New Strategy Touts Soft Power

New Strategy Touts Soft Power

The Obama administration has finally released its long awaited national security strategy. The 52-page document correctly identifies economic power as the foundation of U.S. national power and calls for a greater focus on economic growth, reducing deficits and rebalancing the instruments of statecraft away from the current over-reliance on the military.

The new strategy advocates coalition building and acting in concert with and through international organizations such as the U.N. and NATO. It also puts heavy emphasis on the instruments of “soft power,” diplomacy, global partnerships and economic development.

“When we overuse our military might, or fail to invest in or deploy complementary tools, or act without partners, then our military is overstretched, Americans bear a greater burden, and our leadership around the world is too narrowly identified with military force,” it says.


“The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone – –indeed, our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power,” Obama writes in the introduction. “Our strength and influence abroad begins with the steps we take at home,” He calls for greater investment in education, scientific research and green industries.

It identifies the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as the single greatest security challenge, “particularly the danger posed by the pursuit of nuclear weapons by violent extremists and their proliferation to additional states.” The U.S. is leading the global effort to secure loose nukes and is pursuing “new strategies” to protect against biological weapons.

While ensuring the viability of the nuclear deterrent, the administration is also working to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it calls the “foundation of nonproliferation.” The strategy says Iran and North Korea will be held accountable for violations of their international obligations to disarm.

The strategy also identifies attacks on computer networks in cyberspace as one of the most serious national security challenges. “Our digital infrastructure, therefore, is a strategic national asset, and protecting it—while safeguarding privacy and civil liberties—is a national security priority.” It calls for more spending on people and technology to increase the resilience of critical government and industry networks.

The strategy identifies Afghanistan and Pakistan as the frontlines of the global fight against terrorism, “where we are applying relentless pressure on al-Qa’ida, breaking the Taliban’s momentum, and strengthening the security and capacity of our partners.” It also calls for attacking terrorist sanctuaries in Yemen, Somalia, the Maghreb and the Sahel.

It also calls for boosting economic development and diplomatic “expeditionary capacity” and updating national security institutions for the 21st century.

The strategy, in a return to classic Clausewitzian terms, calls for the use of soft power before the military is called in:

“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 United States must reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend our nation and our interests, yet we will also seek to adhere to standards that govern the use of force. Doing so strengthens those who act in line with international standards, while isolating and weakening those who do not. We will also outline a clear mandate and specific objectives and thoroughly consider the consequences —intended and unintended—of our actions. And the United States will take care when sending the men and women of our Armed Forces into harm’s way to ensure they have the leadership, training, and equipment they require to accomplish their mission.”

Join the Conversation

A lot of cut and paste went on here, not really anything new from other administrations other than the global unification (a.k.a. NWO) stuff. Guess he is trying to play this one safe and not whizz on anyones shoes.

Sell U.S. down the riva’..gonna sell U.S. down the riva’…send them jobs over seas as a token of AMerikan dip-stick-dung diplomacy while we allow the enemies of the USA to unite, tke our jobs and sell us down the riva…I am Obama and my policies are killing U.S. on the riva’ so lowly

Obama must be removed before his team of idiots try to put this country at peril any further. We need to rethink this “dip-stick-dung” national security message. Touting national strength through economic power??????? Using these same terms to guide our illustrious foreign policy of the last 40 years has managed to break this country to the point as to where it is at the point of no return. Invest in “green technologies”…that sounds to me like wanting to control the worlds resources…maybe we need to start with our current industries and pass laws preventing them from shipping lots of our jobs over seas to promote “american power”. MAY BE we need to keep those jobs at home and stop worrying about “green technologies” as we try to control natural resources through out the world. MAY BE we need to focus on getting terrorists and focus on conducting a long war to combat extremists…

What does putting our faith in international organizations gotten us lately as it relates to national defense?:

–No global standards on how to deal with piracy, preemption, or targeted killings,

–No substantive sanctions on Iran (and likely none N. Korea).

–Very little cooperation from the UN when it comes to Afghanistan.

–Brazil undermining U.S policy on Iran.

What have we gotten?:

–Erroneous UN studies.

–Misguided global climate change agreements

–CEDAW and CRPD (which the Administration wants us to ratify).

Not that I’m against using the UN to further U.S. interests, but countries act (and should act) in their own national interests– not try to curry favor in some type of global popularity contest , or sign agreements that stand in stark difference to U.S. law.

Loath Communist China, but at least they constantly put China’s national interest over any international agreement– or consensus

Next time I get held up by a armed criminal I’m going to use soft power and diplomacy.

Think again. China is a economic superpower, they are holding the US afloat with there loans. That is “soft” power!
The US is going bankrupt if they continue as they did the last decade (under Bush).
A strong military is a big plus, but it is not the only thing you need.
The US became a superpower because of economic growth, do not forget that.

