HEADQUARTERS GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC

General Orders No.11, WASHINGTON, D.C., May 5, 1868

I. The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet church-yard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.

We are organized, comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose among other things, "of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers, sailors, and marines who united to suppress the late rebellion." What can aid more to assure this result than cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead, who made their breasts a barricade between our country and its foes? Their soldier lives were the reveille of freedom to a race in chains, and their deaths the tattoo of rebellious tyranny in arms. We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let no wanton foot tread rudely on such hallowed grounds. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.

If our eyes grow dull, other hands slack, and other hearts cold in the solemn trust, ours shall keep it well as long as the light and warmth of life remain to us.

Let us, then, at the time appointed gather around their sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds above them with the choicest flowers of spring-time; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved from dishonor; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledges to aid and assist those whom they have left among us a sacred charge upon a nation's gratitude, the soldier's and sailor's widow and orphan.

II. It is the purpose of the Commander-in-Chief to inaugurate this observance with the hope that it will be kept up from year to year, while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of his departed comrades. He earnestly desires the public press to lend its friendly aid in bringing to the notice of comrades in all parts of the country in time for simultaneous compliance therewith.

III. Department commanders will use efforts to make this order effective.

By order of

JOHN A. LOGAN,

Commander-in-Chief

N.P. CHIPMAN,

Adjutant General

Official:

WM. T. COLLINS, A.A.G.

-----

On the morning of August 16, 2005, as my wife Retta and I sat with Wes and Abbey just after breaking the news to them of Mikes death earler that morning, then 13 year old Abbey buried her head into my shoulder, sobbing these words: "he was supposed to chase away my first boyfriend, he was supposed to cheer at my graduation from high school, he was supposed to be an uncle to my children..." These words seared my heart, broken as it was. I shall never forget them. She lost her oldest brother that day, her "Bubs" which she called him short for his nickname, Bubba.

-- Mudville Gazette

General Orders No. 11 - Washington Times

20,000 Flags - Forward Movement

Remembering Mark - Kerplunk

Graduation Night: Moon Over Yusufiyah - Mudville Gazette

Four-Day Weekend - Wings Over Iraq

Coming Home - Mudville Gazette

A Way To Honor A Fallen Hero Today - Blackfive

Memorial Day - Prairie Pundit

Memorial Day: Fitting Memorials and Passing of Torches - Blackfive

National Memorial Day Parade - Blackfive

What We Remember on Memorial Day - Los Angeles Times

Remember Who? - Paragould Daily Press

Take a Moment to Reflect on Memorial Day - Chillicothe Gazette

Memorial Day Has Relevance - Odessa American

Remember Vets; Celebrate Freedoms - Bluefield Daily Telegraph

Is the Traditional Memorial Day Celebration Still Relevant? - Delmarva Daily Times

A Special Monday - Battle Creek Enquirer

Memorial Day's First Blossoms - Louisville Courier-Journal

Memorial Day About More Than Barbecues, Sales - Rio Rancho Observer

A Day to Honor, Not Celebrate - Duluth News Tribune

Don't Forget the 'Memory' in Memorial Day - New Haven Register

Memorial Day - Southeast Missourian

Honoring the Fallen - Covington News

Remember the Reason for Memorial Day - Mount Airy News

We Wish We Didn't Need Tomorrow But, Sadly, We Do - Leader Vindicator

Memorial Day Used to be May 30, Still Should Be - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

'Yes, We Thank You. Yes, We Remember You.' - Fort Wayne Journal Gazette

Honoring the Fallen - Catskill Daily Mail

Memorial Day is Time to Reflect Upon Sacrifices - Daily Republic

A Time to Remember Their Sacrifices - Hillsboro Times Gazette

Giving Their Last Full Measure - McCook Daily Gazette

They Gave Their Lives - Casper Star-Tribune

Memorial Day is Foremost a Day of Honor - Lexington Dispatch

Every Day is Memorial Day - Washington Times

Seeing a Fallen Soldier Home - Washington Times

Maintain Peace by Staying Strong - Washington Times

The Glory of War - Washington Times

Thousands of U.S. troops are heading into southern Afghanistan in June to launch an offensive in Kandahar province that President Obama has ordered to help end the Taliban insurgency. U.S. and coalition troops are already advancing in and around the city of Kandahar, where the Taliban are terrorizing the population with car bombings and other attacks. A car bomb explodes (Wednesday) outside a small NATO military base in Afghanistan's southern Kandahar city, wounding two Afghans and destroying several cars.

The Taliban have launched their spring offensive in response to the U.S. push into Kandahar to flush out the militants and provide civilian aid to the population. "Kandahar is the main effort. This is not only the main effort for ISAF, but also for the Afghan government and also for the entire international community," NATO's Brigadier General Josef Blotz said...

More at Voice of America.

Training of Afghan Military, Police has Improved, NATO Report Says - Greg Jaffe, Washington Post.

A U.S. military review in Afghanistan has concluded that the addition of more than 1,000 new U.S. military and NATO troops focused on training has helped stabilize what had been a failing effort to build Afghanistan's security forces, but that persistent attrition problems could still hinder long-term success.

"We are finally getting the resources, the people and money," said Army Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, who heads the NATO training effort in Afghanistan and oversaw the review of his command's past 180 days. "We are moving in the right direction."

U.S. war plans depend on Afghan forces maintaining security in areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan, where the U.S. military is adding 30,000 troops this summer. More broadly, the Obama administration's counterinsurgency strategy places a heavy emphasis on an expansion of the Afghan security forces before the United States begins to withdraw troops in July 2011...

More at The Washington Post.

David Cameron Rounds Up Security Experts for Secret Afghanistan Summit - Isabel Oakeshott, The Times.

David Cameron is to convene a secret summit of military experts, ministers and Tory MPs on the war in Afghanistan. The meeting at Chequers this week will also be attended by members of the new National Security Council, including Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, William Hague, the foreign secretary, and George Osborne, the chancellor. Government officials insist it is not a precursor to a radical change of strategy. However, insiders say it will be an opportunity for delegates with reservations about Britain's mission to voice their concerns, which could pave the way for an earlier exit than previously foreseen. The prime minister is said to be anxious not to prolong Britain's commitment in the region any longer than necessary and there is mounting concern over the weekly fatalities.

Among those attending are the Conservative MP Adam Holloway, a former soldier who served in Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He has publicly suggested that the mission is on the brink of failure, and warned that the heavy presence of coalition troops is "aggravating the problem" in the area...

More at The Times.

Taliban Fighters Seize District in Eastern Afghanistan - Voice of America.

Afghan officials say Taliban militants have overtaken a remote district in eastern Afghanistan after days of heavy fighting with police. Provincial officials say the insurgents took control of Barg-e-Matal district on Saturday after forcing police to retreat from the district's administrative compound. The district is located in the mountainous Nuristan province, which borders Pakistan.

In a separate development Saturday, the U.S. military acknowledged that operators of a remote-controlled drone aircraft are to blame for the deaths of 23 civilians in an attack in Afghanistan earlier this year. U.S. troops fired missiles and rockets at the civilians' vehicles in Uruzgan province after mistaking them for a convoy of Taliban insurgents...

More at Voice of America.

In Camouflage or Afghan Veil, a Fragile Bond - Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times.

... Three months ago, Corporal Amaya was one of 40 female Marines training at Camp Pendleton, Calif., in an edgy experiment: sending full-time "female engagement teams" to accompany all-male foot patrols in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan to win over the Afghan women who are culturally off limits to American men. Enthusiasm reigned. "We know we can make a difference," Capt. Emily Naslund, 27, the team's executive officer, said then in an interview.

Now, just weeks into a seven-month deployment that has sent them in twos and threes to 16 outposts across Helmand, including Marja and other spots where fighting continues, the women have met with inevitable hurdles - not only posed by Afghan women but also by some male Marines and American commanders skeptical about the teams' purpose. The women are taking it in stride. "If it were easy, it wouldn't be interesting," Captain Naslund said...

More at The New York Times.

Drone Operators Blamed in Airstrike that Killed Afghan Civilians in February - Karin Brulliard, Washington Post.

