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.

The strategic approach expressed in this document is interesting. I of course am drawn to the section, albeit brief, on cyberspace. I agree that being as capable in cyberspace as land, sea, or air is a good guiding principle. I am interested to see how this dedication folds out for the US. As the document would imply, the fighting seems to be more offensive than defensive. The role of offensive operations in cyberspace are important, but defensive operations are equally as important. Seeing as this document is two years old, I am curious to see how future documents will address cyberspace. With a presidential transition on the horizon, I hopeful that cyber operations will be a focus in a future strategy. I do look forward to reading the next national security strategy and focusing on the sections of cyberspace and cybersecurity.

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.