I agree to a point. The Bush Administration didn’t understand that large scale wars cannot be fought w/o significant strain w/o the international community(especially w/o raising taxes).

At this point in time with the countries accrued debt since 1957, we should be severely restricting entitlement and defense spending. Unfortunately, you won’t find much sentiment for that here(at least on defense), becuase most believe in defense debt spending like Liberals believe in social debt spending.

The written national Security Stategy is largely irrelevant to what a nation does or doesn’t do. Lets review a past president.
1. Without UN mandate and without cause (i.e. having been attacked), attacked and occupied a sovereign nation with a coallition of the willing against strong international objections placing a band of criminals in charge.
2. Pre-emptively attacked an assumed to be linked to terrorist organization weapons of massed destruction facility in a foreign country because of potentially faulty intelligence.
3. Committed the US to two open ended deployments that have no end in site and rapidly declining security situations despite tepid international support.
OK, so we know what President Clinton did (1. Kosovo (and Bosnia) 2. Sudan 3. Bosnia and Kosovo), now go look at his National Security Strategy. Did it say anything remotely similiar to what he did? Didn’t think so.

Further, I would observe that after the failed car bomb in Time Square, the US threatened to invade Pakistan if they didn’t do more to crack down on the extremist. Sound familiar? See that approach boldly in the strategy? Actions speak louder than words, past presidents have found the NSS to be little more than a piece of paper mandated by Congress, I doubt this one will be any different.

All
Pres O,s latest retoric is not his. Comes straight out of Center For American Prgress Security White Papers. Most of which have been published for at least 3 years. Standard Leftist Strategy. Read between the lines. Dependence on others for safety= soft power.
bt
No way, this “Strategy” will go by the board when the Next Major Terrorist strike hits.
end
Semper Fi

I actually think this is “one small step for mankind,” imperfect as it is. Long ago, the Biblical Prophet Isaiah predicted a time of peace on Earth, using a metaphorical expression, “the lamb shall lie down with the lion” (or vice-versa). Some people seem to think that war between human beings (aka “the Children of God”) is inevitable. I think this shows a lack of faith in the ultimate benevolence of the Cosmos and frankly a lack of self-trust. I personally think those paradigms of humanity we know as the Buddha and Jesus weren’t wasting their time when they called us to awaken to our Oneness. None of us knows how long this Oneness mentality will take to unfold, but in what better direction can we as individuals and we as a nation aim our whole lives? I think we’re all worth the effort. That is different than being naive — both individuals and nations (us included) can be terribly dangerous in our present state of spiritual development. But to me, I’d rather stake my life on peace than I would on destruction and on ever-increasing military budgets. The fact that at present, the U.S. “defense” budget equals the total of all other nations combined is a betrayal of the Judeo-Christian heritage we often speak of, sometimes with a misplaced sense of pride.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result
of a hundred battles.

If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained
you will also suffer a defeat.

If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

–Sun Tzu, “The Art of War”

Unfortunately, our President apparently does not know the enemy — - and might not know himself.

Of course “new strategies” will be published in order to justify the slow gutting of our military. Gotta pay for social programs somehow…

All
bt
I kinda liked the old “Carry a BIG stick and speak softly” theory of Teddy R..
bt
OBNA must posture, must strategize, must speak rhetorically, must put up a grand front, in order to satisfy the Leftist Base. His orders for FP come direct from Code Pink Anti war groups and the Think Tank, Center for American Progress. Podesta and Company.
end
Semper Fi
We WILL Prevail.
end

This is what you get when you elect a Liberal DemocRAT who has no real experience except for going out with his wife, at taxpayers expense, on dates and making apologies for the United States. He is also good at passing the Blame to everyone but himself. His Soft approach may get end up killing more Americans. If one American dies because of this policy then Obama, his entire staff and all persons appointed to any positions in government, and the whole DemoRATS in congress needs to resign.

Wow, are you people mixed up.
Funny how you couldn’t insult a president in time of war, till now.
Sun Tzu, “The Art of War” To bad Mr Bush didn’t know beter either! Else we’d never be in the mess we are in today.
Go back to your Fox & get some more talking points and your marching orders.

