Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

Objective: Analyze the conceptual assumptions and national interests behind the national security strategy and the US military’s role in that strategy.

1. Summarize the reasons for US failure or success as a super power in the next century.

Failure

In "The Erosion of American National Interests," Huntington believes the propagation of those national values, as part of our Grand Strategy is likely to alienate other states and cultures, leading us to the very conflicts we wish to avoid. And the emergence of the United States as the world’s sole remaining superpower has bred arrogance in its use of military and non-military power. Moreover, since the general public no longer cares much about foreign policy, it does not serve as an effective check on that arrogance. We are loosing our American identity after the end of the Cold war. Without a sure sense of national identity, Americans have become unable to define their national interests, and as a result subnational commercial interests and transnational and non-national ethnic interests have come to dominate foreign policy. Without a common enemy to promote identity and cohesion among people we have begun to weaken as a society with one possible consequence is the rising opposition to the federal government. The continued mass immigrations of multicultural peoples not willing, nor required to accept "Americanization", has the effect of weakening American culture and national unity.

Success

The United States’ Hard Power: Nuclear weapons, an unmatched Air Force, superior Navy and Army. In a nuclear age, ganging up on the US no longer threatens America’s core security, and Soft power: the attraction of our culture, education, institutions, and enormous economy, drawing world interests toward US ways and cooperation will ensure the United States continued success as a super power.

2. Explain the development of US national interests, and the nature of US influence and power.

National interests usually combine security and material concerns along with ethical and moral concerns. During the Cold War we had broad public support for government efforts to defeat communism, a major threat to our security. After the end of the Cold War new purposes for American power had to be found and national interests were identified as 5 vital interests.

(Pg 176).

1 Prevent attacks on the Unites States with weapons of mass destruction.

2 Prevent the emergence of hostile hegemons in Europe and Asia.

3 Prevent the emergence of hostile powers on US borders or in control of the seas.

4 Prevent the collapse of the global system for trade, financial markets, energy supplies and environment.

5 Ensure the survival of US allies.

With the fall of communism came increased American involvement in the world directed at commercial and ethnic interests rather than national interests. The role of ethnic groups in foreign policy is growing and as waves of recent immigrants have gained greater wealth and influence so has their influence on American foreign policies. During the Cold War, immigrants and refugees from communist countries usually rigorously opposed the government of their home countries. Now the immigrants support their home country’s governments and no longer feel any advantage in obtaining citizenship and joining American society. These ethnic Diaspora groups are having a major impact on American policy by supporting policies serving to help their homeland countries. American society has become very multicultural.

The National interest as defined by the White House fall into 3 categories; Vital interests, important national interests, and humanitarian and other interests.

Vital interests- Those of broad, overriding importance to the survival, safety and vitality of our nation. Among these are the physical security of our territory and that of our allies, the safety of our citizens, the economic well-being of our society, and the protection of our critical infrastructures—including energy, banking and finance, telecommunications, transportation, water systems and emergency services—from paralyzing attack. We will do what we must to defend these interests, including, when necessary and appropriate, using our military might unilaterally and decisively.

Important national interests- These interests do not affect our national survival, but they do affect our national well being and the character of the world in which we live. Important national interests include, for example, regions in which we have a sizable economic stake or commitments to allies, protecting the global environment from severe harm, and crises with a potential to generate substantial and highly destabilizing refugee flows.

Humanitarian and other interests- In some circumstances our nation may act because our values demand it. Examples include responding to natural and manmade disasters; promoting human rights and seeking to halt gross violations of those rights; supporting democratization, adherence to the rule of law and civilian control of the military; assisting humanitarian demeaning; and promoting sustainable development and environmental protection. Whenever possible, we seek to avert humanitarian disasters and conflict through diplomacy and cooperation with a wide range of partners, including other governments, international institutions and non-governmental organizations. This may not only save lives, but also prevent crises from getting worse and becoming a greater drain on resources.

3. Illustrate the uses of the military in protecting and promoting national interests now and in the future.

Through peacetime engagement activities such as defense cooperation, security assistance, training and exercises with allies and friends. Helping to deter aggression and coercion, building coalitions, and serving as role models for militaries in emerging democracies. Maintaining overseas presence promoting regional stability by preserving internationally recognized freedom of navigation on and overflight of the world’s oceans and giving substance to our security commitments. Responding to the full range of threats to our interests abroad. Smaller-scale contingency operations encompass the full range of military operations short of major theater warfare, including humanitarian assistance, peace operations, enforcing embargoes and no-fly zones, evacuating U.S. citizens, and reinforcing key allies. Working with our Allies and coalition partners to help improve their defense capabilities and interoperability with our forces, in order to bolster the effectiveness of multinational operations across the full spectrum of potential military missions.

Yes in that it is now the World’s sole superpower both militarily and economically. We are in a position to shape the future of the World.

