National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Dec. 2017)

The National Military Strategy has always intrigued me because of my background. This document really engrains in us the ideology that President Trump campaigned on in 2016 which was “America First”. Like several of my colleagues discussed in previous posts the National Defense Strategy and National Security Strategies we have reviewed are based on the foundation that The US will preserve, Protect and Defend itself against all enemies foreign and domestic. I believe that with the US continuing to operate under the policies it currently is under force employment, force development and force design, we will be ready to advance our Military into the future at a steady and self-sustaining pace. The US is already projecting itself into the future by the creation of the US Space Force, and with the creation of this new branch, the US will continue to exude power on a global scale. Speaking on the topic of Space Defense, the Space Force will be the perfect example of the Joint Force and its leaders being comfortable fighting in space or cyberspace, since the Space Force’s main objectives would be the protection of the US Satellite networks. Sticking with the Space Force, Space as a whole is certainly seen as uncertain and full of new threats; that can be substantiated by our continued exploration of it. The NMS compliments the newly formed Space Forces’ mission, as well as our other military branches missions because of these reasons.

The goal of "defending the homeland and projecting power globally, now and in the future" has been represented fairly consistently throughout the last two years. Donald Trump ran in the 2016 election with an aggressive "America First" platform that was initially thought to play out in an isolationist sense, although in practice it showed up as seemingly abrupt and unhinged decisionmaking in the name of American security.

China and Russia have both been defining aspects of Trump's administration due to their centrality to this goal. 2018 began with Mueller indicting several Russian nationals, carrying on through mid-2019 when the investigation was closed. 2018 was also when Trump began targeting China with heavier tariffs and escalating the trade-war that we have seen play put for the last few years. Vice President Pence also gave a speech in October of 2018 dictating a rare clear articulation of policy from the administration stating that they planned to raise tariffs to combat economic aggression as well as condemn their actions in the South China Sea and increased censorship and persecution. It is very important to note that it is unlikely that the next administration will "go soft" on China, but I suspect that their actions will be made more analytically.

The next National Military Strategy will be interesting to read in comparison to this one seeing as the current and incoming presidents have opposing views when it comes to defense. Even today, as more of Biden's picks for cabinet positions come to light, it seems at the very least we will have a much more well-rounded and diverse group of decision-makers, compared to the previous administration, which has statistically lead to a higher margin of actions that protect the widest scope of the American population.

I have now read the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the National Military Strategy and it has been interesting to see how each strategy gets more specific as each one's scope gets smaller. The NSS sets out a strategy to mobilize many different sectors of the US government to achieve broad goals. The NDS then specifically narrows in to focus on how the Pentagon can work to achieve these goals, while the NMS narrows even further to look at what specifically the joint chiefs and the combatant commanders can do to achieve these goals. It is really interesting to watch this strategy continue to narrow further and look at how each part of the US government individually works to accomplish the same broad goals.

Much of the NMS did not come as too much of a surprise for me. The shift from regional to global conflict and the identification of China and Russia as two of the largest security threats for the US is reflective of the trend towards "great power competition" as laid out in the NSS and the NDS. I will say I was glad to see the Joint Chiefs of Staff recognize that the armed forces need to be prepared for more global conflicts. Paul Millers "Five Pillars of American Grand Strategy" notes that sticking to the idea that our military needs to be able to fight a two-front war at any given time is antiquated, as the US could potentially need to have troops stationed in many different theaters all over the world due to the nature of modern warfare.

This version of the NMS is nearly outdated at this point, as the Biden administration is sure to redirect many of the US chief foreign policy and national security objectives. Michele Flournoy is the current frontrunner for the position of Secretary of Defense. Somewhat counter to Biden, she continues to assert that China is a great threat to the US, and as such may not drastically alter the current defense department policy. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see revised strategies come out over the next couple of years, and get more detail about what this administration values in its foreign policy.

It is interesting to read about the fiscal revisions and reshaping going on within the government, particularly, in this document, the Department of Defense. As it mentions in the document, the threats that the DoD intelligence agencies have to deal with have grown in numbers and complexity, which obviously requires more resources to combat and therefore has led to the agencies growing in size as well. As the document mentions, however, these growing agencies have been held to the same scrutiny they have before, resulting in a gap between the size of the agency and the effiency of the reviewing platform.

The Department of Defense's specific and detailed operations are not something I know much about. This document was dense and took me longer to read as to fully absorb the intent, but seeing a shift in DoD procedures is very interesting. As we discussed yesterday in our meeting intercultural awareness is something that the DoD is trying to implement at a more fundamental level in many of their current campaigns to assure the highest and most long-lasting successful outcome. The Center for Operational Culture Learning, a sector under the United States Marine Corp, published the 2018 Military Cross-Cultural Competence Annotated Bibliography addressing the ways in which cross-cultural competence (compliance, communication, and coordination are discussed heavily and referred to as the 3c's throughout the document) is implemented. This gives contextual evidence about the regard for cross-cultural competency that was being practiced in 2018 and the resources they are banking their strategies off of.

In 2017 a paper was released by Marines detailing "Intercultural Training in the United States Military" which details how troops are taught to conduct interactions and historical factors that have lead to these actions. However, there are still a number of reviews that depict quite a bit of work that still needs to be done in intelligence and defense departments to sustain successful communication across conflict lines. An article on War Room from the United States Army College declared a prolonged failure in cross-cultural communication being a strong capability of leading officers in the military, leading to less successful cooperation than otherwise possible. Watching this development will be important over the coming years as the United States and China get closer to military power and the United States slowly reduces in total influence.

