Knowing the Enemy
A clear-eyed security strategy
THE Trump administration’s just-released National Security Strategy is a useful compilation of common sense, self-contradiction, clear analysis and political compromise. Of the many questions it raises, foremost is: “Does President Trump support this document?”
The compromises are evident even before the document’s first page. The cover letter makes no mention of Russian malevolence, but criticizes “unfair burdensharing with our allies,” just as Trump yesterday called on NATO members to “reimburse” the United States, as if history’s greatest alliance were a country club whose members were in arrears.
Yet, Page 2 states that “China and Russia challenge American power, influence and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity.” There’s no direct mention of Russian election meddling or of Vladimir Putin himself, but the strategy avoids bogus notions of a partnership with Moscow.
You get the sense the Russia passages were subject to a great deal of horse-trading, handwringing and hair-splitting.
China gets stronger treatment, with an explicit challenge to Beijing’s theft of American intellectual property — the most significant of China’s hostile actions. This is vastly better than the mush produced by the last administration.
Still, the document fails to recognize the key difference between Moscow and Beijing: China seeks to harm us for its strategic advantage, while Russia seeks to harm us from sheer spite. President Xi is a cold-blooded pragmatist. Putin’s a sadist.
But it’s worth reading in detail: There’s real meat under the pie crust and it’s sliced four ways: “Protect the Homeland,” “Promote American Prosperity,” “Preserve Peace Through Strength” and “Advance American Influence” (the latter a sphere in which we’ve lost ground this year).
Deep within the first section is a warning of the need for “American resilience” in the face of catastrophic events. This begins to address a problem some of us have worried over for years, the vulnerability of complex societies — the more complexity, the more collapse points and the harder the recovery. From natural catastrophes to nuclear attacks, we have to be prepared for lengthy disruptions of our way of life that will test our endurance. If you want a model of how severe a collapse could be, look at hurricane-savaged Puerto Rico. Then add millions of corpses.
In the section on strengthening our military, there’s a brief mention of “new approaches to acquisition,” a vital issue, given the soaring cost of weaponry and congressional protection of our defenseindustry cartel. Increasingly, we cannot afford the military we need.
The strategy also makes the related point that our industrial base has eroded so badly that our lack of manufacturing capability could cripple us in a lengthy war: Hard to defeat China if we rely on Chinese products.
Confusion intrudes, though, when strategy collides with politics. Discussing the fundamental importance of a strong economy, the document states we’ll “reduce the [national] debt through fiscal responsibility,” an ironic contrast to the tax bill likely to be signed into law this same week that will increase our debt by at least $1.5 trillion.
The strategy also calls for forward diplomacy and a robust diplomatic capability — at a time when the State Department faces severe cuts and demoralization. This is a real administration fight between the grown-ups and the ideologues.
On the known threats facing us today, the strategy gets it right, focusing on China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and jihadist terrorism. We might debate the pecking order, but those are the big five. And the strategy recognizes the critical nature of the cyber-battlefield.
Trump’s signature is the “America First” declaration. That’s political rhetoric, to be taken in stride. All nations and states put themselves first.
But it’s also essential to recognize that strategic competition is a team sport, not a boxing match. Not even a superpower can handle global conflicts alone. We might provide the star quarterback and the toughest defensive linemen, but we still need others to fill out the team. And the contributions of our allies cannot be measured solely in dollars or euros.
In the strategy’s concluding pages, there’s an important clarification, too. We finally have a clear definition of “principled realism,” the administration’s tillnow-vague term of choice: “We are guided by our values and disciplined by our interests.”
It’s hard to imagine a wiser maxim for American engagement with the world.