A biting U.S. military report released Saturday criticized "inaccurate and unprofessional" reporting by operators of unmanned drones for contributing to a mistaken February airstrike that killed and injured dozens of civilians in southern Afghanistan. As many as 23 people were killed in the attack in Uruzgan province, where a strike intended for what military officials believed was an insurgent force hit a civilian convoy. The incident was condemned by the Afghan cabinet as "unacceptable," and it prompted Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, to apologize to Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The U.S. military said in a statement that four senior officers were reprimanded and two junior officers were admonished in connection with the strike -- disciplinary actions that could damage their careers. In a memo accompanying the military report, McChrystal announced bolstered training to prevent similar incidents in the future, and he asked the U.S. Air Force to investigate the Predator team...

More at the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times.

Taliban Push Afghan Police Out of Valley - Dexter Filkens, New York Times.

Taliban fighters took control of a remote district near the Pakistani border on Saturday, scattering the forces of the Afghan government, who said they had run out of ammunition. A force of Taliban attackers entered the district of Barg-e-Matal around 8 a.m. Saturday, after the local police retreated, Colonel Sherzad, the deputy police chief, said in an interview.

"Our forces retreated because they did not have enough ammunition," he said, echoing other officials in the area. Only 24 hours before, Afghan officials had claimed that they had driven the Taliban from the district into neighboring Pakistan. The fall of Barg-e-Matal, while embarrassing to the Afghan government, is not necessarily strategically significant. The district sits on an isolated valley in Nuristan Province, one of the most inaccessible places in the country...

More at The New York Times.

Inside the Mind of a Taliban Bomb Master - Miles Amoore, The Times.

Squatting on a concrete floor with nails, wires and a plug socket scattered around his feet, Naimatullah goes carefully about his business. "This is the detonator for the bomb," he says in a soft voice, a small object in his hand. Then he scoops up some white powder, packing it into a plastic drinks bottle. "These are very tasty explosives, very strong," he says.

The camera tracks Naimatullah's hands as he crams nails, fertiliser, petrol and lime into a yellow bucket. The bomb he is making is designed to explode with a lethal burst of shrapnel, slicing through the flesh of British and American soldiers in Afghanistan. The petrol will set fire to their "infidel tanks", he adds. The 25-year-old Pashtun, with a neatly trimmed beard, is one of the Taliban's bombmaking masterminds. Last week, in an interview with The Sunday Times, he displayed the video, filmed on a mobile phone, showing himself at work. It will soon be used to help train other bomb makers...

More at The Times.

Can Obama's Team of Rivals Bring Afghan Success? - David Ignatius, Washington Post opinion.

For many months, rumors have circulated that a shakeup is coming in the administration's Afghanistan team because of internal tensions. But to the contrary, President Obama appears comfortable with the group he has assembled - in part because he doesn't mind dissent, so long as it stays focused on policy issues. The gossip mill has centered on two areas of apparent friction. Both appear to have been defused over the past several months, partly because of signals from the White House that one official characterizes this way: "Stop the sniping and get on with it."

The first area of tension involved Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. A famously talented but sometimes abrasive diplomat, Holbrooke assembled an aggressive staff that included representatives from 10 agencies. Part of his mission was to rock the boat by integrating policies for Afghanistan and Pakistan that previously had been in different bureaucratic stovepipes. But Holbrooke was weakened last year by reports of hostility between him and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which led some to question whether he could continue to be effective. When Holbrooke didn't accompany Obama on his trip to Afghanistan in late March, observers wondered if he was being eased out...

More at The Washington Post.

76 Dead in Attacks on Pakistan Mosques - Alex Rodriguez, Los Angeles Times.

Militants armed with grenades, guns and suicide vests Friday stormed two mosques in Lahore belonging to a minority sect, killing at least 76 people in coordinated attacks that illustrate the vulnerability of groups considered outside the mainstream of Pakistani society.

The Ahmadi sect is one of the country's most beleaguered minority groups. Numbering about 4 million, they consider themselves Muslims but believe their late-19th century founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, was a prophet of God. That is heresy for most Muslims, who believe Muhammad was the last prophet. Ahmadis suffer severe discrimination in Pakistan and are legally barred from calling themselves Muslims. The attacks occurred during Friday prayers as Ahmadis filled two of the sect's mosques in the neighborhoods of Model Town and Garhi Shahu...

