Security Strategy Recognizes US Limits
Security Strategy Recognizes US Limits by Peter Baker and David E. Sanger, New York Times
President Obama plans to release his second, and final, national security strategy on Friday, laying out a blueprint for robust American leadership for his remaining time in office while recognizing limits on how much the United States can shape world events.
By issuing the strategy at a time when critics have accused him of being too reluctant to assert American power, Mr. Obama will defend his handling of crises like those in the Middle East and Ukraine. But he will argue that the urgent demands of combating the Islamic State and countering President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia need to be balanced with a focus on long-term challenges like climate change, global health and cyberattacks. “The question is never whether America should lead, but how we should lead,” Mr. Obama writes in an introduction to the document, a report that seems to mix legacy with strategy. In taking on terrorists, he argues that the United States should avoid the deployment of large ground forces like those sent more than a decade ago to Iraq and Afghanistan. In spreading democratic values, he says, America should fight corruption and reach out to young people.
“On all these fronts, America leads from a position of strength,” he writes. “But this does not mean we can or should attempt to dictate the trajectory of all unfolding events around the world. As powerful as we are and will remain, our resources and influence are not infinite. And in a complex world, many of the security problems we face do not lend themselves to quick and easy fixes.”
Such arguments are not likely to satisfy critics, and even some of Mr. Obama’s advisers have pressed him to be more active in responding to the shorter-term crises. At a confirmation hearing on Wednesday for Ashton B. Carter, the nominee for defense secretary, Republicans repeatedly bemoaned what they called the lack of a coherent policy.
“It doesn’t sound like a strategy to me,” Senator John McCain of Arizona, now the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told Mr. Carter after asking about the approach to the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL…
Recall this quote from Susan Rice in announcing the new NSS:
At the time, while I disagreed that an existential threat to the U.S. should be the sole criteria for deciding to use military force, I had to agree she was correct in an abstract sense. One similarly could go farther arguing that we faced no existential threat in WWI or WWII, either. Both theaters were far from our shores and nuclear weapons did not yet exist.
But then I heard Israel’s PM making comments about the existential threat to Israel and realized how easily we could be dragged into someone else’s existential conflict. If Israel bombed Iran conventionally, or launched some of its presumed nukes preemptively, it could create enormous consequences. If Russia felt sufficiently threatened by our sanctions, Putin could react using tactical nukes or conventional missiles and further aggression into NATO lands. The latter would not be an existential threat to our shores (yet) but we nevertheless would be obligated to respond as a NATO partner.
Similarly, when North Korea and Iran get operable long-range nukes or terrorists infiltrate them to a U.S. city, the result will be pretty existential to the citizens of the concerned city. If it was NYC, or another major city, other ramifications in terms of financial markets could result that would be borderline existential in terms of damage to our economy.
I also noted no mention of Syria’s Assad in this NSS or how the coalition’s current air war will ever remove him from power or solve the Shiite/Sunni/Kurd problem of self-governance.
Finally, if one attempts to argue that climate change is of an existential nature, such contentions are debatable at best and unknowable or false given available information. Note these two statements:
Yes, but China is by far the largest CO2 contributor accounting for 28% of the world total while the U.S. contributes just 16.5%. The E.U. is responsible for 11.4% and India is 4th with 5.8% of the world total. If we reduced our emissions by 25% as stated in this next quote over the next 11 years, our contribution would drop to around 12% of the world total. This would cost our economy and consumers trillions while world CO2 totals likely would increase as both China and India continue using coal and gain more emitting vehicles and power plants.
In addition, by claiming we desire to become energy independent while simultaneously abandoning coal as an energy source and vetoing measures like the Keystone Pipeline and use of remote Alaska and federal lands, we contradict our stated goals.
Deeds not words are what counts. No deed we choose that strains middle class families through high energy costs will make a hill-of-beans difference in climate change. No rise in sea levels of inches to a foot over the next half century would create an existential crisis to our nation or most of the world. Energy needs only will increase as Third World nations become more modern. We can either keep up with those demands and keep world energy costs lower so more money can be spent on food and clean water, or we can chase diminishing returns and bankrupt progress throughout the world.
We possess the most powerful armed forces in the world but we have limits on how we can use them.
Do we want the Ukraine to be occupied by Russia, I do not think we do. But are we prepared to put boots on the ground and stop the Russians? I do not think we are. Nor is it an obligation of the US to do so. And I do not believe that the Ukrainian armed forces are capable of defeating the Russian Army. Acting in concert with NATO and the EU is our best option.
Trying to support weak or failing states is very difficult. Especially as so many “states” have no shared values and have never had an effective and honest civil administration.
ISIL is another foe who we will not destroy with airpower or proxies. This force has its origins in social and religious issues we cannot resolve on our own. Do we need to stop their advance yes we do. We can use our military to defeat them but that will be a short term answer.
We can use our military to stabilize an area but I do not think we can resolve the deep social and religious divisions that exist in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya and many other places with our military.
Perhaps we need to look at options other than force. Can we isolate these places and use economic and social power to help steer or direct development? How much treasure and blood is a place like Somalia worthy to the US?