In the Beginning…
In 1986, the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Department Reorganization Act called on, "[t]he President [to] transmit to Congress each year a comprehensive report on the national security strategy of the United States." This report has thus become an annual requirement of administrations to provide Congress with a roadmap for U.S. strategic security.
These reports are typically amplifying in nature, rarely revealing anything new. Instead these documents consolidate together a general strategic security picture that the administration is currently focused on. Additionally, these reports have always been developed during times of peace, however, in September of 2002, for the first time, a national security strategy (NSS) was developed and presented to Congress during a time of war- the Global War on Terror (GWOT).
It was this report, a product of a post-9/11 mindset, which was faced with a proverbial fork in the road. It could either continue with the status quo of presenting a generic strategic plan restating existing positions or it could lay the groundwork for what would be the evolution of a new U.S. security doctrine, following in the footsteps of Presidents like Wilson and F. D. Roosevelt.
This essay will look at the Bush Administration’s initial report, the National Security Strategy of the United States, and examine the core values, priorities and threats envisioned within. An analysis will be made on the principles and positions of this document with an effort made to deconstruct key messages on processes, ideals, tactics and the concept of dealing with risk. This piece intends to show several key structural differences, the first being the core values, followed by an examination of the document’s security priorities, succeeded by the focus on strategic threats and the perceived solutions as presented by the strategy, and concluding with the cohesiveness of the document in general and the overall strategic picture laid out.
In the end, it will be evident that Bush’s NSS shows a dramatic focus on war-time goals and a true strategic picture for dealing with the current GWOT. When viewed in the same light as the other NSS’s that have been promulgated over the years, Bush’s strategy looks ideological, radical and aggressive. However, when viewed through the lens of war, the document presents an asymmetrical, multilateral approach to global security.
Adapting to Constraints…
Before delving into the specifics of the strategic plan, the perspective for which it is to be reviewed needs explanation. As stated earlier, the impact of history is enormous on Presidents and their developments in national security. Just as important is the ideological perception they have on international relations. Couple this with the enormity of the position as well as their capacity in rational decision making and a coherent security policy posture for deciding action becomes apparent.
It is this posture, using Alexander George’s value-conflict resolution model within the analytical mode of value-complexity along with his uncertainty device of ideology & general principles as guides to action that will provide the focus on the document’s base-point and strategic mindset. This will allow for an accurate critique of how Bush deals with the known and unknown respectively, and presents this solution in the NSS. Clausewitzian concepts such as center of gravity, the culminating point of victory and the asymmetrical relationship between offense & defense will also be used in defining key areas of the strategy.
The Semantics of Goals and Objectives-Core Values…
The Bush NSS consists of 12,748 words in 35 pages. It has a three page introductory letter from the President followed by a two-page overview of America’s international strategy, which is then divided and addressed in eight sections. The document presents two distinct frames of minds, one being a decidedly power-based tone involving the U.S. military, intelligence, and national assets for homeland defense. The second is its ideological tone, focusing on moral and value issues. These two elements of the document are then meshed together in a rather symbiotic relationship, both supporting and elevating each other.
The first sentence of the document boldly states that, "[the] great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom - and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise." While this looks to be simple rhetoric, it emphatically states that not only is the Cold War over, but the post-Cold war era of uncertainty is also at an end. The statement also points out one model of "national success" through the values of freedom, democracy and free enterprise.
In fact, the word freedom is used fives times in the first paragraph alone. Couple this with the other words of liberty, democracy, free enterprise, etc; all of which literally saturate the beginning of the document with moral values, calls for the removal of borders for such values and charges that these values, "are right and true for every person, in every society." It then affirms, "the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages." This becomes the over-arching goal of the document and the strategy in general.
The second paragraph presents how this goal will be achieved through two key elements of the strategy; one is the affirmation of the United States’, "unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence" and proposes to, "create a balance of power that favors human freedom." This obviously proclaims and intends to perpetuate America’s role as a global hegemon with the stated objectives, the second element of the strategy, being to, "defend this just peace against threats from terrorists and tyrants… preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers… [and] extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent."