Well done Mr. President. We have enough wars, thanks to the Bushes and cannot afford anymore. We are looked at like dogs every where in the world although we spend the most money of any UN member nation. We need to be diplomatic as being a leader and super power doesnt mean you have to use the stick all the time. We are living in an era where the world is much smaller than it used to be and we have to change to conserve our resources for a better use than just wars and killings. Using the World Bodies is a great idea, we will be accomplishing our own agenda but using everyone’s name instead of just ours. I have been in Afghanistan for almost a year now and the Afghans hate us although as of Sunday May 30th, the cost of Afghan and Iraq wars has reached a Trillion dollars while as of June 7th, the Afghan war will be the longest war in US history. The way I look at Afghanistan, this war no matter what you do, is useless and will never give you anything back and you will never win it. We have great bases where we live, but outside, the Afghans call us infidels and any afghan working with us is an infidel as well. They eat our food, wear our clothes, take our money and we are still like this? We need to conserve our resources for our own and do not become the USSR of the 20th Century. Lets be friends with the world not someone always hitting everyone on the head with bombs and guns. We need all this money and resources at home where we have 10% unemployment. God Bless America and its people.

I read this thing all the wahy through. Other than the incessant and annoying quotations from Obama speeches, it was not that bad a document. Problem is — the document that lives under the title of “National Security Strategy” is no such thing. It is a diplomatic strategy, an economic strategy (some good words on international trade, but unfortunately, it focused mostly on domestic fiscal policy questions a domestic industrial policy strategy, but of the great questions governing national security in the 21st century, there is just very little that the US government has chosen to codify within this document. This is a problem for both enemies and allies of the United States of America, those who need this government to commit.

diplomacy is contractual, if the otherside does not subcribe its useless in every way. There is nothing wrong with soft-power, however we also need to have the capacity and will-power to use hard power where necessary. The president is refusing to understand or adapt to the world as it is, instead our “so-called” leaders (republican and democract etc.) are subscribing to a world they want to make. This utopian world does not address todays problems that will inevitability drag-on to tomorrows crisis. We are in difficult times, we need to make difficult decisions! I expect my president to act presidental, dump the politics act and be a leader for “all” not just some; I expect congress to put the security, laws and economic viablity of this nation first and foremost, instead they are self-serving; and expect our generals to be candid, trueful and dump PC, and put the welfare of his/her troops first, even above his/her career. If these things are taken to heart the country will remake itself into what we should be The United States of America, not the Fractured and divided States of America. US Army 14 years and counting!

Soft Power at intimated here is just an invitation for those thugs who think we are vulnerable. They WILL take advantage of our Smiling face and good will by thumbing their noses at us and committing crimes against other nations who cannot defend themselves. The policy of Walk Softly and carry a Big Stick was heavy on the size of the stick and at the ready position to use it.

It doesn’t mean keep the stick hidden, it means it visible for all to see and ready to crack heads for those deserving of such treatment!

What’s lacking in the national strategy is balance! This policy assumes the better nature of mankind is overtaking humanity. The problem is that the worse nature of mankind exists in equal parts as the good! It always has and always will be! The prudent among us will see that the means and power to overcome that undesireable force is kept at bay for the betterment of all mankind!

Lets work to ensure that this erronous policy of demilitarization is reversed and a return to show of force as the true test of national security is bolstered!

77705256
We pay. They play and develop their strategy to weaken our sovereign Nation! We are a “Republic” A Nation under God with Liberty and Justice for ALL. Our National security rests on our ability to act unilaterally when justified!
“The United States must reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend our nation and our interests, yet we will also seek to adhere to standards that govern the use of force. Doing so strengthens those who act in line with international standards, while isolating and weakening those who do not. “
The last sentence is a total crock of crap! Most UN contingents are battle skittish at best. When in the last five decade has cooperating with the UN benefitted the USA? Answer: Never!

Of course economic power is the foundation of national strength. This has been true since at least the 17th century. Ever read “Long Cycles in History” or Paul Kennedy’s “Rise and Fall of the Great Powers”?? Why do you find this controversial? It’s one thing to be clueless, but why would you want to advertise that fact?

I agree, we should have added an income tax surcharge to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you really want to determine the depth of public support for a war, ask them to pay for it. This would have been the fiscally responsible thing to do.

Well, thats not a bad idea. But then it must be a one-timer, let the people see what it cost to wage war. Then you will have a couple reactions, probably in front of the White House.

Well, but don’t act surprised when other countries don’t follow the USA automaticly.
And please do not forget, you talk about intervening in maybe other sovereign nations (I’m not talking about the terrorists!)

Justice for All is great, but who will be the judge: USA, Russia, China, Europe?

This is the hoariest old apple in the left wing’s bag of arguments. When Kennedy wrote his book back in the 80s, the Japanese were the Big Bad Wolf — but the Japanese military was and is miniscule, and we see how that worked out. Now it is the Chinese, and between the Chinese military threat and the Chinese economic menace, it is Lions and Tigers and Dragons, oh my !! Please explain how maintaining defense at 4 percent of GDP is such a horrid and unsustainable burden. Is defiicit spending an important problem ? Yes, then as now, but we cannot keep paring back our military to make up the difference that should be achieved by entitlement reform to live within our means. How hard is this to understand ?

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement