1. The US Defense establishment would return, after almost two decades, to a recognizable military mission, and would rebuild its forces, its defense-related R&D, its doctrine, and its capabilities in line with the trajectory it had been on until the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US, but taking into account the decline in its force structure caused by the 18-year diversion to the CT mission, and taking into account the totally transformed geopolitical and technological context;
2. To emphasize the geopolitical shift in the “competition” spectrum, the US had downgraded NATO to the second tier of its strategic alliance structures and raised to the first tier its existing and emerging alliances in the Indo-Pacific. This, by default, means the ANZUS Alliance (with Australia and New Zealand), its Japan and Republic of Korea alliances, and the emerging "Quadripartite" alliance structure linking the US with Japan, Australia, and India. Unspoken, but critical within this approach, would be — as Pres. Trump had already made clear — improved security relations with key ASEAN states and the Republic of China (ROC: Taiwan). The fact that the US has now moved to the “Indo-Pacific” contextual view, as opposed to the “Asia-Pacific” view was confirmed and important; it signals a shift in thinking1;
3. The Defense Dept. would substantially reorganize to improve flexibility, efficiency, and innovation, including improved relationship with private sector contractors. Indeed, private sector enthusiasm for working with Defense had essentially evaporated in recent years, with the exception of committed major contractors, because of the bias, difficulty, and bureaucratic morass which caused defense contracting to become something for most firms — particularly small-to-medium businesses — to avoid;
4. The document, apart from a few, non-substantive jingoistic comments, was low key and professional and, if anything, played down the fact that it represented a total transformation of the US defense capability. Sec. Mattis presumably did not want the document to inspire concern among “competitors”, or for allies to think that the new strategic posture was anything other than a return to historical continuity;
5. The Strategy highlighted that Defense would act more frequently within an inter-agency context — a “whole-of-government” framework — rather than as a purely military instrument. This was particularly evident in the one brief paragraph devoted to the Western Hemisphere. “Supporting the US interagency lead, the Department will deepen its relations with regional countries that contribute military capabilities to shared regional and global security challenges,” it said, leaving open and ambiguous how the US would deal with the substantial growth of PRC strategic (but non-military) projection into the Caribbean and much of South and Central America;
6. With regard to Africa, the message was subtle, but clear: the Defense Dept would work to counter, among other things, “trans-national criminal activity, and illegal arms trade with limited outside assistance; and limit the malign influence of non-African powers”. This phrasing clearly — but without naming names — emphasized the PRC’s “malign influence”, but also that of Turkey, which has emerged as a key driver of the illegal arms trade. But the Africa remarks indicated that the US would work with local partners and the European Union (EU), presumably including the United Kingdom;
7. The document did not seek to raise any undue expectations that the US would re-surge into the Middle East, but, rather, would build in its small bases and successes there to, among other things, “counterbalance” Iran, without mentioning the other competitive forces operating in the area: the PRC, Russia, and Turkey; 8. The Strategy was notably more gracious and accommodating about US alliances
By Francis P. Sempa, RealClearDefense: “While such strategies manifest to some extent the worldviews of the president and his top advisors, prudent statesmen steeped in history recognize that, as Bismarck said, “man cannot control the current of events, he can only float with them and steer.””
By Colin Dueck, The National Interest: “In this year and beyond, when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, consider focusing on the signal—not the noise.”
Dan Blumenthal | The Hill
The Trump administration has crafted a strong and comprehensive new National Security Strategy. It recognizes that the fundamental driver of contemporary geopolitics is a Sino-American rivalry. Indeed, the US is a tad late to the game: China has viewed the US as its chief rival since the end of the Cold War. To be sure, identifying China as a competitor is not a radical departure from the past. But this document is different.
By Jamie McIntyre, Washington Examiner: “The document, said to run 70 pages, is more than twice as long as the previous strategy document published by the Obama administration in 2015. It is an attempt to flesh out the president’s vision of U.S. foreign policy, which he has shorthanded as “America first.””
Trump's Security Strategy and the New Nuclear World
By Evan Moore, RealClearDefense: “The Trump administration will release its National Security Strategy on Monday, December 18. This white paper, required by the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act, is the most authoritative guide to America’s allies and adversaries alike about the administration’s approach to foreign policy. Likewise, the Pentagon is also scheduled to release its Nuclear Posture Review by the end of the year, which outlines what the role of America’s nuclear weapons in its overall strategy should be. These reports will shed critical light on the White House’s strategic worldview and how the administration will seek to address the rapid deterioration of the global nuclear nonproliferation regime."