Overall, I think it is important that the DoD admitted that it could do better in managing resources and strengthening its internal organization in order to better compete with foreign adversaries. I think the idea of creating another DoD secretary of Resources and Management to focus on the internal organization of the DoD is a good idea to help further help the DoD become the effective body it needs to be. The DoD is the largest employer in the world, and having more people focused on managing all of these people is essential to assuring they work efficiently.

The idea of restructuring the DoD to be more adept to the modern world is one that has been floating around for a while now. Paul D. Miller suggested in his paper "The Five Pillars of American Grand Strategy" that the DoD could possibly restructure its fighting capabilities to abandon the "idee fixe" of the traditional two theater war. In the modern world, the ability of the US to fight two theater war is likely irrelevant, but the fact that it sticks around in the DoD perhaps diverts vital resources away from more modern security threats. Miller notes that "The United States faces the possibility of major conventional military crises not just in two theatres, but in five [and]... they also need to ready themselves against the aforementioned threats from failed states and rogue actors." In line with the idea stressed in this document, that "it is the unanimous view of the DBB membership that the United States is entering an era where the challenges it will face strategically, militarily, operationally, fiscally, and economically are considerably more serious than any faced during the Cold War."

Abandoning the Idee Fixe of the two-front war and other holdovers from the cold war will be an essential step towards preserving American power and influence in the coming century, and assuring that the DoD remains prepared and on par with that of our adversaries.

Seeing an internal audit of this scale is interesting to me. This document includes multiple different organizations in their audit of the chief management office. Something that stood out to me is that the audit did not mention anything involving cybersecurity. Since this is a longitudinal analysis of the CMO since 2008, I was under the impression that something in cyberspace would be relevant enough for this report. I am not the most familiar with inner-government audits that are over cyber resilience. However, I found some interesting information here. The quote, “Since its establishment in 2008, the Office of the CMO (OCMO) has failed to deliver the level of department-wide business transformation envisioned in the legislation, nor met the expectations of multiple SD, DSD, other senior officials or the Congressional defense leadership.” Reading this provides a clear picture of the current state of the office. I am wondering why the failures are now being reported in 2020 and not at a sooner time. I, however, was not familiar with this office prior to reading this document. I am now wondering how prevalent this problem is in other areas of government. If this entire office failed their goal, it is plausible other areas have similar and underreported issues.

I noticed what might be a contradiction in the video about the UN's electoral assistance efforts.

It is stated that it is not the UN's place to determine the legitimacy of elections, but only to support "periodic and genuine" elections in the member states.

It seems to me that making sure a given election is "genuine" would involve ensuring that said election is "legitimate." The UN understandably wants to avoid appearing like it is inserting itself unnecessarily into the domestic affairs of a member state. However, in order to meet the goal of healthy democratic exercise, election tampering or rigging would need to be called out and addressed.

This political tightrope speaks to the greater challenge of governance in international organizations. Encroachment on state sovereignty from the top down is rarely a popular look, but functionally it might be required to fulfill the objectives laid out by the IO in the first place.

This is a very topical discussion for today. I have spent a lot of time in my undergrad looking into democratic systems present today. From a psychological perspective I am always curious of the different social responses people and groups have to different infringements on their democratic rights. I recall the recent protests in Puerto Rica where protestors carried a guillotine through the streets towards the Governor’s house [1]. The recent Hong Kong protests also come to mind. The Hong Kong protests are an interesting case study when it comes to protests against a regime. I could however talk about Hong Kong for a long time. The included document is interesting as the UN is dedicated to democracy. Having the UN support elections on a global scale bolsters democracy. The video addressed the goals of the UN when it comes to elections. Their assistance is interesting as I would have appreciated them using more case studies in how the UN accomplished their goals within an election.

[1]. Puerto Rico protests

www.vice.com

Angry about bungled responses to natural disasters, Puerto Ricans hit the streets, guillotine in tow, to demand the governor step down.

I am fascinated by the United Nations. Each time I study it I learn more and more about its operations. It is interesting to learn that the UN helps to facilitate elections in any country if they request it. I think by doing that the UN can help newly democratic nations and nations that are struggling to help build their democratic strength and gain more independence as an electoral country. With the current times across the globe elections are a vital part of democratic processes that must be upheld with the best ability we are able to. So many factors can be influenced by elections such as political transitions, implementation of peace agreements, and consolidation of democracy. The process that the UN has to provide assistance is logical I believe. The UN would need to help tailer the election to each country’s needs and play to their strengths. You have to help a country guide towards their goals not “push them to their goals and either sink or swim”. With these processes in place, I think the election assistance offered can do very great work in nations that need it. With regards to the rapid deployment of assistance, this is paramount as in struggling nations any deviation from a projected plan can lead to potentially devastating consequences. Overall, could not agree more that elections and smooth election processes are essential for democracies to survive and its citizen's voices to be heard.

The United Nations is an entity that I have studied in many different capacities and find fascinating. When the UN was created it developed for main purposes including "maintaining worldwide peace and security, developing relations among nations, fostering cooperation between nations in order to solve economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian international problems, and providing a forum for bringing countries together to meet the UN's purposes and goals". Promoting democracy bolsters every single one of these, creating severe exigence to proliferate democratic elections around the globe. The vast number of purposes that the UN serves elevates almost every aspect of the human experience, yet one of the most important and unique privileges is their aid to democratic elections around the world. Historically, the United Nations have facilitated elections in contentious states such as Timor-Leste, El Salvador, Afghanistan, CAR, DRC, Iraq, and Sudan, along with several others.

