The U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) document is intended to provide information about the national security goals of the United States, and the methods the U.S. government intends to use in pursuit of those goals (2006 NSS vs. 2002 NSS, 2007). Before one can determine whether or not the NSS adequately addresses U.S. security concerns in the current strategic environment, it is first necessary to define what those security concerns are.
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Negroponte, in this year’s Annual Threat Assessment, lists three primary security concerns for the United States: 1) terrorism; 2) proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and 3) regional conflicts, instability and reconfiguration of power and influence (Negroponte, 2007, pp. 2, 5, 6). Addressing U.S. Security Concerns
There is ample evidence to support the assertion that the 2006 NSS adequately addresses the security concerns of the United States in the current strategic environment. The three primary threats listed by DNI Negroponte are each discussed at length.
With regard to terrorism, the NSS spells out the successes achieved since the 2002 version of the document, including the degradation of al-Qaeda’s strategic capability, the denial of Afghanistan as a base of operations for al-Qaeda, and increased counter-terrorism cooperation among nations. It discusses the continued threat that terrorism poses, including the new cellular structure of al-Qaeda, continued terrorist attacks around the world, and continued state sponsorship of terrorist groups and terrorist activity by nations such as Syria and Iran. And it provides a strategy for the years to come, including the short-term use of the elements of national power and the long-term struggle to win the war of ideas that will allow democracy to triumph over terrorism.
In discussing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the NSS spells out U.S. efforts such as ballistic missile defense, the Proliferation Security Initiative, and diplomatic efforts at the United Nations. It also singles out Iran, North Korea, and terrorist elements as threats to non-proliferation, while providing strategies for controlling nuclear, biological and chemical threats. In short, the NSS promotes a proactive non-proliferation approach.
The NSS recognizes that regional conflicts and global instability are threats to U.S. national security. As a result, the promotion of democratic principles forms the basis of three levels of engagement offered by the NSS: 1) conflict prevention and resolution; 2) conflict intervention; and 3) post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction (National Security Strategy, 2006, p. 15).
Elements of Power
Elements of power are typically divided into two categories, natural and social (Jablonsky, p. 87). Natural elements consist of geography, natural resources, and population, while social elements are categorized as diplomatic, informational, military, and economic. For this paper, only the social elements of national power will be considered. The 2006 NSS clearly spells out how each element will be used in the pursuit of U.S. national security interests.
Diplomatic power is generally thought of as diplomacy, or U.S. efforts to achieve influence with other nations. The NSS discusses multiple diplomatic actions pursued by the United States, including public support of democratic reformers, partnerships with other democratic states, and the promotion of democracy and basic rights (National Security Strategy, p. 6).
Informational power, which is commonly referred to as the “P.R. war,” usually involves the effort to sway public opinion in one’s favor. For the United States, the NSS recognizes and discusses the need to win the war of ideas with terrorists, “…for it is ideas that can turn the disenchanted into murderers willing to kill innocent victims” (National Security Strategy, p. 9).
The 2006 NSS refers to the military element of national power throughout a large portion of the document. Much of the discussion revolves around proactive uses of military power, including the pursuit of terrorists worldwide and efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. And as part of the strategic goal of promoting democracy around the world, the NSS says military power will be used in the “…training of military forces to support civilian control of the military and military respect for human rights in a democratic society” (National Security Strategy, p.6).
The economic element of national power, which can include everything from a nation’s financial markets and economic capabilities to its trade relations with other countries, receives considerable attention in the NSS. The document discusses several approaches for the use of economic power, including foreign aid in support of the advancement of democracy, reform of the international financial system, free trade, and economic sanctions in cases where states act irresponsibly in the international arena.
Analyzing Military Power
As part of a strategy for achieving U.S. national security objectives, military power focuses on enhancing security both within the United States and in regions and countries across the globe (2006 NSS vs. 2002 NSS). The 2006 National Security Strategy details the role of military power in combating the three primary threats articulated by DNI Negroponte in several ways, outlined below.
In the fight against terrorism, the NSS says the United States will use the military element of power, in conjunction with the other elements of power, “…to kill or capture the terrorists, deny them safe haven or control of any nation; prevent them from gaining access to WMD; and cut off their sources of support” (National Security Strategy, p. 9).
The NSS also notes that the use of military power in the fight against terrorism is actively being waged in both Afghanistan and Iraq, with the former witnessing the removal of the Taliban from power and al-Qaeda from their safe haven, and the latter viewed as the central front of the war on terror by both the United States and large numbers of terrorist elements, including al-Qaeda.
