The Obama administration published its new National Security Strategy this week. So of course everyone is debating whether or not it’s actually much different than the Bush administration’s 2002 NSS, which laid out the argument for preventive military action. AP tells us, “Obama’s new security strategy breaks with Bush.” The NYT article on the report also highlights some differences. However, many bloggers are telling a different story. Michael Hirsh at Newsweek says that Obama’s NSS is “Not so Different Than Bush’s.” Peter Feaver at Foreign Policy asks, “real change or just ‘Bush Lite?'” His conclusion? Bush-Lite.
Since one of the most striking elements of Bush’s 2002 NSS was the stance on preventive war, it is worth examining what Obama’s NSS says about it. Though the document doesn’t address the issue head-on, it does say this:
…[W]e will also seek to adhere to standards that govern the use of force.
(emphasis mine)
This insinuates that the Obama administration will not act preventively, as it is illegal. But the words “seek to” remind me of a quote from David Mamet’s book on acting, True and False:
I was once at a marriage ceremony where the parties swore “to try to be faithful, to try to be considerate …” That marriage was, of course, doomed. Any worthwhile goal is difficult to accomplish. To say of it “I’ll try” is to excuse oneself in advance. Those who respond to our requests with “I’ll try” intend to deny us, and call on us to join in the hypocrisy—as if there were some merit in intending anything other than accomplishment.
Obama’s NSS also says:
While the use of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaust other options before war whenever we can, and carefully weigh the costs and risks of action against the costs and risks of inaction. When force is necessary, we will continue to do so in a way that reflects our values and strengthens our legitimacy, and we will seek broad international support, working with such institutions as NATO and the U.N. Security Council.
The BBC tries to paint this as a break from Bush, but it is not. It still leaves open the preventive military action option. Also, the Bush administration did seek broad international support, including from NATO and the UN Security Council, for its Iraq invasion.
The truly unique element of Obama’s NSS is the focus on economic strength. As Elison Elliott of the FPA’s Global Markets blog noted last week, many have been talking recently about the importance of economic strength to American geopolitical power. Adm. Mike Mullen said in an interview earlier this month:
Our financial health is directly related to our national security…
And as I noted in an earlier post, a group at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces reached the same conclusion. Obama states in the NSS introduction:
Our strategy starts by recognizing that our strength and influence abroad begins with the steps we take at home.
(emphasis mine)
The NSS continues:
Yet even as we have maintained our military advantage, our competitiveness has been set back in recent years. We are recovering from underinvestment in the areas that are central to America’s strength. We have not adequately advanced priorities like education, energy, science and technology, and health care—all of which are essential to U.S. competitiveness, long-term prosperity, and strength.
Cynically couching Obama’s domestic agenda in national security terms? Perhaps. But as Margaret Warner of the PBS Newshour tells us, this is the first time the deficit has appeared in an NSS:
On another note, on the strategic importance of law, the NSS states:
The rule of law—and our capacity to enforce it—advances our national security and strengthens our leadership. At home, fidelity to our laws and support for our law enforcement community safeguards American citizens and interests, while protecting and advancing our values. Around the globe, it allows us to hold actors accountable, while supporting both international security and the stability of the global economy. America’s commitment to the rule of law is fundamental to our efforts to build an international order that is capable of confronting the emerging challenges of the 21st century.
Though this statement seems inconsistent with the administration’s fight to prevent detainees at Bagram from using U.S. courts to challenge the legality of their detention. One might also think the above statement might indicate a willingness to more strongly support the ICC, but of that the NSS states:
Although the United States is not at present a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and will always protect U.S. personnel, we are engaging with State Parties to the Rome Statute on issues of concern and are supporting the ICC’s prosecution of those cases that advance U.S. interests and values, consistent with the requirements of U.S. law.
Translation: the U.S. will oppose the ICC’s endeavor to activate its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression and will selectively support the court. Much like the seond Bush administration.