They provide several different types of assistance as well, assuring the most productive use of resources that will bode the most ethical and representative election possible for the region. These types of assistance include technical, creating an environment that is more accepting of a democratic election, organizing and actually conducting the process, verifying results, observing election procedures, and providing groups of political and electoral experts for the region. The classification of the needs of a region provides the United Nations with more specific information allowing it to individualize its assistance for the greatest success.

At the 2005 World Summit, the Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan from Ghana released a Guidance Note that detailed even more specific "principles for effective assistance" including initiatives to "adopt proactive approaches to threats to democracy, do no harm, uphold local ownership, broaden domestic engagement and participation in democracy building, explicitly address the effects of discrimination against women, develop democracy support strategies with a long-term horizon, and invest in a comprehensive approach to democratization". These actions prove sustainability as one of the most important parts of implementation in the democratic election process. Some of these that stand out the most to me and are apparent in success stories of UN aided elections are upholding local ownership, addressing the effects of discrimination against women, and developing democracy support strategies that will persist long-term. This paper displays very clearly that the work that is done by United Nations Peace Keeping Operations (UN PKOs) is vastly more successful in a shorter time frame and is sustained much longer when the decision making involves local members and diminishes future conflict, they use the example of the Côte d’Ivoire in 2011-2016. Similarly, this paper shows the clear benefits of women being included in the democratic process and the lasting efforts of equality that stem from their inclusion.

This is an especially topic for Africa right now, as several major contentious elections have occurred throughout the past couple of weeks. Pertaining specifically to Francophone Africa, Cote d'Ivoire's and Guinea's elections have been particularly contentious. Both Ivoirian President Alassane Ouattara and Guinean President Alpha Conde ran for third terms, despite both of their constitutions limiting them to two terms, and both of them won rather convincingly. But in both countries, opposition candidates have protested the results. Both of these elections have been met with criticisms by the international community, who have cited irregularities at the polls.

Both of these elections had serious tensions in their runups, with nearly 30 dying in Cote d'Ivoire in the pre-election period. And in both cases, the opposition candidates made it clear they did not think the elections would be fair, with opposition candidates in Cote d'Ivoire going as far as to call for a national boycott of the vote. This could have alerted many to the fact that perhaps some international assistance could have helped increase stability.

I think that both of these elections might have benefited from UN support in an election observation capacity. The AU verified the election in Guinea, but not in Cote d'Ivoire, and there is still debate as to what exactly happened on election night. Having the UN monitor both of these elections could have reduced post-election tensions. And maybe neutral electoral surveillance security forces provided by the UN could have prevented election day deaths in both countries.

After reading today's document, I firmly believe that the House Armed Services Committee brought up several great points. I can understand why Russia presents the most immediate threat to the US. Any country that has a nuclear arsenal would be considered a threat to national security just due to the ability to cause so much devastation with a single group of weapons. Also, Russia’s on-going efforts to undermine Western Democratic Governments. We can see this in the recent years of hacking election systems and even current threats today. From this document I was surprised to see Russia's long-term economic forecast makes its global power likely to recede over the next 20 to 30 years. Of course, that surprise has some in part to do with my focus being in law enforcement not in economics. However, on the other hand, I was not surprised to see the section of the threats China poses to the US National Security. We have discussed significant the threats posed in previous forums by China, to save time I won’t go into detail but some of the threats can include violations and less- than- ideal laws on a myriad of sectors. Also, with China’s growing economy due to the lack of laws and control over its product quality, it does not surprise me that China represents the most significant economic and national security threat to the United States over the next 20 to 30 years. I completely agree that to remain competitive the US must prioritize developing emergent technologies over maintaining legacy systems and that the United States must strengthen and modernize geopolitical alliances with long-standing allies while establishing new alliances. Only then will the US adopt their culture and business practices to better support, and work quickly integrate innovation from the private sector. If the US is to succeed I concur we need to by playing to our strengths: free, fair, and open economy, strong education systems, and a culture for innovation that rests on the open market and free Democratic principles.

I found it interesting that the document includes a part regarding the rise of authoritarianism in the world. While this does not directly impact our national security, the rise of unstable regimes and civil unrest may lead to more unstabel regions that could breed terrorist cells or disrupt global economies. Especially given the rise of authoritarianism in East Europe, where the leaders are more likely to support and be supported by Russia and therefore react negatively to EU endeavours. As I have discussed recently, elections in Moldova and Montenegro threaten the stability of the Balkans as a part of the EU and NATO. While Montenegro is part of NATO right now, its far-right pro-Russian regime may change that.

I agree with @Madeline Smith that this document is pretty similar and on par with other documents that we have already read. However, a couple things that were quite interesting to me was the fact that they stated how the United States is declining as the top world power when it comes to economics and such. This is something that I feel we have been hearing as well as learning about in school for awhile. There have been many projections that China would rise to the top and so I find it interesting that it is happening and they are acknowledging it. Another thing that I found interesting as well as a little frightening is that authoritarianism is rising while democracy is declining. That would change the whole world dynamic as well as cause more wars, in my opinion. So it will be interesting to see if the United State’’s tactic of having a free, fair and open economy, strong education system and their innovation will work for rising back to the top as well as achieving everything they state in this document.