These first two paragraphs proscribe the goal of the U.S., the strategic environment necessary for this goal, and the objectives for shaping this environment accordingly. Specifically, the NSS presents a goal of universal liberty and freedom-the core values, through U.S. global hegemony-its priorities, that will defend, preserve and extend world peace from terrorism & tyrants- the threat.
Hegemony Stability Theory (HST) at Work-Priorities…
John Lewis Gaddis presents an interesting analysis on the subject of hegemony. According to Gaddis, an innovation within the NSS is its development on great power cooperation. He breaks it up into two parts, the first being, "that other great powers prefer management of the international system by a single hegemon as long as it's a relatively benign one." The second part is that, "U.S. hegemony is also acceptable because it's linked with certain values that all states and cultures—if not all terrorists and tyrants—share." He backs up his second point with a quote from the NSS stating, "[n]o people on earth yearn to be oppressed, aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police." Gaddis states that based on a speech Bush gave at West Point on June 1st of 2002 along with the language of the NSS, this, "association of power with universal principles…that will cause other great powers to go along with whatever the United States has to do to preempt terrorists and tyrants, even if it does so alone."
This is an interesting premise that Gaddis presents, but not entirely accurate, both on a theoretical level as well as based on language within the document itself. There is agreement with the analysis that Bush wants and needs to maintain U.S. hegemony, he states as much in the second paragraph of the introduction. However, the qualifier of being benign seems inadequate when the document contains language focusing on preventing any other state, "from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States," or U.S. military development objectives for dissuading future military competition. Benign or not, the U.S. considers its position in the world as a national interest and its focus is to maintain that position.
On the theoretical level, even though the document uses some words repeatedly and thus presenting the core values of the strategy, the school of thought guiding this security strategy is very clear. For instance, "freedom", "liberty" and "prosperity" are used throughout the document 46, 11 and 11 times respectively. "Security", "terrorism" and "defense" dominate the NSS 70, 32 and 27 times respectively. Other terms used in the document are as follows: "peace"- 28 times; "threats"- 19 times; "intelligence"- 18 times; "economics"-40 times; "multilateral", "bilateral" and "unilateral"- 10, 12 and 6 times respectively. The Bush NSS is a neo-realist document that does not ignore the concept of power, far from it, but revolves around security. These words within the document present the core values of the United States, the concept of liberty and freedom are dearly held by the American people, but the focus of security in the strategy cannot be overstated. More importantly, HST is obviously a major priority in the strategic plan laid out. HST allows the U.S. to decisively lead and proactively participate in multilateral coalitions, it permits a simpler path to unilateral action when necessary, and it grants additional capabilities for asymmetrical warfare.
The 3 T’s-Threats…
Refocusing on the premise of hegemony, the NSS looks to use the environment of U.S. global hegemony to deal with what Jean-Yves Haine’s and Gustav Lindstrom’s call in their An analysis of The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, the 3T’s- terrorism, tyranny and technology. The symbolism and simplicity of the 3T’s is an excellent tool for analyzing the NSS, therefore this essay will adopt it for this purpose. The NSS diverts from past security strategies in that it states that the nature of the enemy has changed. It points out that, "[e]nemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank." It continues with, "[t]he gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction…" Finally the document specifies that, "[t]he United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them."
Clausewitz wrote in his strategic manual On War, considered by many to be the quintessential military strategic guide today, about a concept associated with momentum and strategic focus. He called it the Center of Gravity or Schwerpunkt in his native Prussian tongue, and it generally means the most important source of that side's strength. On a strategic level, it can be the enemy’s military forces, his capital, or something less tangible like the common interest of an alliance or even public opinion. This strategy considers the interrelation of terrorism, tyranny and technology to be the enemy’s center of gravity. The focus of the document is to identify the relationship between each and essentially divide and conquer.
Terrorism
"The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism - premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents." This statement defines the exact nature of the enemy while maintaining enough ambiguity to be far reaching. It accepts and proposes a definition of terrorism and specifies who and what a terrorist is. On a tactical level, this is the most important sentence within the strategy. It addresses every element of the 3T’s and as alluded earlier, it supports the premise of how the nature of the enemy has changed from standard, conventional state armies to an underground network of individuals.