BY DAVID P. GOLDMAN
US President proposes a muscular kind of global activism, fostering new alliances while reinforcing America’s existing commitments; plus a layered missile defence shield
Oriana Skylar Mastro | China File
By Matthew Lee, AP: “China, for example, is to be chided for allegedly manipulating the rules-based international economic order for its own advantage and Russia for campaigns to disrupt democratic processes in former Soviet states, Europe and the U.S.”
By James Jay Carafano, The National Interest: “The Trumpian tweets and off-hand Oval Office comments have been notoriously unhelpful for those trying to divine the administration’s actual policies. Foreign friends and foes alike will use the strategy as a measuring stick to gauge whether the administration’s actions align with its newly published game plan.”
By Kate Brennan, Defense One: “The Trump administration is preparing to roll out its new National Security Strategy, a document meant to guide its national security policies. Yet a Trump administration staffer who reviewed a draft of the document—and shared key excerpts with me—describes it as “divorced from the reality” of Trump’s presidency.”
The Trumping of Asia
By Kevin Rudd, The Strategist (ASPI): “You don’t have to be a Marxist to understand that economics has a profound and probably even decisive impact on politics, both national and international. And, indeed, the geopolitical and geoeconomic implications of U.S. President Donald Trump’s move are just beginning to be felt across the Pacific.”
By Peter Dombrowski & Simon Reich, The Conversation: “The new strategy was prepared under the leadership of the national security adviser, Lt. General H.R. McMaster. It has been much anticipated by Washington and U.S. allies as well as adversaries. After all, as experts have repeatedly pointed out, past national security strategies have often foreshadowed subsequent actions. “America watchers” abroad therefore are looking for signs of order in what has often been depicted as an inconsistent and incoherent U.S. foreign policy since President Trump’s election.”
By Eliot A. Cohen, The Atlantic: “One approach is to adopt the mind of a tracker examining the scat of a shaggy, shambling woodland beast. The spoor may be aesthetically unappealing, but it provides insight into the beast’s diet, possibly its direction of travel, maybe even its overall health. This metaphor suggests the experience and acuity needed by readers, because unfortunately, the gastric juices of the bureaucratic digestive system dissolve most nutritional content in the NSS.”
The National Security Strategy Papers Over a Crisis
By Thomas Wright, The Atlantic: “In off-the-record conversations with outsiders, the Trump administration’s senior national-security officials all stay in the mainstream of U.S. foreign policy. They recognize the threat from Russia, often with great passion. They reject the notion they are protectionist, instead championing bilateral deals as an alternative to mega trade pacts such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. They steadfastly back U.S. allies, especially those in nato. They even make favorable reference to the much-derided liberal international order.”
Cotton Overprescribes Military Force Over Balanced Foreign Policy
By Daniel DePetris, RealClearDefense: “If anyone happened to read last weekend’s Wall Street Journal feature story on Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), you could be forgiven for thinking that the 40-year-old junior senator from Arkansas is a foreign policy luminary.”
By Bryan McGrath, War on the Rocks: “Seapower advocates have long made the case for freedom of the seas and the security and prosperity benefits that such freedom provides.”
By John Dale Grover, RealClearDefense: “Trump attempts to both engage America’s rivals while tweeting things that antagonize them. Uncertainty can be a strategic tool to mask one’s intent, but finesse matters.”
Compete, Deter, and Win:
Making the National Defense Strategy Great Again?
By Ryan Leach, Modern War Institute: “Yet despite the clarity with which the NDS describes the operational environment and the rise of “revisionist powers,” the strategy it outlines attempts to maintain the established order and balance of power, whatever the cost.”
By Harlan Ullman, Observer: “Last week, retired Marine General now Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis released an 11-page summary of the nation's latest national defense strategy. The strategy reflected the secretary's philosophy and his experience as a brilliant practitioner of military art and a serious student of war in all its forms whose knowledge exceeds that of many scholars. The document is an extension of the last administration's “four plus one” strategy.”
Trump’s NDS Has the Pentagon Popping Champagne
By Andrew Bacevich, The American Conservative: “Implicit in the document is this proposition: more spending will make the armed forces of the United States “stronger” and the United States “safer.””