This document starts off strong with the direct acknowledgement of the threat China poses to the US. However, my attention was drawn to section IV. Development of AI and quantum computing will provide an advantage to the US. Quantum computing is a debate with some aware of the threat quantum computing poses from an offensive standpoint [1]. For example, quantum computing poses a significant risk to Blockchain [2]. Development of this hard power would allow the US a significant advantage in cyberspace. However, all advantages are subjected to potential erosion. Foreign powers will seek out the secrets of the US quantum computing should this be developed. Quantum computing deployed in cyberspace would alter the battlefields of the next conflict. Quantum computing does however still have a ways to go before it is an offensive power. Like quantum computing, artificial intelligence is not at a point to an offensive power however the application is there. In 2019 the OpenAI managed to beat the world’s champions team at Dota 2 eSports [3]. This may just be an eSports victory to some however using this technology to power and operate drone technologies changes the role of future warfare. Having an artificial intelligence operate drone strikes would provide a significant advantage to the US military. These emerging concepts as referenced in the article are important for the government to keep a hand in.

Threat of Quantum Computing

securityboulevard.com

In the future quantum computers may be able to break strong encryption keys, this means businesses must now start to reevaluate their cybersecurity policies to mitigate this threat

Quantum Computing and Blockchain

https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/17-4039-blockchain-and-quantum-computing.pdf

OpenAI Five beats OG

www.vox.com

It’s the first time an AI has beat a world champion e-sports team.

This document was very similar to others we have discussed so far and was insightful as far as the challenges to US dominance that face us in the coming years. One portion I am specifically interested in is that of artificial intelligence and the role that it will play in the future of our two rivaling countries. Artificial intelligence has been controversial in many aspects through its creation and now that the coordination between AI advancements and the United States keeping the upper hand on China is becoming more and more important, it will be important to monitor the ethics surrounding decision and policymaking. (This is an interesting article by the Pew Research Center about the possible innovations and impacts of AI from several leaders of companies and authors).

In 2017 China set the deadline of 2030 for them to become the world leaders in artificial intelligence. This came with a set of goals including advancing their research to the most rigorous levels and a plan to keep Chinese talent in China. This hasty advancement has created what many news sources are referring to as the "AI arms race" between the US and China, which even if "arms race" is an overdramatization does prove the extensive attention both states are paying to the issue. Although AI has many practical uses, its potential use in warfare could be incredibly beneficial. Many articles discuss how the mainly private research that the US is conducting in the field cannot compare to the billions spent by China. China sees the cyber domain as a similar conquest to the physical world, that if they fund heavily and advance quickly, they can achieve power the same way they have politically.

I like how this document took a holistic approach to national security. The National Security Strategy notes that there are more challenges to US national security than just military threats. Failed states, anti-democratic practices in foreign nations, and foreign influence can all negatively impact direct US economic and security interests. So while re-posturing the pentagon and promoting emerging technologies is important, so too is forming alliances in strategic areas of the world and providing humanitarian and development aids. Section X of this document also notes that the DoD can do more to secure US national security than just develop the US military's wartime capabilities. Military to military cooperation can be a key aspect of forming bilateral and multilateral ties with foreign nations and preserving stability in areas around the world. As an example from my specialty, French cooperation with the Sahel G5 has been not only key in combatting extremism in the Sahel but also in preserving good relations with the region.

I will be interested to see if any of these priorities change after the elections. In addition to the president's reelection, all 435 members of the House are also up for reelection. It will be interesting to see how a potentially restructured committee could reconsider national security priorities for the next iteration of this document. It will also be interesting to see whether or not a new Biden administration or a second Trump administration would redirect national security priorities. The potential change in national rhetoric surrounding American foreign policy could redirect what we see as our largest threats and opportunities. Former Vice President Biden has made it clear that he does not see China as America's largest threat, in contrast to the findings of this document, and has also stressed the threat of Russia.

Foreign policy may have a lot of changes coming in the next four years. It will be interesting, if nothing else, to watch it develop.

Pillar four in my opinion is all about the cooperation between the United States and its allies. This document covered what I believe is the whole premise of National Security in the broad sense, protecting the US against threats from fragile states, which are the areas most threats come from as Jihadists and organized criminals can often move around freely there. I believe that by assisting fragile nations we are essentially feeding into the age-long quote "you are only as strong as your weakest link". This is helpful for the world stage. As fragile states in the world decrease the more stable the global economy can be. I also thought it was a positive thing for the United States to be invested in the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade Organization. The IMF stabilizing currency exchange rates for Americans abroad is a good way to ensure National Security extends to our overseas counterparts as well. Lastly, I strongly agree the internet needs to be protected as free and open. The Internet is a source of free-flowing information that America needs for its voters to stay informed and to make educated decisions in their voting.

@Madeline Smith You bring up some great points, ones that I myself noticed while reading the document. I do see a bit of contradiction in terms of the document stating that the administrations goal is to create a safe environment and provide basic human rights for minorities as well as women and youth empowerment. While in some ways, this has been carried out, there has been a clear divide surrounding social issues that concern minorities, especially in the last few months. Again, as you stated there is a continuous fear of condemnation for many minority groups, racially, ethnically, etc. When it comes to carrying out these ideals that are stated in the National Security Strategy, it might be beneficial for the administration to go back and polish how they are carrying out these actions.

Similar to @Griffen Ballenger I read the first section and was intrigued by the language that it put forward surrounding the rights and treatment standard of minorities in the United States. This document paints the United States to be the safe haven for those that have been historically persecuted when in reality there is still a very real fear of condemnation for various identity groups. The priority items that stood out to me the most were "empower women and youth" and "protect religious freedom and religious minorities". The verbiage used in these headlines alludes to a legal and societal system that holds the rights of these groups in equal standing with all other groups, which especially recently has been exposed as inaccurate.

