President
Obama’s first formal National Security Strategy argues that
preserving American leadership in the world hinges on learning to accept
and manage the rise of many competitors, and dismisses as far too
narrow the Bush era doctrine that fighting terrorism should be the
nation’s overarching objective.
In a 52-page document that tries to balance the idealism of Mr. Obama’s
campaign promises with the realities of his confrontations with a
fractious and threatening world over the past 16 months, Mr. Obama
describes an American strategy that recognizes limits on how much the
United States can spend to shape the globe.
An America “hardened by war” and “disciplined by a devastating economic
crisis,” he argues, cannot sustain extended fighting in both Iraq and
Afghanistan, while fulfilling other commitments at home and abroad.
“The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders
alone,” Mr. Obama writes in the introduction of the strategy being
released on Thursday. “Indeed, our adversaries would like to see America
sap our strength by overextending our power.”
That line is just one of many subtle slaps at President George W.
Bush. Much of the National Security Strategy, which is required by
Congress, reads as an argument for a restoration of an older order of
reliance on international institutions, updated to confront modern
threats. While Mr. Bush’s 2002 document explicitly said the United
States would never allow the rise of a rival superpower, Mr. Obama
argues that America faces no real military competitor, but that global
power is increasingly diffuse. “To succeed, we must face the world as it
is,” he says.
The principal author of the report, Ben Rhodes, a deputy national
security adviser, noted in an interview that Mr. Obama’s move to replace
the G-8
nations with a broader group, called the G-20,
that includes China, India and Brazil, recognizes this reality. “We are
deeply committed to broadening the circle of responsible actors,” Mr.
Rhodes said.
Although the administration has put renewed focus on the war in
Afghanistan and escalated C.I.A. drone strikes against militants, the
strategy rejects Mr. Bush’s single-minded focus on counterterrorism as
the organizing principle of national security policy. Those efforts “to
counter violent extremism” — Mr. Obama avoids the use of the word
“Islamic” — “are only one element of our strategic environment and
cannot define America’s engagement with the world.”
He goes on to argue that “the gravest danger to the American people and
global security continues to come from weapons of mass destruction,
particularly nuclear weapons.” And he dwelled on cyber threats, climate change, and America’s dependence on
fossil fuels as fundamental national security issues, issues that
received relatively little or no attention in Mr. Bush’s 2002 document,
although his administration focused on them more in its second term.
“It is a rather dramatic departure from the most recent prior national
security strategy,” Susan Rice,
the American ambassador to the United
Nations, said in an interview.
Mr. Bush’s 2002 document articulated a vision of American power that
foreshadowed the American involvement in Iraq. Mr. Obama’s version
could fuel the ongoing debate about whether his philosophy expands or
constricts American influence.
Critics already argue that Mr. Obama does not place enough importance on
fighting terrorism or fully embrace America’s singular role in the
world as he seeks the favor and cooperation of other nations.
A section on the use of force makes no mention of pre-emptive attacks
against countries or non-state actors who may pose a threat, as Mr. Bush
did in 2002, just six months before the invasion of Iraq. But Mr. Obama
does not explicitly rule out striking first.
“While the use of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaust other
options before war whenever we can, and carefully weigh the costs and
risks of action against the costs and risks of inaction,” he says. When
it is necessary, he adds, “we will seek broad international support,
working with such institutions as NATO and the U.N.
Security Council.”
Mr. Bush’s aides said they would not seek a “permission slip”’ for such
actions. Mr. Obama phrases that idea differently, writing, “the United
States must reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend
our nation and our interests, yet we will also seek to adhere to
standards that govern the use of force.”
Mr. Obama also defines national security more broadly than his
predecessor did, making the case, for example, that reducing the deficit
is critical to sustaining American power. He emphasizes issues like the
economy, education, climate change, energy and science. In that way, he
tries to draw a broader theme linking his presidency to the notion of a
“new foundation,” the phrase he previously has coined as a slogan for
his domestic program.
“Our national security begins at home,” the
strategy says.
Recent Comments