More at the Los Angeles Times and New York Times Times of London, Christian Science Monitor and Washington Times.

Report: U.S. Preparing for Retaliatory Strike if Terror Attack Traced to Pakistan - Voice of America.

... a major U.S. newspaper said Saturday that the U.S. military is reviewing the possibility of staging a unilateral strike in Pakistan if a successful attack on U.S. soil is ever traced to the South Asian country. The Washington Post says the U.S. would only consider launching an attack in Pakistan in extreme circumstances. The CIA has been using drones (unmanned aircraft) to bomb al-Qaida and Taliban hideouts in Pakistan.

The newspaper quoted top military officials as saying the United States has been considering new options for military action against militants in Pakistan since the bombing attempt in New York's Times Square, which could have caused a large number of casualties. According to the Post, U.S. military forces currently have been given the authority to launch unilateral strikes in Pakistan only if they involve three top targets: al-Qaida leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, or Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar...

More at Voice of America.

Canada's Top Commander in Afghanistan Sacked - Agence France-Presse.

Canada's senior commander in Afghanistan has been sacked amid allegations of "inappropriate conduct," the country's defence ministry said Sunday. Brigadier General Daniel Menard had lost the confidence of his bosses, a short statement on the ministry's website said. The decision to dismiss him as commander of Joint-Task Force Afghanistan (JTF-Afg) followed allegations concerning his "inappropriate conduct related to the Canadian Forces Personal Relationships and Fraternization directives," it said.

His behaviour, which was not detailed, had "caused Commander CEFCOM to lose confidence in Brigadier General Menard?s capacity to command," it said. Canadian media reported last week that Menard had pleaded guilty at a court martial to charges that he negligently fired his weapon at the Kandahar Airfield, where Canadian troops are based in southern Afghanistan, in March...

More at Agence France-Presse.

That ceremonial, iconic role makes it essential for Old Guard leaders to choose their soldiers carefully. Members of the unit must be at least 5-foot-10, physically fit and able to stand for hours at a time without so much as flinching. They have to master choreographed steps and marches and put together a flawless uniform, all of which they learn during an intensive three-week Regimental Indoctrination Program, which, as Pata is discovering, is unlike anything else in the Army.

Here, a ruler is almost as important as a rifle. Everything must be in its place - medals half an inch above the breast pocket, U.S. insignia one inch from the lapel edge, buckle two inches from the belt loop. Nothing in the constellation of the many decorations on Pata's uniform may be outside a one-sixteenth-of-an-inch margin of error - two tiny tick marks on the inspector's ruler, about the width of this o. Anything more and Pata gets what the Old Guard calls a gig. Three gigs and you fail.

Inspection time looms. A fellow soldier helps Pata fix his belt tight, clips one last derelict thread, and then, like a designer prepping a model for the runway, checks the soldier's shoes, soles, hair, hat, rifle, belt, gloves, cuffs, medals...

More at The Washington Post.

Topics include:

1) Can't we already write the December Afghanistan strategy review?

2) The new War Plan Orange.

Can't we already write the December Afghanistan strategy review?

The "battle" for Kandahar is now underway. But don't call it a battle, says Gen. Stanley McChrystal, think of it as a "process." According to a recent gloomy assessment by the Washington Post's Karen DeYoung, administration officials view the Kandahar operation as the "go for broke" culminating effort of the war. McChrystal will commit 10,000 U.S. soldiers and 80 percent of USAID's budget for Afghanistan to the Kandahar offensive. In DeYoung's words, "The bet is that the Kandahar operation, backed by thousands of U.S. troops and billions of dollars, will break the mystique and morale of the insurgents, turn the tide of the war and validate the administration's Afghanistan strategy. There is no Plan B."

Are Barack Obama and McChrystal really gambling on achieving a clear and convincing victory in Kandahar? The battle against the Taliban insurgents is a battle for perceptions. And there are numerous audiences whose perceptions the administration and McChrystal must alter. These audiences include Kandahar's leaders and population, the U.S. public, and the rest of the world, which will render its judgment about U.S. strength and effectiveness.