Although the United States currently enjoys relative peace and security, the strategic environment remains complex and potentially dangerous. The threat of global war has receded. Former adversaries now cooperate with us across a range of security issues and many countries view the United States as the security partner of choice. Our core values of representative democracy and market economics are embraced in many parts of the world, creating new possibilities for enduring peace, prosperity, and cooperation among nations. We are not confronted by a "peer competitor"— a hostile power of similar strength and capability—nor are we likely to be in the near future. Given the United States’ military potential and ability to deploy to any region of conflict, it is also unlikely that any regional power or coalition could amass sufficient conventional strength to defeat our Armed Forces. We therefore have an unprecedented opportunity to shape the future security environment. We are successfully adapting our military alliances to new realities and building security relationships with new coalition partners. There are, nonetheless, significant challenges. Ethnic, economic, social, and environmental strains continue to cause instability and the potential for violence. Regional conflict remains possible, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a major concern, and we face a number of nontraditional, transnational, and unpredictable threats to our security.

Britain was able to maintain the only global power for two centuries, much like what the US is today. By a balance of power, not conquest for power, and geography isolating it from direct attack as long as the Navy controlled the Seas. The opposite is Germany surrounded by four powerful nations always vulnerable to the formation of alliances against them. As long as they could maintain alliances with at least two of the four powers surrounding them they could maintain the power advantage and avoid conflict. Washington DC is compared to being the hub with the spokes being Western Europe, Japan, China, Russia, and the Middle East. For all their antagonism toward the US, their association with the hub is more important than are their ties to one another.

The United States is the ultimate guarantor of the global free trade system. It must carry the burden of paying the bill, organizing the startup, and assuming a disproportionate burden of the costs. By providing security for others in Europe, the Middle East, and Pacific, the Unites States has bought security and stability for itself. A true great power must do more than deny others the reason and opportunity for ganging up, forming alliances against them. It must also provide essential services. As long as the Unites States continues to provide public goods, envy and resentment will not escalate into fear and loathing that will spawn hostile combinations. Power exacts responsibility, and responsibility requires a vision that transcends niggardly self-interest. Great powers remain great if they promote their own interests by serving those of others.

Today there is a much bigger payoff getting others to want what you want, by offering the vastness and sophistication of the American market. This type of power- a culture that radiates outward and a market that draws inward-rests on pull not push, on acceptance not conquest. This kind of power can’t be aggregated.

Recent large immigration of Latin America and Asia immigrant groups are changing the racial, religious, and ethnic makeup of the Unites States. Until recently immigrants came to America because they saw immigration as an opportunity to become American. Now, However, they come because they see an opportunity to remain themselves. Now it appears that some immigrant groups feel discriminated against if they are not allowed to remain apart from the mainstream. Without an underlying common culture, our nation faces the possibility of disintegration. As ethnic groups gain size, wealth and power, they have a tremendous effect on shaping the national interests in favor of their homeland.

See DLO question 1

Although the United States currently enjoys relative peace and security, the strategic environment remains complex and potentially dangerous. The threat of global war has receded. Former adversaries now cooperate with us across a range of security issues and many countries view the United States as the security partner of choice. Our core values of representative democracy and market economics are embraced in many parts of the world, creating new possibilities for enduring peace, prosperity, and cooperation among nations. We are not confronted by a "peer competitor"— a hostile power of similar strength and capability—nor are we likely to be in the near future. Given the United States’ military potential and ability to deploy to any region of conflict, it is also unlikely that any regional power or coalition could amass sufficient conventional strength to defeat our Armed Forces. We therefore have an unprecedented opportunity to shape the future security environment. We are successfully adapting our military alliances to new realities and building security relationships with new coalition partners. There are, nonetheless, significant challenges. Ethnic, economic, social, and environmental strains continue to cause instability and the potential for violence. Regional conflict remains possible, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a major concern, and we face a number of nontraditional, transnational, and unpredictable threats to our security.

During the cold war, the use of force by the major powers was tied clearly to their political and ideological competition; deterrence of major conflicts between them served the most fundamental national interest, survival. During the Cold War, the United States had interests in the defense of Western Europe, Northeast Asia, and Greater Middle East. The spread of democracy, the information age, and the global economy are expanding our interests into new regions. Today the United States and its allies have critical interests in Eastern Europe, Russia and its neighbors, and Asia, especially China. The dynamic world economy is effected by economic crisis worldwide. Economic crisis in Asia for example effects global prosperity and Western economies. Protecting Western interests and achieving goals is more complicated than ever, requiring much greater resources. Such transnational threats as terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, and environmental erosions, cross all international boundaries relying upon a much more diverse national security strategy.