The second section caught my attention right off the bat because of the discussion of Indo-Pacific relations. The section goes on to relay the vast number of ongoing conflicts in the area and lays general priority actions to combat further deteriorating relations. Similar to the other sections of this document, analyzing this now in Trump's presidency is an interesting perspective. As US-China relations have deteriorated faster in the last year and a half I think that the priority actions laid out in this section are too vague and while they could be applicable in the rest of the Indo-Pacific, China will need a standard of foresight.

Pillar IV largely focuses on American policy and influence in the world and is broken up into strategies for the other regions of the world. A main focus of our influence is to keep areas like Europe free while liberating areas like the Middle East or the Indo-pacific region from oppressive regimes. This document is consistent with the other three pillars as it prioritizes American economics and "America First" policies, two key goals of the current administration. I find it interesting to look at the Middle East regional strategy as a lot has changed in the three years since this document was published. ISIS and other jihadist terrorist organizations have been largely confined to just a few strongholds whereas if one looks at Afghanistan, the Taliban is gaining traction and attempting to gain legitimacy with nearby countries such as Pakistan and India. Recent challenges to our position in the Middle East such as the escalation with Iran in January 2020 and the massacres of our Kurdish allies by Turkish forces in October 2019 have put us on uneasy ground in the region.

I have separate comments about both of today's sections.

First, the section about advancing American influence hammers home the importance of championing individual rights and human dignity, citing these as mainstays of America's core ideology. However, I cannot help but think of the current protests against racial injustice. These protests are happening because it has become evident that not every American enjoys the liberties that we insist should be present in societies worldwide. Another line in this strategy highlights the problem: "...governments that routinely abuse the rights of their citizens do not play constructive roles in the world." Many would argue that this statement could apply to the United States, and this undermines the credibility of the ideological component of US foreign policy.

Second, the layout of the regional context portion reveals which regions contain the highest security priorities of the United States, namely the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East. Despite repeated references to terrorist groups and transnational organized crime elements in the Strategy, it appears that the renewed great power competition posed by Russia and China is the administration's top concern, with Asia and Europe taking the top spots in the order. Latin America and Africa seem to be put on the back burner in terms of policy priority.

I didn't really find myself surprised by much in this section of the document. After all, much of it was similar to strategies outlined earlier in the document or championed by the administration in the past. Pillar IV seemed particularly heavy on the use of soft power and diplomacy as a means of accomplishing its goals. But I would echo @Griffen Ballenger's concerns that this administration has in the past taken significant steps to reduce our diplomatic corps, including the State Department and USAID, which will make it hard to fully carry out many of the priority actions the NSS outlined.

One thing that particularly interested me about this part of the NSS was the section on South and Central Asia, specifically this line: "We will bolster the fighting strength of the Afghan security forces to convince the Taliban that they cannot win on the battlefield and to set the conditions for diplomatic efforts to achieve enduring peace." The administration seems to have followed through with the claim when in February of this year, they did negotiate a peace deal with the Taliban to pull all US and NATO forces in exchange for some concessions by the Taliban, including not allowing terrorists to operate in their area of control. negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban were set to follow. I do somewhat question how well this deal was thought out. The Council of Foreign Relations published a piece outlining some issues with the deal, including the absence of the Afghan government from negotiating and the current instability. Especially given the feuds between President Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah. The article also notes that since the peace deal, Taliban attacks have actually increased, according to both US and United Nations intelligence.

I would like to hear the thoughts of those interested specifically in terrorism, as this isn't an area I have particular expertise in. I'm curious to hear what others think about how the deal aligned with the NSS goals.

Here is the CFR article I read if anyone is interested: https://www.cfr.org/report/failed-afghan-peace-deal

Unsurprisingly, the part that interested me most was the portion on cybersecurity. It is an interesting section because cybersecurity is not only a new field of study in general but also one of the most mysterious and fastest to change. In this administration alone, the amount of focus given to the importance of protecting our information and tracking organizations and states that want to harm the US has taken up vastly more capacity than in the past. I believe that the most important policy action in this section is to improve integration and agility. Due to the fast-moving modernization of the world, everywhere cyberspace is created it now has to be protected. The capacity of the government to expand data collection and guard at the same pace is a challenge that will persist for years to come. Cybersecurity, I would argue, is the most important aspect of this pillar due to its threat to all other aspects of government if it is weak.

This section outlines the emerging security challenges America faces and how to modernize American capabilities. It also reveals the preferences of this administration as far as soft vs. hard power. Only a single page is devoted to traditional diplomacy, while much more time is spent on military capability. I'm aware that a significant foundation of hard power is necessary for credibility in foreign policy. However, it must be balanced with credible soft power for the sake of maintaining international influence. This Strategy espouses the importance of "a professional diplomatic corps" and "a forward diplomatic presence," but the Trump administration has gutted the State Department's budget and foreign aid programs. How can the US preserve peace through strength if it only has the stick and no carrot?

Having read Pillar III, what really strikes me is how realist (in an IR sense) the language is. There's a lot about balance of power and how that is an inherent part of international relations, which again seems very much in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt.

This administration makes no bones, again, about a fact that has been true since 1945: the United States is the global hegemon and it has every intention of remaining there. To once more paraphrase Kissinger, this is the current administration wanting to be the world system.

What really caught my eye in this document is the section on space, since the space force is in the process of building, I find It interesting to see the different priorities that are made for it. I think that everyone should take a look at what is being prioritized in general and make assessments about whether they are necessary or not. As well as the challengers that are pointed out. The way pillar three organized, seems to be focused on defense against those three challengers being Russia, Iran, North Korea and terrorist groups. While those are the main countries and organizations of concern, it would be interesting to also see it targeted towards lesser of concern countries.