How do U.S. officials define success in Kandahar? According to DeYoung, the definition is vague, relying on "atmospherics reporting," public opinion polling, and levels of street commerce. When defining success, U.S. officials are in a logical trap; they must keep their definitions secret in order to prevent the Taliban from targeting the measurements. But without stating their goals in advance, they will have a difficult time convincing the various audiences that they are achieving them.

According to DeYoung's article, the Kandahar operation will be the centerpiece of the Obama administration's December strategy review. That review will presumably result in a decision confirming the plan to begin a withdrawal the following summer.

Given that the administration is hiding the definition of success, Obama has repeated the July 2011 withdrawal pledge, and the U.S. 2012 electoral calendar will by then be in motion, couldn't the White House staff just write the December strategy review now?

The one factor that actually remains unknown is how the Taliban will respond to the Kandahar offensive. The low-risk option for the Taliban is simply to withdraw to their sanctuaries and wait for two years before returning to restore their position. They've done this before and will be in a position to do so again. Alternatively, some Taliban commanders may argue for greater resistance now in order to defend their prestige, which could be a valuable asset later.

Most likely, the picture this winter will be murky, with some signs of pacification mixed in with occasional Taliban raids and acts of terror, specifically designed for media coverage. But the December "atmospherics" forecast for Kandahar is already in -- and it reads "success!"

The new War Plan Orange

War Plan Orange was the U.S. government's secret contingency plan -- first contemplated around 1906, and then regularly revised during the 1920s and 1930s -- for a war against Japan. Japan had been a British ally during World War I and until the middle of the 1930s had had little if any friction with the United States. But even as the United States retreated from the global stage after 1920 and followed a foreign policy based on arms control and neutrality, planners in the Navy and War Departments still found it necessary to prepare for foreseeable possibilities. War Plan Orange was one result of this process. On December 7, 1941, the plan popped out of a file cabinet and into the real world.

On May 18, a team of analysts from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) -- an influential Washington defense think tank -- released AirSea Battle: A Point of Departure Operational Concept. This report is the new War Plan Orange; it describes a concept and requirements for a United States naval, air, and space campaign against China for control of the western Pacific Ocean.

The report's four authors, all former military planners inside the Office of the Secretary of Defense, are blunt with their conclusions. They discuss the rapid growth in China's ability to conduct military operations as far away as Guam and New Guinea. The authors assert that if current trends continue without a more imaginative U.S. response, China will be able to make it prohibitively costly for U.S. military forces to operate in the western Pacific. Should China's "unprovoked and unwarranted military buildup" achieve this result, the authors conclude vital U.S. political and economic interests will be at risk. The purpose of their report, they explain, is to present a path that will "minimize Beijing's incentives to achieve its geopolitical ambitions through aggression or, more likely, coercion."

A long list of China analysts will dispute the notion that China's leadership aims to battle the United States for political and military control of the western Pacific. The authors respond by reminding readers "that since intentions can change overnight -- especially in authoritarian regimes -- one must focus on the military capabilities of other states."

The authors conclude that Pentagon and congressional planners have been lulled into complacency regarding naval, air, and space warfare. Because the U.S. military's naval, air, and space assets haven't been challenged in decades, planners and acquisition officials are behaving as if they believe this will continue to be the case. Thus their inclination is to simply replace old short-range fighter jets with new short-range fighter jets, old Navy destroyers with new destroyers, and so on, without bothering to reassess the strategic picture or to question their long-standing assumptions.

For the CSBA analysts, these are grievous errors. They argue that the Pentagon doesn't need more money, it just needs to break old habits and to acquire a new mix of capabilities to address the looming problem in the Pacific. In addition, they explain how integrating Navy and Air Force training and operations will be key to a successful response.

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the CSBA report is its open discussion of war against China. Just like the original War Plan Orange, AirSea Battle contemplates a multi-phase campaign, beginning with Chinese missile attacks on U.S. and Japanese bases and space systems and ending with a large-scale U.S. counterattack on Chinese sensors, land-based missiles batteries, and naval forces. The old War Plan Orange shows there is a pedigree for such contemplation. And that hypothetical thoughts sometimes become reality.