The future is cloudy in part because the global community lacks consensus regarding political values and ideology. Western values are based upon the spread of democracy and market capitalism around the World. Prospects are good but their adoption everywhere is less certain. The key regions of the World are evolving in different ways and the interrelations between them are becoming more pronounced and the information- age economies are slowly drawing them together. Europe is headed toward stability and unity. The greatest danger is likely to come from the south in the Balkans. In Eurasia, their struggle to build democracy and market economies continue toward an unclear destination. Progress has slowed and Russia seems to be losing its grip on its own evolution. Russian power has always been the glue holding Eurasia together. Without it, the Commonwealth of Independent States could become a geopolitical ghetto, marked by economic turmoil, weak governments, organized crime, social instability, and residual military power. In Asia democracy has a firmer foothold with the Korean peninsula as the only near term threat. The current economic crisis could mean more democracy and market economies in Southeast Asia. China’s evolution will be key to the areas future. If China becomes a cooperative partner of the West; Asia’s future will likely be stable. Otherwise growing instability could be the result. The most explosive region is the Middle East, Persian Gulf, and South Asia. The principle democracies are Israel, Turkey, India, and Pakistan. Elsewhere, democracy or open markets are not developing. The danger lies in polarized politics, rampant poverty, fundamentalism, terrorism, WMD proliferation, and the potential vulnerability of Western governments, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. What evolves in the area will depend upon the results of the Arab-Israeli peace process, Persian Gulf security affairs, and the India-Pakistan standoff. Sub-Saharan Africa is progressing toward democracy and economic improvement. Africa will make some progress but have some major setbacks with the potential for savage ethnic violence and increased poverty. Central and South America are advancing toward democracy and multinational cooperation. But some countries are vulnerable to political instability. The World could become more stable and peaceful if today’s integrative trends continue and succeed. Unfavorable scenarios should also be considered;

1. Aggression by current rogue states and emergence of new rogues. B) Increasing ethnic warfare and violence from failed states. C) Accelerated proliferation of WMD and missiles. D) Spreading terrorism, organized crime, and drug trafficking. E) Military developments that erode U.S. superiority and encourage regional aggression. F) Authoritarian rule in Russia or other major countries. G) An anti-Western global coalition of rogues. H) Clashes over resources, or global economic collapse that produces widespread frustration and less political cooperation. I) Geopolitical rivalry with Russia and/or China. J) Emergence of a strong Islamic alliance in the Greater Middle East that seriously challenges Western interests.

K) Disintegration of the Western Alliance system and renewed nationalism.

Because America is engaged worldwide, even in peacetime, significant portions of our Armed Forces are present overseas or readily available to deploy overseas, where many of our interests are found. This posture of global engagement and the activities of our forces deployed around the world help shape the international environment by promoting stability and the peaceful resolution of problems, deterring aggression, and helping to prevent conflict. They also preserve our access to important infrastructure, position our military to respond rapidly to emerging crises, and serve as the basis for concerted action with others.

Shaping the International Environment. US Armed Forces help shape the international environment through deterrence, peacetime engagement activities, and active participation and leadership in alliances. Critical to deterrence are our conventional warfighting capabilities and our nuclear forces. Deterrence rests on a potential adversary’s perception of our capabilities and commitment, which are demonstrated by our ability to bring decisive military power to bear and by communication of US intentions. Engagement activities, including information sharing and contacts between our military and the armed forces of other nations, promote trust and confidence and encourage measures that increase our security and that of our allies, partners, and friends. By increasing understanding and reducing uncertainty, engagement builds constructive security relationships, helps to promote the development of democratic institutions, and helps keep some countries from becoming adversaries tomorrow.

Responding to the Full Spectrum of Crises. The US military will be called upon to respond to crises across the full range of military operations, from humanitarian assistance to fighting and winning major theater wars (MTW), and conducting concurrent smaller–scale contingencies. Our demonstrated ability to rapidly respond and to decisively resolve crises provides the most effective deterrent and sets the stage for future operations if force must be used. Should deterrence fail, it is imperative that the United States be able to defeat aggression of any kind. Especially important is the ability to deter or defeat nearly simultaneous large–scale, cross–border aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping time frames, preferably in concert with allies. The ability to rapidly defeat initial enemy advances short of their objectives in two theaters in close succession reassures our allies and ensures the protection of our worldwide interests. We must also be prepared to conduct several smaller-scale contingency operations at the same time, as situations may dictate the employment of US military capabilities when rapid action is required to stabilize a situation.

Preparing Now for an Uncertain Future. As we move into the next century, it is imperative that the United States maintain the military superiority essential to our global leadership. Our strategy calls for transformation of our doctrine and organizations and a stabilized investment program in robust modernization that exploits the Revolutions in Military Affairs (RMA) and Business Affairs (RBA).

Some state or non-state actors may resort to asymmetric means to counter the US military. Such means include unconventional or inexpensive approaches that circumvent our strengths, exploit our vulnerabilities, or confront us in ways we cannot match in kind. Of special concern are terrorism, the use or threatened use of WMD, and information warfare. These three risks in particular have the potential to threaten the US homeland and population directly and to deny us access to critical overseas infrastructure. Other challenges include exploiting commercial and foreign space capabilities, threatening our space-based systems, interrupting the flow of critical information, denying our access to strategic resources, and environmental sabotage. Hostile actors may use such means by themselves or in conjunction with conventional military force. Such asymmetric challenges are legitimate military concerns. We must increase our capabilities to counter these threats and adapt our military doctrine, training, and equipment to ensure a rapid and effective joint and interagency response.