The document specifies three actions for disrupting and destroying terrorist organizations. The first is by, "direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and international power," focusing immediately on, "those terrorist organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or their precursors." Terrorism is the vehicle of attack for the enemy. It focuses on creating catastrophic damage, less so on a material level as on a psychological one. It is a scare tactic of immense proportions, with the intention of crushing the will of the people and forcing them to capitulate to the demands of the terrorist group. Therefore, this first action is to focus on the vehicle of the 3T’s and remove that capability of the enemy.
The second action is an extremely controversial one, as it calls for, "defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders," immediately implying the use of force overseas. However, it is the following, which is qualified with a preference of international support, that draws concern and it is the element of preemption- "[w]hile the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country." This is the first time the concept of preemption is used in the NSS. Because of the controversial nature of preemption, it will be covered in more depth later on, but in short here, it calls for the use of force against threats before they fully materialize.
Finally, the third action calls for, "denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities." This is an important element of the strategy in that it automatically ties the state to the terrorist group, and their actions, or for that matter inaction, can make them culpable for the terrorist act.
Tyranny
While terrorism is the vehicle, tyranny is the fuel. America’s disdain of tyrannical states and actors is not new, but in the post 9/11 mindset of the document, it creates an environment that is no longer acceptable. Specifically, this strategy focuses on the shift from powerful tyrants to weak ones. This example is made in the NSS, "The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders." Destitution, lack of hope, and no ability to change a people’s future creates a setting in which terrorist groups are capable of recruiting members, financial support and protection. This is another important element, further showing the alliance of tyranny with terrorism.
Rouge states are given special consideration in the NSS with the document giving some examples of their tyranny by stating that, "[tyrannical] states: brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers; display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party; are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes; sponsor terrorism around the globe; and reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands." The actions that constitute tyranny are in direct conflict with the core values of the NSS, and show the ideological struggle between tyranny and liberty- supporting and strengthening the casus belli for the GWOT.
"We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends." This "comprehensive strategy to combat WMD" is to use the following methods: "Proactive counter-proliferation efforts; Strengthened nonproliferation efforts to prevent rogue states and terrorists from acquiring the materials, technologies and expertise necessary for weapons of mass destruction; and Effective consequence management to respond to the effects of WMD use, whether by terrorists or hostile states." The fuel of tyranny has spawned terrorism globally, making the fear of these disgruntled and violent groups acquiring WMD very real.
Technology
As mentioned earlier, the document states that the enemies of the U.S. have, "declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction," and that this cannot happen. The strategy reminds the reader that during the Cold War, when there was a massive WMD build up, the aim of WMD’s was to be a deterrent for aggression. A concept developed of mutually assured destruction or MAD and it ensured that rational actors maintained peace and stability. However, the NSS points out the reliance on MAD is no longer applicable against terrorist groups- "Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness."
Another strategic tool called for in the NSS is the development and installation of a missile defense shield. The document states that, "Our response [to the threat of WMD] must take full advantage…[of] the development of an effective missile defense system…" This shield is to provide protection from rogue states and prevent them from threatening or blackmailing the international community.
While the vehicle of terrorism is fueled by tyranny, it is the destructive capability of WMD that can provide the catastrophic results desired by the terrorists. It is this destructive capability, coupled with the successes of past terrorists groups, and with the support of rogue states that has forced the security strategy to focus on this specific threat to the degree that it does.
Preemption-Priorities…
The actual word preemption is mentioned in the document two times. The first presents a classical definition stating that, "[l]egal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat -- most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack." The second qualifies the use in general by explaining that, "[t]he United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression." The overarching justification for the use of preemption in general is premised around the fact that, "[t]raditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents," and that it is the, "overlap between states that sponsor terror [tyrants] and those that pursue WMD [terrorists] [that] compels us to action."
