distinction between (a) the NSSs offered by earlier post-Cold War presidents and (b) the 2010 and present national security strategies offered by President Obama being that:
a. The former presidents' approach were characterized by such (self-defeating?) ideas as (1) a mandate to run the world, (2) chest thumping accordingly and (3) a non-tolerance of diversity; all of which Eisenhower and Dulles associated with the Soviet Union and its strategy of "expansion." While,
b. The latter (Obama's NSSs) being more in-line with a tolerance of diversity, a view that one had no need -- or implied right -- to "run" the world and that, accordingly, "leadership by example" (the platoon leader approach) was, thus, the right way to go. (Thus, ideas and concepts favored by Eisenhower.)
These such ideas (see "b" immediately above) causing Obama to determine that our/his national security strategies must be focused more on getting our own house (rather than someone else's) in order. Thus, the "domestic" focus/emphasis?
To sum up: Desired ends? To be able to achieve what we want in the world (peace, prosperity, security, maintaining, expanding and improving our way of life); this, by leading from the front and, this, by leading by example.
When one reads the NSS concerning Russia and then reads the various items below one really does wonder exactly what world the NSC lives in.
With the President's remark it is even more interesting simply because if one has been following first the Soviet Union from say 1990 onwards and then Russia --it has always been expansionist especially in the period of 1990-1993 when it put down various East Bloc nation moves to leave the SU.
If one reads the 1990 article then you actually do see when compared to current events a "plan" that Putin is working one AND if you fully have read and understood Dugin their chief ideologue's Russian fascism articles he has written over the years AND if you are fully aware of Russian support for the ultra right wing nationalist parties in all of Europe then why would the current Russian activities have been a "surprise" to anyone in the NSC.
It has been over the last six years amazing just how little this NSC understands both the ME and Russia.
Notice that in fact Russia is in the actual process of militarily annexing eastern Ukraine and yet this WH and this NSC somehow ignores using the "word annexation via the Russian Army" when it talks about Putin or the Russian Army activities inside the Ukraine.
Assume Putin is running off of Eduard Volodin's 1990 proposal: what then? pic.twitter.com/OayDqHlD3Y
US Army Europe comdr Ben Hodges: Russian troops intervening directly in fighting in Debaltseve http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ukraine-peace-talks/article2290… … pic.twitter.com/E3Wl9dY4DH
Obama says a weak Russian economy is bad for the US because it could make Russia "revert to old expansionist ideas." http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/buzzfeed-news-interview-president-obam… …
Russia is carrying out what increasingly resembles a full-scale military occupation of sovereign Ukrainian territory http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/11/politics/ukraine-disconnect/index.html …
So after reading the Russian portion of he NSS does the WH and the NSC now have to rewrite it after the below.
Seems as if Russia is not adhering to the from them signed Minsk Agreement which states publicly for all to see Ukraine is to regain control over the Russian Ukrainian border and the check points.
So since we seem to have thought it was a Russian incursion instead of an invasion is this then the Russian annexation of eastern Ukraine and what about the threat that have been growing for the Baltics in the last months?
#Lavrov says #Ukraine trying to restore full control over border with #Russia is 'unrealistic' as condition for peace deal -Reuters
So what it is to be more talk that has led to nothing or finally defensive weapons in order to simply defend one's sovereignty?
Bill M--this is what the NSS seems to have forgotten concerning Russian--and if you read through it seems to miss the all important issue--current Russian leadership is massively swayed by a Russian form of fascism that in the West is being overlooked as the key influencer.
The "dog whistle" politics of Eurasianism: Mackinder, Dugin and Putin. Fascinating piece by @charles_clover http://shar.es/1oKvBq
Must read from @BillBrowder. Putin will go all in until the bitter end no matter the costs to Russia. http://www.institutionalinvestorsalpha.com/Article/3426269/Unhedged-Com…
This is playing on Russian TV Channel 5 for the May 9 Victory Day celebrations—while funny it is a massive but not so subtle threat that I have never seen on Russian TV since 1994.
"It seems we haven't been in Berlin for a while? It's time for a friendly visit!" - enjoy Russian @5tv_news report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KGa9baVh2k …
White House account of the call last night: Readout of the President's Call with President Putin of Russia : http://wh.gov/ib4B0
and the Kremlin's version: Telephone conversation with President of the United States Barack Obama http://eng.news.kremlin.ru/news/23588
And there is no two different planets between the US and Russia?
We talk a lot about hybrid warfare and the NATO Article 5 but we are already there. The talk here in SWJ about the Baltics--it is already now happening and yet the West assumes Putin will stop-he will not.
