National Security Strategy of the United States

Author(s):  
Erica Bouris
Author(s):  
Marc C. Vielledent

The United States has long enjoyed an essentially unopposed ability to project power and sustain its security forces dispersed throughout the world. However, the uncertainty facing the global security environment, including tenuous alliances, fiscal constraints, and a decline in overseas basing, has increased tensions in emerging areas of potential conflict. These factors are driving change regarding the United States’ defense posture and access agreements abroad. While the preponderance of overseas capability outweighs the preponderance of U.S. forces, deterrence continues to underpin the overarching national security strategy. However, deterrence options impacted by the lack of resilience and investment in distributed logistics and sustainment are generating an additional range of variables and conditions for operators on the ground to consider in shared and contested domains.


Asian Survey ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-20
Author(s):  
Robert Sutter

Early Trump administration initiatives upset regional stability, complicating the foreign policies of Asian partners and opponents alike. Subsequent pragmatic summitry eased regional anxiety and clarified the new government’s security and political objectives. The administration’s national security strategy, released in December, provided a well-integrated security, economic, and diplomatic strategy for Asia and the rest of the world.


Author(s):  
Charles D. Freilich

Chapter 11 presents the primary conclusions derived from the proceeding chapters, as a basis for the national security strategy proposed in chapter 12. The conclusions are divided into four categories, general, politico-military, military, and domestic policy. The chapter also discusses the pitfalls involved in recommending a national security strategy, such as physical and political feasibility; limitations stemming from the absence of classified information; and possible normative biases. The chapter begins by setting out Israel’s vital national security objectives, that is, a core set of fundamental, essentially immutable interests, and then a variety of lesser, though still highly important, ones, some relatively permanent, others that change with circumstances. It further presents a number of “policy instruments” of such importance, for example, preserving the strategic relationship with the United States, that they can be considered vital objectives in their own right and are thus part of the basis for the proposed strategy.


2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 2-27

Next week I will go before Congress to lay out my priorities for the coming year. There will be no room for misunderstanding. The most basic commitment of our government will be the security of our country. We will win this war; we will protect our people; and we will work to renew the strength of our economy.Our first priority is the military. The highest calling to protect the people is to strengthen our military. And that will be the priority of the budget I submit to the United States Congress. Those who review our budget must understand that we're asking a lot of our men and women in uniform, and we'll be asking more of them in the future. In return, they deserve every resource, every weapon needed to achieve the final and full victory.


2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Gerson

The release of the Barack Obama administration's much-anticipated Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) concluded an intense, yearlong effort to revamp U.S. nuclear weapons policy to better address modern threats. Despite general agreement that the United States' nuclear policy and posture was in need of overhaul, there were strong disagreements over what kinds of changes should be made. At the core of these debates was the issue of U.S. declaratory policy—the stated role and purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons. Whereas some members of the administration advocated that the United States retain all of the flexibility and options afforded by the policy of calculated ambiguity, others contended that to fulfill President Obama's commitment to “put an end to Cold War thinking” and “reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy,” the United States should adopt a more restrictive nuclear policy such as no first use (NFU), perhaps in the form of a declaration that the “sole purpose” of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack. By not adopting NFU, the NPR missed an important opportunity to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy. The traditional case for NFU hinges on the argument that the threat of nuclear first use is unnecessary for deterrence. Yet the continued U.S. option to use nuclear weapons first is not only unnecessary but dangerous. Given the size and accuracy of the current U.S. nuclear arsenal, and given the variation in the nuclear capabilities of current and potential adversaries, the first-use option risks creating instabilities in a severe crisis that increase the chances of accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate nuclear use. In a future crisis with a nuclear-armed state, the fear—whether real or imagined—that the United States might attempt a disarming nuclear first-strike increases the possibility of nuclear escalation.


Author(s):  
N. P. Gribin

Under the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Department Reorganization Act of 1986, the President of the United States must submit to Congress each year a report on the national security strategy. This report under the name of “National Security Strategy” is intended to be a comprehensive statement anticipating the worldwide interests, goals and objectives that are deemed crucial to the national security of the United States. The new “National Security Strategy” (December 2017) lays out the strategic vision of the Presidential Administration under Donald Trump about ways and means by which the US seeks to deal with internal and external threats. The authors of the Strategy set themselves the main task of proving that American security is based on the realization that American principles are: “a lasting force for good in the World.”  The authors of the Strategy prioritize the protection of the American way of life and American interests all over the world. In that aspect, they see the main danger from the hostile states and non-states actors who are “trying to acquire different types of weapons”. In addition, the administration is demonstrating concerns about the activity of international terrorist organizations (jihadist), transnational criminal organizations, drug cartels and cybercrime. Different from previous similar documents, Trump’s Strategy makes an evident accent on economic security as an important part of national security. The task in that area is “to rebuild economic strength at home and preserve a fair and reciprocal international system.” In a rather confronting manner, the Strategy assesses the role of China and Russia in the international affairs. It underlines that between the main sets of challengers – “the revisionist powers of China and Russia and the rogue states of Iran and North Korea”, the United States will seek areas of cooperation with competitors but will do so from a position of strength. The Strategy pays great attention to restoring military capability of the US. It is stressed that military strength remains a vital component of the competition for influence. In a certain sense, the authors of the Strategy demonstrate a new approach to the role of diplomacy, and especially in regards to the tools of economic diplomacy, intended to protect the US “from abuse by illicit actors”. Pillar four of the Strategy outlines considerations for expanding US influence on a global scale and for supporting friendly partners. As stated in the Strategy, American assistance to developing countries should help promote national interests and vice versa. The US will use all means, including sanctions, to “isolate states and leaders that pose a threat to the American interests.” The Strategy pays much attention to the regional aspect of national security, and, from these positions, the situation in various parts of the world (the Indo-Pacific region, Europe, the Middle East, etc.) is assessed. The authors emphasize that changes in the balance of power at the world level can cause global consequences and threaten American interests and US security. On the contrary, “stability reduces the threats that Americans face at home.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document