Obama's National Security Strategy

The administration's first National Security Strategy has received deservedly bad reviews. Stephen Walt's opinion that it would be better to dispense with this ritual altogether is affirmed, I think. The rest of what Walt has to say on the subject is well worth reading. The White House document goes through the motions of accepting the limits to US power, but in every specific instance denies that there are any. It is ponderous, platitudinous, incoherent, and even self-contradictory. But Walt does give it high marks for being crashingly dull, which he feels is a virtue.

I doubt [Ben] Rhodes [the principal author] and his colleagues were trying to take my advice, but they have succeeded in producing a document that could make even the most dedicated foreign policy wonk's eyes glaze over... None of the earlier reports deserved prizes for clarity, consistency, or rhetorical achievement, but the new version manages to make the drama of world politics positively enervating. Given my earlier recommendation, I guess congratulations are in order.

In my column for the FT this week I argue that a new national security strategy is in fact needed. (Whether it should be published is another question.) In any event, the new Strategy is simply not a strategy, good or bad. One can only hope the White House understands this. 

Above all, strategy must focus on priorities and constraints. The White House says it agrees with this - the US cannot do everything, and it must have partners. But aside from such statements of the obvious, the paper is silent about what is vital in national security, what is desirable and affordable, and what is desirable but not affordable. It correctly says that ends must be aligned with means, but fails to align them. All right goals will be pursued; all available assets will be brought to bear. That is not a strategy.

Over everything hangs the greatest challenge facing the US: coming to terms with diminished power. To judge by the paper, the administration is unwilling even to think about this.
Presented by

What Happened to the Milky Way?

Light pollution has taken away our ability to see the stars. Can we save the night sky?

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register with Disqus.

Please note that The Atlantic's account system is separate from our commenting system. To log in or register with The Atlantic, use the Sign In button at the top of every page.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

What Happened to the Milky Way?

Light pollution has taken away our ability to see the stars. Can we save the night sky?

Video

The Faces of #BlackLivesMatter

Scenes from a recent protest in New York City

Video

Desegregated, Yet Unequal

A short documentary about the legacy of Boston busing

Video

Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life

The Supreme Court justice talks gender equality and marriage.

Video

Social Media: The Video Game

What if the validation of your peers could "level up" your life?

Video

The Pentagon's $1.5 Trillion Mistake

The F-35 fighter jet was supposed to do everything. Instead, it can barely do anything.

More in Politics

Just In