The US Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center hosted its 2010 Counterinsurgency (COIN) Symposium with special emphasis on COIN in Afghanistan from May 11-13, 2010. Twelve featured speakers and 120-plus attendees discussed COIN theory and best practices coming from the field in Afghanistan. The purpose was to identify common themes for inclusion in pre-deployment training and professional military and interagency education curricula.

The report contains common themes and more detailed summaries of each speaker's presentation.

More at the COIN Center.

NATHANIEL FICK, Chief Executive Officer: "The National Security Strategy makes clear that military power is simply one result of the many other factors that undergird American strength, including an economic system that enables firm creation and growth, immigration policies that allow the United States to attract and retain the world's best talent and our education system. Only if we get these fundamentals right will the United States have the resources and standing to defeat al Qaeda, combat nuclear proliferation and assemble the coalitions necessary to confront the complex security environment that lies ahead."

JOHN NAGL, President: "The Obama Administration's National Security Strategy displays an impressive understanding of the new threats and challenges America faces in this new century. It recognizes that America is stronger when it fights alongside its allies and helps our partners build their own capacity to combat the threats we share - from Al Qaeda to climate change to cyber attacks. Building our partners' capabilities can help prevent wars and is the key to victory when we do have to fight."

KRISTIN LORD, Vice President and Director of Studies: "President Obama presents a compelling and ultimately optimistic vision for America's role in the world. The strategy's tone contrasts starkly with the 2006 National Security Strategy of his predecessor, which began simply, 'America is at war.' But the challenge for President Obama will be to actually realize the strategy's vision. The strategy depends on other nations to share the burdens of global leadership -- but what if they shun this role? It depends on an expanded role for diplomacy and development -- but do our civilian agencies have resources commensurate with this charge and does our Congress have the will to provide them? It calls for America to spread democratic values through the power of our example -- but more than 18 months into the administration the United States continues to operate the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And it calls for America to engage the world's peoples, whose support is necessary to build the international order the president seeks -- but our government does not yet have in place the robust public engagement strategy and institutions required to win this public support. Until the administration addresses these admittedly daunting challenges, its vision will remain just that: a vision."

LIEUTENANT GENERAL DAVID BARNO, USA (Ret.): "President Obama's National Security Strategy offers a sweeping view of American leadership and renewal in a changing world. Its central emphasis on the necessity of rebuilding American economic strength as the cornerstone of our strength abroad resonates in a period of deep economic uncertainty. While noting the pressing security challenges of today -- war in Afghanistan, tensions with Iran, violent extremism -- it eyes a longer horizon with a focus on strengthening America's enduring global leadership role. Significantly in a world of growing disorder, it maintains a commitment to American military superiority, while rightfully outlining the need to balance the military instrument with more capable diplomatic and development tools. In many important ways, this document provides a Grand Strategy for the United States looking ahead to an uncertain and turbulent century. Its core challenge will be in marshaling the will to effect the requisite changes in government bureaucracy -- both in Congress and the executive -- implicitly needed to deliver its on its promise."

PATRICK CRONIN, Senior Advisor and Senior Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program: "The Obama Administration has carefully recalibrated U.S. strategy in the world. The National Security Strategy provides a clear statement of important ends and some of the ways and means by which they might be realized. The questions now are: Can this strategy be implemented? Can the Administration preserve U.S. power? What is the United States prepared to do if engagement fails or partners come up short?"

RICHARD FONTAINE, Senior Fellow: "President Obama's new National Security Strategy is already being interpreted as a major break with his predecessor's approach. But for all of its rhetorical distancing, there is much more continuity - with Bush and with the other presidencies in modern times - than not. The transatlantic relationship is still the cornerstone of American international engagement. The gravest danger to America comes from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. The United States still reserves the right to act unilaterally and does not rule out preemption, even if we do not trumpet that fact. America will maintain military superiority, promote democracy, isolate Iran and North Korea, and counter violent extremism. We will work against the Taliban and with the Iraqis. There are a few differences in substance, and many in tone. But it would be wrong to say that this is either a stark break with the past or merely Bush redux. It is more America redux. The realities of the international system and continuing American interests still inform the majority of U.S. foreign policy, irrespective of administration. The new strategy less breaks with these and instead pledges to do things more effectively than in the past. Time will tell."