Upon reading pillar two, this is what strikes me:

"That economic system continues to serve our interests, but it must be reformed to help American workers prosper, protect our innovation, and reflect the principles upon which that system was founded."

This discusses a conception of international institutions that is very explicit about how aforementioned institutions exist fundamentally to help the United States at the expense of other countries. For example, the time when the US had the most use for the United Nations was during the times that organization served as a way of legitimizing American military action against its geopolitical rivals in World War II and then in Korea.

I'm reminded of a Henry Kissinger quote:

"Empires have no interest in operating within an international system; they aspire to be the international system. Empires have no need for a balance of power. That is how the United States has conducted its foreign policy in the Americas, and China through most of its history in Asia."

Pillar III goes into depth on what threats and concerns the US military is fighting against as well as several strategies for deterrence and if that fails, defeating the enemy. First, the document makes clear which foreign entities provide the most danger to the United States and its allies: Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, as well as rogue states such as ISIS ad Al-Qu'ida. The document then goes over threats and priorities for the military. While obvious threats such as attacks from Russia or jihadist terrorists are mentioned, less obvious threats such as outdated nuclear infrastructure and bureaucratic delays in the Defense Industrial base are prioritized. As a continuation of Pillar II's message of rejuvenating the American economy and bringing jobs back to the United States, it is emphasized in this document that the United States should be able to produce necessary parts and "secure supply chains" capable of protecting the nation. Not only does this document prioritize improving the military but once again prioritizes improving the US economy.

The document goes on to discuss new frontiers in military technology and strategy. As cyber-attacks become a more common tactic of hostility, the US military needs to adapt to and recognize cyber threats, making it a top issue. Also mentioned are innovations in space, nuclear infrastructure and intelligence. I think it is interesting that space is mentioned, given the administration's creation of a new military branch, the Space Force. The document also mentions promoting commerce in space, which may seem a few years ahead of its time, with SpaceX and BlueOrigin's drive to innovate space technology, it may be sooner than people predict.

I'm a little curious if anyone has any thoughts on this line; "The United States will seek areas of cooperation with competitors from a position of strength, foremost by ensuring our military power is second to none and fully integrated with our allies and all of our instruments of power," given President Trump's recent decision to pull 12,000 troops from Germany. Do you all think that this is in direct violation of integrating our defense with that of our allies, or is this an appropriate way to assure that our allies are contributing their fair share to our shared cause, as emphasized in the line " Our allies and partners must also contribute the capabilities, and demonstrate the will, to confront shared threats?" I'm interested the here other's thoughts on this aspect of the third pillar.

Here is a link on an article about the troop withdrawal from Germany: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53589245

Pillar Three of the NSS is all about building up and strengthening our assets in the effort to uphold our national security. Like my @Jay stated, space, and cybersecurity are two large aspects of our national defense that we cannot afford to ignore. I think that as we reflect on the progress that has been made since 2017 when this document was released the US has made great strides within the realm of space. The founding and recognition of the US Space Force as a Military branch was a great first step. It shows the significance of the commitment the United States has towards the exploration and understanding of the space domain. The United States also took a big step towards accomplishing its goals of making space a priority domain with the re-establishment of the National Space counsel. Cyberspace also is essential for the protection and upkeep of our Nation's National Security. Many aspects of our strategy revolve around technology and with Cyber attacks becoming more and more prevalent this is an area that the US must be particularly mindful of maintaining.

“The United States must retain overmatch-the combination of capabilities in sufficient scale to prevent enemy success and to ensure that America’s sons and daughters will never be in a fair fight. Overmatch strengthens our diplomacy and permits us to shape the international environment to protect our interests.”

I think ­­­Pillar III highlights the long-standing debate over defense spending and for this administration's strategy it is an increased investment. Renewing capabilities such as the nuclear arsenal and advancing statecraft through competitive diplomacy in complex regions are examples of peace through strength. However, if equal funding is not guaranteed to both defense and state than one department will be lacking while the other financially over-matched to ensure the safety of this nation.

I have found Pillar Three to be the most interesting to read so far. While I think Pillar One and Pillar Two have largely been predictable and in line with what this current administration has said, Pillar Three looked at some new areas that US Foreign policy can develop in. Obviously, space and cyber-security will be two large aspects of our national defense that we cannot afford to ignore, and it was good to see some actions taken on that, including opening up space for commercial activity and the reestablishment of the National Space Council chaired by the Vice President to develop long term goals and foster innovation. It will be interesting to see if future versions of this document bring any insight onto what some of these long term goals are, or if perhaps we see the effects with our own eyes in the coming years.

But I personally found the section on information statecraft to be the most interesting. Coming from a background in communications, I have recently been exposed to a lot of material about China's means of monitoring its citizens, including the infamous social credit system. It was great to here that this administration would be utilizing public diplomacy to counter propaganda efforts by the enemies of the United States. I believe that communications are just as vital as gun's, missiles, and sanctions as a tool of national security. It was great for me to see that this administration had outlined ways to combat the incredibly complex and technology driven methods our enemies use to disseminate information. Successful communications are in many ways how our adversaries, be they the Jihadists or the Chinese Communist Party, continue to operate and thrive despite oppressive tendencies.

Pillar II was interesting to me because of its similarities in contradictions to Pillar I. As I mentioned in a previous comment, many statements from Pillar I were counterintuitive against one another. Similarly, while Pillar II states that supporting the American economy maintains American national security, many of the priority actions outlined in the Pillar II are contradictory to the actions of the Trump administration. For example, the Pillar II outlines education as a priority action for national security, but there have been recent cutbacks in education. Similar behaviors are shown towards other priority actions with some being shown favoritism and others impartiality, yet all are outlined equally in the same pillar.