In addressing the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the NSS describes how the United States works militarily with the international community to stop WMD trafficking through interdiction along known shipment routes. Additionally, the NSS describes the ongoing effort to improve offensive and defensive capabilities that will increase the deterrent effect of U.S. military forces. Finally, with regard to counter-proliferation efforts, the NSS reinforces the doctrine of military preemption, stating that “…we must be prepared to act alone if necessary, while recognizing that there is little of lasting consequence that we can accomplish in the world without the sustained cooperation of our allies and partners” (National Security Strategy, p. 37).
In its treatment of the challenges presented by regional conflicts, instability and the reconfiguration of power and influence in the world, the NSS describes efforts to improve the capabilities of our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization so that other nations are able to intervene militarily, with or without the United States, when regional situations call for military power to be utilized. Additionally, the NSS notes the launching of the Global Peace Operations Initiative in 2004 to train international forces for peacekeeping duty in troubled African nations and states that military power might be appropriate for intervention in cases of genocide (National Security Strategy, pp. 16-17).
In sum, the 2006 National Security Strategy details the role of the military element of power as part of a comprehensive U.S. strategy for combating terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and regional instability in pursuit of U.S. national security objectives.
The Role of Military Power
The various roles of the military element of power described above are in keeping with the fulfillment of legal and moral responsibilities for the executive as Commander-in-Chief, and the Department of Defense as the center of military power in the United States.
Whether it is the ongoing military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the interdiction of weapons of mass destruction along trafficking routes, or whether it is training foreign military forces to enhance regional stability, or intervening militarily in cases of genocide, the role of the military element of national power as described in the 2006 National Security Strategy enhances U.S. security at home and abroad.
Questions or issues concerning the role of military power and its consistency with civil-military relations or American traditions of defense are without merit.
The President, as the civilian Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, is responsible for the National Security Strategy document and the use of the elements of power within it. Whether the strategy utilizes or excludes any of the elements of national power, including the military element, it is still the President’s strategy for the pursuit of the national security objectives of the United States. And what could be more consistent with American traditions of defense than safeguarding the U.S. homeland and America’s friends and allies abroad.
Critiques
In assessing the National Security Strategy of the United States, it is necessary to acknowledge critiques of the strategy’s objectives and / or means. In a policy brief for The Stanley Foundation, Lawrence Korb and Caroline Wadhams write that the 2006 NSS “…fails to offer a realistic plan with achievable goals to safeguard American interests, contradicts the actual policies and actions of the Administration, and reveals an absence of introspection and lessons learned from the mistakes of the first term” (Korb & Wadhams, 2006).
In their critique, Korb and Wadhams argue that the 2006 NSS fails to accurately define the enemy the United States is facing, claiming terrorism is a tactic used by many groups around the world and not a clearly definable enemy. The critique also attacks the notion of active democracy promotion, arguing that democracy cannot be forced upon those who do not want it and that the United States should instead focus on ending partnerships with questionable governments.
Conclusion
The 2006 National Security Strategy informs the American public, allies of the United States, and America’s enemies about the national security objectives of the United States. It also provides the actions the United States will take in pursuit of those objectives. It clearly focuses on the three primary threats outlined by the Director of National Intelligence, terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and regional instability, and is distinct in its treatment of the four social elements of national power (Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic). While there is a heavy reliance on the military element of power, the 2006 National Security Strategy is consistent with civil-military relations and American traditions of national defense.
Works Cited
Author Unknown. 2006 NSS vs. 2002 NSS (2007). United States Army Command and General Staff College, Intermediate Level Education Presentation. Available in Personal Professional Files.
Bush, George W. (2006). The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Retrieved from Defense Strategy Course on the World Wide Web: https://dde.carlisle.army.mil/documents/courses_07/DSC-1/readings/913_07nss.pdf.
Jablonsky, David (Unknown). National Power. Retrieved from Defense Strategy Course on the World Wide Web: https://dde.carlisle.army.mil/documents/courses_07/DSC-1/readings/912_07jablonsky.pdf.
Korb, Lawrence & Caroline Wadhams (2006). A Critique of the Bush Administration’s National Security Strategy. The Stanley Foundation Policy Analysis Brief, June 2006. United States Army Command and General Staff College, Intermediate Level Education Course Materials. Available in Personal Professional Files.
Negroponte, John D. (2007). Annual Threat Assessment of the Director of National Intelligence. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: https://intelligence.senate.gov/070111/negroponte.pdf.