TOM RICKS, Senior Fellow: "The proof of the National Security Strategy will be in the execution, which rarely rises to the level of the prose in the report. Generally these documents prove to be lists of aspirations rather than genuine strategies that state who we are, what we want to do, how we want to do it, and what resources we will use to do it."

ROBERT KAPLAN, Senior Fellow: "The military rise of China, the phenomenon of radical Islam, and nuclear proliferation are obvious national security concerns. An equally important one is that more people will be killed or made homeless by Mother Nature than almost at any time in human history. This is because of absolute rises in urbanized populations in seismically and climatically fragile reasons, particularly along littorals. And the response to these catastrophes will often be military."

ABRAHAM DENMARK, Fellow: "This is the first National Security Strategy that recognizes the complexity of the challenges the United States will face in the 21st century, and formulates a strategy that is up to the task of sustaining American security and prosperity. The strategy recognizes that today's strategic environment is not one that is dominated by a single threat, but is rather a complex mix of challenges and opportunities on a global scale. In addition to traditional armed conflicts and terrorist threats, the president has recognized that non-traditional issues such as climate change, pandemics, and challenges in the global commons will be central to preserving our national security in the 21st century. This strategy also recognizes that globalization is driving the creation of a multipolar world in which American leadership, as much as its dominance, will be a key force in sustaining our security. It embraces allies, partners, and coalitions as necessary elements of a global approach to address global problems and defeat global threats. In this way, the president has returned the international system, which was created and protected by Americans for several generations, to the center of America's national security strategy."

ANDREW EXUM, Fellow: "Considering the financial crisis from which our country is still emerging, I am surprised there is not more in the National Security Strategy about the environment of scarcity in which the United States now operates. Strategy is, in part, about setting goals, prioritizing those goals, and matching resources to each goal. Aside from the section about spending tax-payer money wisely - which seems more about reducing fraud, waste and abuse than anything else - there seems to be little acknowledgment that the United States might not be able to pursue all of our national security goals as vigorously as we might like in part due to spending constraints. I'm still trying to understand how the acknowledgment that the United States must address its deficit to ensure our future security squares with a bold statement like 'the United States of America will continue to underwrite global security.' That is an especially bold claim considering the fact that this document seems to consider security to include not just physical security but economic security, food security, medical security and addressing problems of governance and reducing poverty outside America's borders. This document leaves me unsure of what the administration's true priorities are heading into the rest of its term in office."

CHRISTINE PARTHEMORE, Fellow: "This National Security Strategy sets U.S. power in the long term at an important new place: at the intersection of natural resources and national security. At its heart, this document gets right that addressing energy, climate change, scarcity and environmental concerns can provide useful tools for engagement, for building governance and economic strength in partner nations, and for national security broadly. However, in many cases this will be more complicated than this strategy indicates. Clean energy and climate change-based engagement with Indonesia, for example, must account for that country's often contradictory goals of both producing and preserving its natural resources. The United States may wish to form cooperative relationships in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and around Africa and Latin America, to address water, energy, food and demographic stresses, but China is swiftly moving to do the same. This strategy's objectives of managing supply chains and maintaining access to scarce commodities, if not planned carefully, could lead to minerals policies that run counter to its emphasis on human rights, transparency in trade and rule of law. It is new to give natural resources challenges such a prominent role in mainstream U.S. strategic planning, as this National Security Strategy does. As such, mapping out new plans and ways of doing business to accommodate issues surrounding energy, climate, food and demographics is likely to be a taller task than for the more traditional elements represented."

Read the full National Security Strategy

The new National Security Strategy (NSS) has the skeleton of a true strategy. It properly begins with ends, describing America's enduring national interests (security, prosperity, values, international order). It then moves on to ways, the approaches and actions the United States government will employ to achieve those ends (for example, non-proliferation strategies, encouraging science research, promoting human rights, and strengthening alliances). It even discusses means, the resources the government and the country will mobilize to implement the ways. So far, so good.

But what is missing is an honest analysis of the obstacles, challenges, and adversaries that stand in the way of execution, and how the government intends overcome these. The strategic world is almost always competitive; smart and experienced adversaries are attempting to thwart success. The strategic competition is a match-up of strengths and weaknesses; the NSS has virtually no discussion of these match-ups. The NSS in long (very long) on ideals and aspirations. It does very little to recognize the competitive global environment, the strengths and weakness the United States brings to the competition, and how these compare to the advantages and vulnerabilities of adversaries (who largely remain unnamed in the document).

