Clive Crook: Obama’s security strategy falls short
[Clive Crook is Washington columnist for the Financial Times.]
The administration of Barack Obama sees its new National Security Strategy – a statement the White House sends Congress from time to time – as a work of great importance, a radical departure from its predecessor’s thinking. It is neither; nor, for that matter, is it a strategy.
Ordinarily, one might be unconcerned. A document is just a document, after all: actions are what count. The worrying thing is that the US president and his team seem so deluded about what they have produced.
I might be prejudiced. To judge the content of the statement, you have to overlook the way it is expressed, which is not easy. It was run through a management-speak machine. It emerged, repetitious and full of misprints, with added verbiage and reduced intellectual content. Then it was put through a second time.
Imagine 50 pages of this: “To prevent acts of terrorism on American soil, we must enlist all of our intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security capabilities. We will continue to integrate and leverage state and major urban area fusion centres that have the capability to share classified information.”
Previously, as you know, many people denied that homeland security capabilities should be used for homeland security. So much for that false doctrine. And notice how state and major urban area fusion centres will in future share information. Another bold departure. The previous approach to these strangely impaired fusion centres was different, entirely different. Thankfully, those days are over.
This is the “all appropriate measures” school of policy analysis. One should do everything that is appropriate – in an integrated, leveraged, cost effective and sustainable way – while rejecting anything inappropriate, disorganised, ineffective or bound to fail.
According to this paper, the aims of Mr Obama’s national security policy include every desirable outcome. Curbing climate change is an aspect of national security. By similar reasoning, available resources embrace every aspect of his domestic and foreign policy: not just strong armed forces and a prosperous economy but also “access to quality, affordable healthcare”. National security includes everything and therefore means nothing.
The authors contrast Mr Obama’s enlightenment with the brainlessness of his predecessor. But as his actions have departed little from late-period George W. Bush, this boils down to mood and pedantry. The White House does not like to say “war on terror” or “terrorism”; terrorism is a tactic not an enemy, it explains. One can still say (indeed the administration insists) the US is at war with terrorists, violent extremists, and al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Good to have this cleared up...
Read entire article at Financial Times (UK)
The administration of Barack Obama sees its new National Security Strategy – a statement the White House sends Congress from time to time – as a work of great importance, a radical departure from its predecessor’s thinking. It is neither; nor, for that matter, is it a strategy.
Ordinarily, one might be unconcerned. A document is just a document, after all: actions are what count. The worrying thing is that the US president and his team seem so deluded about what they have produced.
I might be prejudiced. To judge the content of the statement, you have to overlook the way it is expressed, which is not easy. It was run through a management-speak machine. It emerged, repetitious and full of misprints, with added verbiage and reduced intellectual content. Then it was put through a second time.
Imagine 50 pages of this: “To prevent acts of terrorism on American soil, we must enlist all of our intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security capabilities. We will continue to integrate and leverage state and major urban area fusion centres that have the capability to share classified information.”
Previously, as you know, many people denied that homeland security capabilities should be used for homeland security. So much for that false doctrine. And notice how state and major urban area fusion centres will in future share information. Another bold departure. The previous approach to these strangely impaired fusion centres was different, entirely different. Thankfully, those days are over.
This is the “all appropriate measures” school of policy analysis. One should do everything that is appropriate – in an integrated, leveraged, cost effective and sustainable way – while rejecting anything inappropriate, disorganised, ineffective or bound to fail.
According to this paper, the aims of Mr Obama’s national security policy include every desirable outcome. Curbing climate change is an aspect of national security. By similar reasoning, available resources embrace every aspect of his domestic and foreign policy: not just strong armed forces and a prosperous economy but also “access to quality, affordable healthcare”. National security includes everything and therefore means nothing.
The authors contrast Mr Obama’s enlightenment with the brainlessness of his predecessor. But as his actions have departed little from late-period George W. Bush, this boils down to mood and pedantry. The White House does not like to say “war on terror” or “terrorism”; terrorism is a tactic not an enemy, it explains. One can still say (indeed the administration insists) the US is at war with terrorists, violent extremists, and al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Good to have this cleared up...