Latvian PM "Elements of Hybrid warfare are already There" http://www.eurointegration.com.ua/news/2015/02/1
Just a side comment do a word search on Islam and you might if lucky find it mentioned just 2 or 3 times in the entire section referencing IS then do a word such on the standard US "feel good" words and there must be about 80-120 mentioned in the entire NSS.
While it is say a high level document intended to state say an overview while everything else on implementation is "hidden" my and others complaints are even the high view is totally weak and does not actually address the serious security concerns of say the last two years reference IS and Russia.
There should have been also a stronger nuclear weapons section as that is staring us in the face with a 380B modernization bill as our nuclear capabilities are aging far more than this WH wants us to know. currently the new Russian weapons are far more advanced and they have removed MAD from the table--noticed nothing about that in the NSS.
If one goes back to say the NSS from 2010---just barely a paragraph on Russia and what we are seeing was already in gear from the Russians starting in 2008---ever wonder why.
Sounds strange but a hardcore Democrat who bashed Bush for years stated the other day during a meeting--that this has been for the last six years a disaster at the NSC/WH levels and even Bush was more focused.
Notice how even in this thread we seem to ignored the just what the heck is "strategic patience"?
But if we see that this WH tends to "wait out problems" then just maybe "strategic patience" means if we wait long enough the problem will simply disappear---let's just focus on the massive Syrian failure as a great example of this "patience" and the lack of serious attention.
260K killed, 2M refugees outside Syria, 1M internal on the move, Assad still in power, red lines in the sand, chemical gas used on civilians and still being used, barrel bombs and countless air strikes on civilians---so exactly what has been achieved by this WH?
Then go back into the document and one finds it is just a "buzz word". or "feel good" word.
I can take this list further.
Bill--will throw out the following about the NSS and something that is being spoken about very quietly in the halls of DoD---the apparent disconnect between the NCA and the senior military leadership and it started about three years ago.
If you look at the Russian comments by the JCoS and the ACos and then the SACEUR there is in fact a military opinion that is being voiced and another voice on the subject coming out of the NCS/NCA.
That in itself it normal for a civilian controlled military but the RUMINT in DoD is that this is far more serious and has been building.
Does Obama/WhiteHouse even care what their own US commanders say about separatists?! … pic.twitter.com/ILS94nueOS
https://twitter.com/myroslawabrulak/status/565912911378657280/photo/1
I certainly won't defend the politically correct crap in the NSS like the LGBT point. Want to see how that is playing out, just look at Uganda. An important partner that doesn't like America telling them how they should treat their gay population. You're right about the law, but does it make sense to produce a new strategy every year? That sounds more like crisis action planning than strategy production. If you want to see one that will give you a good laugh, read Clinton's NSS. Not unlike Obama's it reads half strategy, half platform speech.
To your questions.
"I would hope that you would acknowledge that, given that it's a National Security Strategy, the plurality of its attention should be focused upon objectives for which the Department of Defense will necessarily serve as the lead agency for action."
I am not sure, I would assume it depends upon what you're defending/securing and from what or whom? The economy? Critical infrastructure? A nuclear attack? I think there should be enough flexibility to allow for different approaches, not just a military one. I think we have been spoiled in a way from have a national strategy focused on containment against one principle adversary. We don't live that world anymore, so we must be prepared for a broader range of threats.
The platform speech aspect of the strategy pretty much white washed the challenges we face regarding ISIS/DAESH, or the Scarborough Shoal standoff, or (at the risk of drawing the attention of you-know-who) the Crimean/East Ukraine disputes. It described a world that doesn't exist, where the previously NSS Obama published stated we had to deal with the world as it really is. I like his recent talking points that we don't have to treat everything as a crisis that requires a military response, but it amazing how quick political pundits attack that message in the media. They generate unnecessary fear to gain political power, so we need to question if a political system like ours would even permit a rational strategy?
"We might see some requisite proactivity in future administrations where it has been lacking previously. Thoughts?"
We might, but will it be based on commonsense or a strategy to generate more political power at home by created bad guys we have to go slay? In some respects I think Obama is demonstrating moral courage by trying to disengage from some problems, but in other cases it appears to be the exact opposite.
Bill C.: My disagreement with your oft-repeated charge about "transforming outlying states and societies more along modern western lines" aside, you're confusing ends and ways. "Transforming outlying states and societies more along modern western lines", as you so frequently phrase it, is not an objective in its own right, it is one hypothetical method of achieving a broader strategic objective. A method is a <I>way</I>, an objective is an <I>end</I>, and <I>means</I> are the resources by which ways/methods are enabled in order to achieve ends/objectives. The NSS is meant to provide a somewhat broad overview of those objectives, though narrow enough to be useful in the subsequent determination of ways and means. Instead, this NSS works toward two domestic political goals: reinforcing the White House's relationships with several of its key constituencies, and working to counter the GOP's frequent charge that the Obama Administration has no strategy and/or plan to address America's national security challenges. Those political goals are not the purpose of the NSS: although the NSS will be a somewhat political document by nature, it's not an adjunct to the State of the Union address. Rather, it's an administrative document meant to provide guidance to agencies within the Executive Branch. My point is that while this NSS may contribute to those electoral goals, it does not accomplish the administrative goal which it is meant by law to accomplish.
Bill M.: FWIW, I understand that the NSS is meant to be broader ("whole of government") than simply a plan for the use of force - as you rightly note, we have a National Defense Strategy and a National Military Strategy which are meant to provide additional granularity along those lines. Obviously, the NSS is meant to provide guidance in order that the various Executive Branch players - purveyors of what people tend to call "DIME" these days - can play (mostly) from the same sheet of music. I would hope that you would acknowledge that, given that it's a National <I>Security</I> Strategy, the plurality of its attention should be focused upon objectives for which the Department of Defense will necessarily serve as the lead agency for action. Of course, much of this is germane to the topic: my criticism of <I>this</I> NSS is that, like the last one, it fails to provide a useful focus on national security goals, and instead lumps in a number of other special interests. For example, as legitimate an objective as "leading the international community to prevent and respond to... gender-based violence and discrimination against LGBT persons" may be, I don't know of any legitimate foreign policy expert who would describe these as "strategic issues".
I would also propose for your consideration, the following hypothesis: given that the NSS is required by law to be updated annually, perhaps it <I>should</I> include more granularity, such as broad-ish objectives with respect to ISIS/DAESH, or the Scarborough Shoal standoff, or (at the risk of drawing the attention of you-know-who) the Crimean/East Ukraine disputes. In the case of the current Administration, a constant and, in my opinion, legitimate criticism is that the White House has been reactive, rather than proactive, in its foreign policy. Were an annual NSS to become a hard requirement, as opposed to the current practice of one per term in office (plus the de facto addendum the White House published in early 2012), we might see some requisite proactivity in future administrations where it has been lacking previously. Thoughts?
Bill C.,
After looking at Gulliver's article (he doesn't have a clue), the post above yours, and Outlaws I think most critics are missing the point. A NSS strategy is a whole of government strategy, not a military strategy (we have one of those too). It provides broad and enduring guidance, enduring be key (it shouldn't focus on episodic threats like Ukraine, IS, etc., again we'll develop strategies for those that should nest with the broader NSS). As for the four enduring national interests, which Gulliver questions, they are all identified in our founding documents.
It is far from a perfect document, but it does provide a broad framework to identify what we as a nation desire to see (desired system). Gulliver asks if the international order really matters? Of course you harp on this on the time, to the point of neurosis actually. Yes, in an increasingly globalized world where everything and everyone is increasingly connected it is essential to our security and prosperity.
Do we have to spread democracy and free markets? I think that is a high risk approach, and in some countries democracy will result in little more than mob rule. In the long term, if we can help build the human capital through education around the world, democracy as a system may be able to expand without excessive instability. Countries like China prefer to deal with corrupt governments that they can pay off to pursue their interests. We used to do the same during the Cold War, but we don't default to the simple way anymore unless we absolutely have to. I think that is a good thing.
Should we see the difference, the distinction, between what Obama is offering (emphasis on the domestic side, peace and strategic patience) and what the neocons/hawks want (emphasis on the foreign side, war and more immediate action) through the lens of:
a. Obama suggesting that a project to, sooner rather than later, transform outlying states and societies more along modern western lines; this is strategically imprudent given that (1) such a project will cost more that the United States can bear and (2) is likely to achieve, if hurried, counterproductive results. Thus, the emphasis on domestic improvements, example and strategic patience re: the goal of achieving favorable outlying state and societal transformations.
b. The neocons/hawks, on the other hand, suggesting that our national security policy and strategy must focus on making the rest of the world like us and, this, sooner rather than later. And that, accordingly, emphasis must be placed on (a) a very strong, robust and capable military/industrial complex and (b) more aggressive actions; both of which will be needed to make these transformations happen -- sooner rather than later -- in places like the Middle East and the Russian borderlands.
(Note here that the desired "ends" of both Obama and the neocons/hawks appear to be the same. The difference/distinction being on how, when and what it will take to "get there.")
When the White House published its previous NSS in 2010, "Gulliver" at the Ink Spots blog published a post entitled "<A HREF="http://tachesdhuile.blogspot.com/2010/05/2010-national-security-strateg… 2010 National Security Strategy sucks, and I'm gonna tell you why</A>". The author argued that because the White House had presented virtually every element of its domestic agenda as being endemic to national security, the 2010 NSS didn't actually amount to much. Having looked through the fact sheet, my impression is that one could make precisely the same observations today that "Gulliver" elucidated five years ago. As with the prior edition, this document appears to be primarily for domestic consumption, rather than serving as a coherent outline of desired ends from whence to define corresponding ways and allocate corresponding means.
Well worth the read as it concerns our strategy failures in the Ukraine.
As he alludes as I do often here will NATO actually pull the Article 5 trigger when a bunch of Russian speakers roam the streets of Riga complaining about the Russian language and their culture being discriminated against---and they will not pull the trigger.
http://20committee.com/2015/02/08/is-this-the-end-of-nato/
Taken from the article:
To be fair to Europe, Washington, DC, has hardly been telegraphing resolve either. My proposal to send Ukraine defensive weaponry, which looked like it might be in the offing, by this weekend looked dead, though this White House sends so many mixed messages one can never be exactly sure. Late this week, the Obama administration unveiled its new National Security Strategy, amid less than fanfare, with the execrable Susan Rice explaining in “remain calm, all is well!” fashion that things are really much better globally than they look. This White House’s new foreign policy mantra is Strategic Patience, which seems to be the been-to-grad-school version of “don’t do stupid shit.” Since nobody inside the Beltway is taking this eleventh-hour effort to articulate Obama’s security strategy seriously, it’s doubtful anyone abroad, much less in Moscow, will either.
It’s therefore unsurprising that European leaders are in full-panic mode about what Putin will do next. The serious possibility that the Chekist-in-Charge in the Kremlin will seek more provocations, and possibly a major war, to achieve his strategic aim of establishing Russian control over the former Soviet space and therefore dominance over Eastern Europe, is reducing weak-willed Western leaders like Merkel and Hollande to political incoherence.
It seems to have never occurred to them, nor Obama and his national security staff either, that crushing the Russian economy with sanctions might bring more, not less, aggression from Putin, even though that was an obvious possibility. Jaws dropped this week when Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who until recently was NATO’s civilian head, stated that it is highly likely that Russia will soon stage a violent provocation against a Baltic state, which being NATO countries, will cause a crisis over the Alliance’s Article 5 provision for collective self-defense. Rasmussen merely said what all defense experts who understand Putin already know, but this was not the sort of reality-based assessment that Western politicians are used to hearing.
This goes to an utter lack of a ME strategy by the US and that is even reflected in this new so called strategy.
A must read - How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS http://thebea.st/1zsa724
But a strategy it is not as it somehow misses the reality of the world around us in the 21st century.
Recommended: Obama's new 2015 National Security Strategy bears very little relation to reality, says @elilake http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-06/obama-s-middle-east-fa… …
War in Ukraine Direct Result of Russia’s Turn to Fascism, Eidman Says http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2015/02/war-in-ukraine-direct-resu… …
The first link takes you to a NSS fact sheet. Highlights follow the link.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/06/fact-sheet-2015-n…
The strategy sets out the principles and priorities that describe how America will lead the world toward greater peace and a new prosperity.
We will lead with purpose, guided by our enduring national interests and values and committed to advancing a balanced portfolio of priorities worthy of a great power.
•We will lead with strength, harnessing a resurgent economy, increased energy security, an unrivaled military, and the talent and diversity of the American people.
•We will lead by example, upholding our values at home and our obligations abroad.
•We will lead with capable partners, mobilizing collective action and building partner capacity to address global challenges.
•We will lead with all instruments of U.S. power, leveraging our strategic advantages in diplomacy, development, defense, intelligence, science and technology, and more.
•We will lead with a long-term perspective, influencing the trajectory of major shifts in the security landscape today in order to secure our national interests in the future.
It addresses the four enduring NSS interests:
We will advance the security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners by: . . . .
We will advance a strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity by: . . . .
We will advance respect for universal values at home and around the world by: . . . .
We will advance an international order that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges by: . . . .
The following link takes you to the actual strategy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_securi…