It is also the case that the ends -- the enduring national interests (security, prosperity, values, international order) -- will frequently come into conflict with each other. For example, pursuing security in a certain case may inflict stress on the international order. Some policies designed to promote prosperity may require taking risks with security or with values. The NSS does not reveal its priorities in this regard or the framework for how policymakers will resolve such conflicts.

We should not be too surprised by these shortcomings in the document. It may be asking too much of the United States government's top officials to reveal their analysis of America's strengths and weaknesses and how those match up against those of adversaries. Nor should we expect that when interests and goals come into conflict, policymakers will tell us which ones are expendable.

The resulting document thus seems more like a windy political campaign speech than frank strategic analysis (the Bush administration's 2006 NSS measures up no better by these standards). So what is the Obama administration's real national security strategy? How does the administration really view the competitive environment, honestly size up America's capabilities, evaluate the vulnerabilities of adversaries, and really rank the priority of its goals? We won't know until some archives are opened far in the future.

It is understandable that the administration's real strategic appraisal must remain classified, otherwise adversaries would have crucial information to develop even more effective strategies. It would be refreshing - and fortifying - if a more revealing NSS caused the American public to have an open debate on ends, way, and means; America's competitive strengths and weaknesses; and on what the country's strategic priorities should be. A version of that debate occurs (sometimes) every four years. From the perspective of administrations currently responsible for day-to-day governing, that is often enough.

Military superiority is not enough to maintain U.S. strength and influence in the world, and the United States must build global institutions and expand international partnerships beyond its traditional allies, according to a new national security strategy prepared by the Obama administration. Maintaining U.S. global leadership will also depend on a strong domestic economy and a commitment to "education, clean energy, science and technology, and a reduced federal deficit," the White House said in talking points summarizing the strategy document, which is scheduled for formal release Thursday.

The new doctrine represents a clear break with the unilateral military approach advocated by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Bush tempered that doctrine toward the end of his presidency, but the Obama doctrine offers a far broader definition of national security. While military advantage will remain "a cornerstone of our national defense and an anchor of global security," the strategy calls for "new partnerships with emerging centers of influence" and a "push for institutions that are more capable of responding to the challenges of our times," the summary said. At home, the strategy recognizes "American innovation . . . as a leading source of American power." ...

More at The Washington Post.

Strategy Focuses on Terrorists at Home - Eli Lake, Washington Times.

President Obama's new national security strategy will include a new focus on the threat posed by Americans who can be recruited and radicalized by al Qaeda through the Internet, the president's senior counterterrorism adviser said Wednesday. "The president's national security strategy explicitly recognizes the threat to the United States posed by individuals radicalized here at home," said John Brennan, the National Security Council's counterterrorism and homeland security adviser, in a speech.

Mr. Brennan told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that "we have seen individuals, including U.S. citizens, armed with their U.S. passports, travel easily to extremist safe havens and return to America, their deadly plans disrupted by coordinated intelligence and law enforcement." Mr. Brennan spoke on the eve of the release by the Obama administration of a new National Security Strategy report...

More at The Washington Times.

The U.S. military's counterinsurgency tactics increasingly place too much emphasis on protecting local peoples and not enough on fighting enemy forces, said U.S. Special Operations Command chief Adm. Eric Olson. While the U.S. military has adopted a population-focused strategy in Afghanistan, Olson said May 26 he "fears counterinsurgency has become a euphemism for nonkinetic activities." The term is now to often used to describe efforts aimed at "protecting populations," Olson said during a conference in Arlington, Va.

The military's top special operator, in a shot across the bow of modern-day counterinsurgency doctrine proponents, then added: "Counterinsurgency should involve countering the insurgents." Olson also made clear he thinks U.S. laws give him the authority to craft and implement doctrine for America's special operators. Olson said doctrine is important for fighting wars, and "should be carefully written - but we should not fall in love with it."

In a blunt statement, Olson called "COIN doctrine an oxymoron." ...

More at Defense News.