Upon reading these pages, the first observation is that this is a publicly-readable document. Coming from a government, it is inherently a work of propaganda designed to make you believe a certain conception of the world and should be treated as such.

Secondly, it (as I have stated in a different comment) makes very explicit something that has been true since 1945: that the United States will never willingly accept a relationship with the wider world that is dictated by people outside of Washington. Previous administrations, from Truman to Obama, have couched this in the liberal language pioneered by the Wilson administration, whereas Trump's rhetoric - and indeed his conception of American foreign policy - bears much more similarity to that of Theodore Roosevelt.

Here, the administration is justifying the choice of enemies that was made clear earlier - Iran, Jihadist groups, China, etc., and they are the ones that the administration has targeted.

This document shows how the entire liberal international world order spearheaded by the US and other Western powers since 1945 has been discredited in the eyes of many; the rhetoric here is a pre-1945 nationalism combined with a willingness to use force.

Pillar 2 of the National Security Strategy is by far my favorite pillar so far. I take a huge fascination regarding energy consumption and how to protect our assets. Rejuvenation of the domestic economy is a huge hurdle I believe we need to overcome. The economy domestically has lasting effects both domestically and internationally. If the United States’ economy starts to fail that would lead to a domino effect around the globe. Investors in the United States lose confidence in the system and stop investing then in turn less capital is in circulation in the market. The US Market then has less money to invest overseas and in other problems which causes other problems as our country’s investments start to fail. I wholeheartedly agree that The economy of the United States definitely deserves its pace in the National Security Strategy.

Pillar II of the National Security Strategy largely focuses on the economy and scientific innovation as essential parts to national security. The economy and subsections of it such as energy, cyberspace and scientific advances are integral to the development of any nation and therefore, a key aspect in their national security. The economy is also one of the more vulnerable aspects of our National Security Strategy. As mentioned in the document, foreign entities are eager to steal American advances in technology and science which weakens our economy. Other threats mentioned are the exportation of American jobs to other countries and businesses moving elsewhere to avoid American regulations. The author of this document makes clear that in order to bolster our economy, we must reduce regulations on scientific innovation, energy and the market while also securing the market from foreign threats. I find it interesting that this Pillar was more political than the first one, but that is largely because the two parties have widely divergent views on how the economy should be handled.

Looking at the second section of the National Security Strategy, it was very interesting to see the economic strategies that were put into place. I was especially interested in the section on reducing the national debt. Looking at the national debt clock, the United States is up to 26 billion. Looking at that, it has increased instead of being reduced. So I am not sure if the strategy for that has been beneficial.

I was also intrigued by the trade plans, especially since we have seen multiple trade deals throughout this administration be terminated. However, the President has stayed true to his plan of terminating unfair trade deals. This second pillar seems to have a good basis and plan for the economy, which we know goes hand in hand with national security.

I particularly found the sections on Energy Dominance and Protecting the Innovation Base to be the most interesting. Energy dominance was interesting to me because it felt very in line with the Presidents' political platform. Fossil fuels, particularly coal were mentioned frequently as ways to "stimulates the economy and builds a foundation for future growth" (p. 22). This despite coal usage in the US reaching some of it's lowest levels ever. It is here again that the question of how political this document is gets raised. While I think it is overall a largely strategic document, the agenda of the president can perhaps be seen in some of the rhetoric. I should also state this is not to invalidate the document, but merely to offer commentary on the posed question of whether or not this is a political document.

I also share the concern of US intellectual property theft. It is a major issue the United States will need to combat if we are to remain a leader in innovation around the world. The document gave some general solutions, such as partnering with private industry and increasing network security, but this would definitely be an issue I am more interested in learning the specifics of.

One thing I noticed is that the Lead in Research, Technology, and Innovation section did not give many specifics to combating Chinese firms, especially Huawei, in the building of telecom and 5G networks. Huawei's activities and ties to the Chinese government are questionable, and the fear of them becoming the primary architect of 5G networks around the world is growing. And with China now threatening retaliation after the UK ban of Huawei and many European countries uncertain about the future of their networks, this seems like a prime time for American firms to take up a leading role in Europe and the rest of the world. While perhaps this issue is a little too recent to warrant a full policy analysis in the 2017 version of the NSS, it would be great to see the upcoming NSS use the Lead in Innovation section to create ways that American companies can compete with Huawei in the race for 5G across the world.

For more on Huawei in Europe https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/07/17/europe-faces-a-fateful-choice-on-huawei/

And my source for coal usage in the United States https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/coal.php

Today's reading of the second pillar of the National Security Strategy, Promoting American Prosperity, was especially intriguing to me as far as the way this administration broke down the five most central action items. Rejuvenating the domestic policy seemed less shocking to me than others because it has been one of the highly prioritized items by this administration consistently. I did, however, find the mention of a plan to utilize our superiority in natural gas production to be interesting, and somewhat inconsistent with other portions of the document and administrative actions. Promoting free, fair, and reciprocal economic relationships was also not a surprising addition to this strategy because, again, this administration has made it very clear that adherence to American economic policy is one of its most pressing concerns. This was an appealing section for me due to the close ties to foreign policy and our interactions with developing countries. This section speaks with a tone of zero mercy, which can become tricky with dealing with nations of lower resources. Both, leading in research, technology, inventions, and innovation, and promoting and protecting the US National Security Innovation Base struck me as more obvious and expected reactions to keep up with the increasingly digitalized and mechanized world. The section that was most intriguing to me, particularly after three years of watching this administration prioritize and operate, is embracing energy dominance. The priority actions all point to deregulation and unhindered access to energy sources, while other mentions of the environment throughout this portion seem much more precautionary.