Therefore, because of the nature of terrorists, as previously defined, the odds of their mounting a conventional military confrontation is very low because, "[t]hey know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terrorism and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction - weapons that can be easily concealed and delivered covertly and without warning." Due to the devastating effects of WMD, the NSS then justifies a new interpretation of preemptive action, pointing out that, "[t]he targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare." The NSS further states that, "[t]he United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security." Therefore, based on the conditions of terrorism and WMD along with the previous norms of U.S. security policy, the strategy presents a new meaning to preemption by affirming that, "[t]he greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
The strategy then provides three elements to support preemption. One is to, "build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge," the second calls for, "coordinat[ing] closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most dangerous threats," and finally to, "continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results."
The concept of preemption is disturbing to many states, especially in light of the military superiority the U.S. enjoys over every other nation in the world. Couple that with the fact that the U.S. intends to use preemptive action against threats before they reach American shores and it is easy to see how the U.S. can be viewed through a lens of imperial aggression; a global bully. However, when viewed through the lens of the GWOT, especially with the focus being on WMD, it becomes the new element or force that can pose a deterrent to state sponsors of terrorism, if not the terrorists themselves. The NSS certainly implies that while it may not be mutual, it is assured destruction.
The controversial nature of preemption lies in the expansion of its definition and the international communities forced reliance on the good will of the U.S. to not abuse it. As Clausewitz would put it, this is the culminating point of offense for the NSS, meaning that if the offensive use of preemption is pushed too far, it will inevitably reach a point were the U.S. will have to take up the defense against the international community; essentially shifting the equilibrium against itself. By abusing this tool, the U.S. could easily transform itself from the victim to the villain and therefore should tread lightly.
Diplomacy and International Coordination-Priorities…
The document from the very beginning acquiesces to the fact that, "no nation can build a safer, better world alone," and realizes the ability of how, "[a]lliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations." It then affirms America’s commitment to, "lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as other long-standing alliances." In addition to these well-established organizations, "Coalitions of the willing" can be a great asset in their ability to, "augment these permanent institutions." Regardless of the structure, a key portion of the strategy lies in the fact that it expects, "[i]n all cases, international obligations are to be taken seriously," discarding symbolic gestures as useless.
Of the eight sections that make up the bulk of the NSS, seven of them focus specifically on diplomacy and multilateral coordination within the global community. In the Overview of America’s International Strategy (Section I), the document states that, "The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests." The focus within the strategy is that by defending and securing the international community, the U.S. inherently protects itself. This daunting task is to be achieved through international cooperation, in which the U.S. will: "champion aspirations for human dignity; strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends; work with others to defuse regional conflicts; prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction; ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade; expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy; develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power; and transform America's national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century." It is in fact these goals that make up the eight sections in the NSS.
In regards to the core values of freedom, liberty and democracy, the NSS states that, "the national security strategy of the United States must…look outward for possibilities to expand liberty." It then stipulates that U.S. "decisions about international cooperation, the character of our foreign assistance, and the allocation of [our] resources," will be guided by these core values, which will also, "guide our actions and our words in international bodies." Actions to be carried out by the U.S. include: "speak out honestly about violations of the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity using our voice and vote in international institutions to advance freedom; use our foreign aid to promote freedom and support those who struggle non-violently for it, ensuring that nations moving toward democracy are rewarded for the steps they take; make freedom and the development of democratic institutions key themes in our bilateral relations, seeking solidarity and cooperation from other democracies while we press governments that deny human rights to move toward a better future; and take special efforts to promote freedom of religion and conscience and defend it from encroachment by repressive governments."
The international aspirations of human dignity, as laid out by the NSS, go hand in hand with the core values of the U.S. strategy and are the goal of the document. This ideological sense in the strategy conveys a feeling that U.S. national security hinges on the ability to export these concepts and have them take hold throughout the international community.
The NSS also calls for international support in maintaining U.S. hegemony in that it states, "all nations have important responsibilities," declaring all, "[n]ations that enjoy freedom must actively fight terror," as well as those, "that depend on international stability must [also] help prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction." The strategy, not depending per se, is looking for international cooperation in securing the environment necessary for achieving the NSS goal of universal liberty and freedom. America’s role as a global hegemon is to coordinate these forces and create a "balance of power that favors human freedom."