I enjoyed reading through this document. Admittedly my eyes were drawn to the sections on cyber security.

I appreciate the focus on keeping America safe in the era of cyber. “The government must do a better job of protecting data to safeguard information and the privacy of the American people”. I agree with this statement. Cyber security is an uphill battle for governments and increasing protections helps level the field. The document illustrates the need for government and private sector partnership to achieve this goal. In response there has been an expansion of Air Force Civilian careers in cyber and partnerships with private companies. Since the document was published in 2017 is it interesting to think about the recent developments and events in cyber after this document was posted. The indictment of four Chinese nation state hackers by the DOJ comes to mind. The individuals attributed with the Equifax breach have been identified and indictments followed. Another note that stood out is the inclusion of improving information sharing and sensing. This is something that occurred more than once in the previous administrator. The U.S. China cyber agreement of 2015 was a link between U.S. and China for information sharing regarding to cyber space. The current national security strategy outlines the swift consequences for malicious actors in cyber space. The vagueness of swift consequences interests me. I recall the recent drone strike on Hamas hackers in Palestine by the Israeli military. This document makes me wonder if kinetic responses are on the table for U.S. reactions to cyber attacks. Cyber is considered a battlefield according to NATO.

I am excited to read the upcoming security strategy and see the changes to cybersecurity.

For more about the events I’ve referenced:

Chinese Hackers Indicted

https://www.wired.com/story/equifax-hack-china/#:~:text=In%20a%20sweeping%20nine-count%20indictment%2C%20the%20DOJ%20alleged,state-sponsored%20thefts%20of%20personally%20identifiable%20information%20on%20record.

U.S. China Cyber Agreement (2015)

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IN10376.pdf#:~:text=S.-China%20Cyber%20Agreement%20During%20the%20state%20visit%20on,States%20and%20China%20agreed%2C%20among%20other%20things%2C%20to

Hamas Hackers Target of Drone Strike

https://www.zdnet.com/article/in-a-first-israel-responds-to-hamas-hackers-with-an-air-strike/

“A democracy is only as resilient as its people.” This document represents the prerogative of putting America First and the administration in 2017 was able to center The National Security Strategy on the foundation of American resilience. Each subsection emphasizes a U.S. interest that will protect and expand domestic prosperity, whether it be towards energy security, economic development or technological advancements, there is no doubt that the priority lies with the American people.

However, as the United States is a major influence in the world, pushing nationalistic views in foreign policies and security strategies can vex regional allies. This can make for longer negotiations if natural resources are needed or if military operations need to be done outside of U.S. soil. If the United States is to be an effective institutional leader then being resilient in the global arena is just as important as it is on the homeland.

The National Security Strategy covers the variety of threats that this nation and its allies face. In each of these threats, the author prioritizes securing America's position as the global leader in defense emphasized in the slogan "America First". The values of this nation are frequently mentioned, and the idea of strengthening these said values (i.e making America resilient, confident and strong again) are priorities of this administration's national security strategy.

It is interesting to read this document with three years of hindsight. In the three years since this document's release, we have seen a rise in domestic terrorism at home, challenges to our power in the Middle East (such as the situation with Iran in January and the Turkish attack on our Kurd allies in October) and a pandemic which resulted in economic recession and exposed the weaknesses in our healthcare system. Several points in the National Security Strategy refer to defending against bio-threats and bio-hazards, albeit most likely with the idea being that these bio-threats are deliberate attacks on our national security and not a spurious outbreak. While at the writing of this document, the nation could not have predicted which threats would have occurred and which would have not, it would be interesting to see how the pandemic played out had we emphasized supporting biomedical innovation and containing bio-threats.

The national security strategy is a document meant to assess immediate threats to national security and creates a plan of action to resolve/better the threats. It lays out the responsibilites of the federal government and institutions, as well as how state and local government must take action in the face of a national security threat.

The strategy is an essential document because it also established America’s priority actions, lays out plans for major threats against national security, and puts identifiable threats in layman’s terms for the average American.

In comparison to previous, older strategies, the 2017 version is quite interesting because of the Trump administration‘s “America First“ attitude toward national security. However, this seems to be counterintuitive because, as outlined in the strategy, American national security lies in not only the hands of the federal government, but its ability to work with foreign entities. Therefore, it is key that the American government find a stable balance between the two to protect national security. Older security strategies should also show an progressive evolution through the years of national security. Although, in practice, there is not much variation among them. Many national security issues in previous strategies remain true for the present strategy.

The National Security Strategy is always an interesting document to review due to its capability to be used as a direct avenue for agenda setting within an administration. This is clearly outlined by the document opening with a letter from the President explicitly outlining his stance on the state of our current national security and the most important aspects to focus on in the coming years. This is followed by an in-depth analysis of each of the issues outlined in the introduction, seemingly by severity, another agenda setting tactic.

This NSS in particular is especially important to assess at this point in time because it addresses a response plan to a pandemic, which as of three years ago was strictly hypothetical. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic sweeping the globe, it was hard to quantify the statistical implications and threats caused by a bio-hazard like a virus. In the NSS the priority actions laid out are to "detect and contain bio-threats and their source, support biomedical innovation, and improve emergency response" all of which seem reasonable, yet simple. I believe that this is a good example of the universal struggle to holistically evaluate a threat you have not experienced first hand, and furthermore the importance of information sharing to expand understanding.