Economics and Expanding the Circle of Development…
The NSS provides an economic strategy for achieving U.S. goals along with addressing the key threat in the document- terrorism. As mentioned earlier, tyranny is the fuel for terrorism, however, poverty and corruption are the tinder. To counter this, the strategy calls for, "[a] strong world economy [that] enhances our national security by aspiring prosperity and freedom in the rest of the world."
This economic change is necessary as, "[i]t allows people to lift their lives out of poverty, spurs economic and legal reform, and the fight against corruption, and it reinforces the habits of liberty." The promotion of this is to be achieved through seven actions calling for: pro-growth legal and regulatory policies; tax policies…that improve incentives for work and investment; rule of law and intolerance of corruption; strong financial systems that allow capital to be put to its most efficient use; sound fiscal policies to support business activity; investments in health and education; and free trade.
Economic improvement in the global community is intended to change the environment breeding terrorism. Again showing the relationship between values and security, the document presents economically liberal values to support a strategically secure environment.
The Home Front…
The NSS also calls for the need for improvement in defending the homeland. The document states the Administration’s call for, "the largest government reorganization since the Truman Administration…[and is] [c]entered on a new Department of Homeland Security and including a new unified military command and a fundamental reordering of the FBI, our comprehensive plan to secure the homeland encompasses every level of government and the cooperation of the public and the private sector." Counter-proliferation is to be integrated into homeland defense as well as strengthened intelligence warning and analysis to provide threat assessments for domestic security. Above all, the defense of the American homeland is called the most important priority and the creation of this new department is to address that specifically.
Values, Priorities & Threats: A Symbiotic Transition towards Security…
The NSS goal of universal liberty and freedom- core values- through a U.S. global hegemony- priorities- whose objective is to defend, preserve and extend world peace from terrorism & tyrants- threat- is sound and cohesive. The document devises a course of action that addresses the complex question of terrorism and how to deal with it accordingly.
Terrorism is truly a value-complex question. The balance of liberty and freedom against security and defense lies at the heart of it, and any solution to such must be sensitive to both sides less it looses itself and the terrorists succeed. Value-conflict resolution, the pinnacle in dealing with value-complexity, is in the words of Alexander George, "a formidable task." However, this NSS meets the task by presenting an ideological goal supported by a realist structure.
The document is amazingly cohesive in that it repeatedly ties together the ideal with the real. The core values, ideological in nature, support the realist need for security and provide a catalyst for such in the global environment. Preemption, multilateral coordination and military intervention create a realist "balance of power" that encourages ideology of liberty and freedom. On and on throughout the document these two elements symbiotically coexist.
Clausewitz spoke of the asymmetrical relationship of attacking versus defending, pointing out that on a strategic level, the attack or offense is weaker than the defense but is positive in that it seeks to increase strength, power or security where as defense, being the stronger, is negative because it is focused on self-preservation. The NSS has found a balance between the offense and the defense by pursuing two paths simultaneously. One is unilateral and defensive in nature, using tools such as preemption, missile defense, and restructuring domestic institutions for homeland defense. The second path is multilateral, offensive and by far more present in the NSS. It calls for on a grand scale the use of international institutions and requires the international community to interact in the GWOT.
The history of 9/11 has caused this administration to present a security strategy that focuses on that threat. The neo-realist perception of the administration on international relations, as well as the very nature of the document itself, has called for all actions to revolve around the nation’s security. But at the same time, the core values presented in the NSS are ever present throughout and constantly support the question of security and the solution therein.
While the document does not and cannot deal with every threat the U.S. faces, it ensures that through the values and objectives developed within, that a comprehensive strategy that is flexible and decisive will emerge and thereby deal with any uncertainty. This document has stepped up to the challenge of defining the new century, and addresses the threats the U.S. is likely to face. But more importantly, it provides a solution that not only garners security but also improves the lives of the global community. The National Security Strategy of the United States emphatically presents itself with no apologies and welcomes the international community to the security provided within.
