National Security Strategy and Politicizing the Military

What is a National Security Strategy Document?

The National Security Strategy (NSS) is a report prepared by the Executive branch and delivered to Congress that describes the major national security threats and how the current administration intends to address those threats. The NSS report can be presented in both classified and unclassified forms. This document is mandated by section 603 of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 and must describe and discuss the following[1]:

1. “The worldwide interests, goals, and objectives of the United States that are vital to the national security of the United States.”
2. Foreign policy and national defense capabilities necessary to deter aggression and implement part (1)
3. Proposed short-term and long-term uses of national power to achieve (1)
4. Evaluation of the adequacy of national power to achieve (1)
5. Any other information to help inform Congress related to (1)

Problems with the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance of March 2021

The NSS released in March 2021, entitled “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance” (INSSG)[2], lists some of the priorities that the Biden Administration will address[3]: the pandemic, economic downturn, racial justice, and “climate emergency.” Exactly none of these are military threats, and whose gravity depends on a specific political bias. It attributes our current geopolitical situation to changes in the “distribution of power across the world,” which is an explicitly Marxist interpretation of history[4].

Another non-military threat discussed in the INSSG is domestic violent extremism, against which the Biden Administration promises[5] to

work as a coordinated, unified federal government to use the full array of tools at our disposal in concert with state, local, tribal, private sector, and foreign counterparts. Robust law enforcement and intelligence capabilities, as well as strong cooperation and appropriate information sharing, will be critical to understanding and addressing the broad spectrum of violent extremism America confronts today.

This part appears to directly target January 6th Protesters. It is interesting to note that the NSS that was released the year following the Oklahoma City Bombing of 19 April 1995 made no mention of domestic violent extremism[6].

For the national security to be effective[7], “[w]e will enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion, and prioritize flexibility and improve training across our national security workforce.”

Unlike NSS documents released by the George W. Bush and the Trump Administrations, the INSSG explicitly mentions the policies of the previous administration when it comes to immigration, stating that the Biden Administration “ended the previous administration’s family separations policy and discriminatory travel ban.”

Finally, beyond the above mentioned changes to immigration policy, the territorial integrity of the United States is given almost no attention, beyond stating that the administration “will not be able to solve all of the challenges we face at the southern border overnight.[8]”

Overall, many of the supposed threats listed in the INSSG are chosen to match the Biden Administration’s political leaning, and the major threat – the unsecured southern border – is downplayed and no plans to apply national power to counter this threat are given. It is clear proof of the politicization of the military by that administration.

Footnotes

[1] Goldwater–Nichols Act
[2] The White House, “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance.”
[3] Ibid, 6
[4] Sherman, “The ‘How’ and ‘Why’ of Power”
[5] Ibid, 19
[6] The White House, “A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement.”
[7] The White House, “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance.”, 21
[8] Ibid, 19

Bibliography

Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of October 4, 1986, Pub. L. 99-433 (1986), Retrieved 22 August 2024 from https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/dod_reforms/Goldwater-NicholsDoDReordAct1986.pdf

Sherman, M. “The ‘How’ and ‘Why’ of Power: from Marx to Foucault to Power Today.” 13 April 2015. Retrieved 22 August 2024 from https://melinasherman.com/2015/04/13/the-how-and-why-of-power-from-marx-to-foucault-to-power-today/

The White House. “A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement.” February 1996. Retrieved 22 August 2024 from https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/nss/nss1996.pdf?ver=4f8riCrLnHIA-H0itYUp6A%3d%3d

The White House. “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance.” March 2021. Retrieved 22 August 2024 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSC-1v2.pdf

Comparison of Three Defense Strategies

Introduction

The "National Strategy for Homeland Security", "National Defense Strategy", and "Interim National Security Strategic Guidance" documents represent three different visions of what constitute American interests, and three different ways of advancing those interests.

Comparison of the Three Documents

In "National Strategy for Homeland Security" we have a statement that includes the broadest scope in what counts as national interest - not only territorial integrity but also infrastructure and key resources. The threats to these include both man-made dangers (terrorist attacks and industrial accidents), natural disasters (especially Hurricane Katrina), and mixtures of the two (infectious diseases). 

To protect all this, the goal was to prevent and disrupt terror attacks by denying access to and import of WMDs, securing the borders, cargo screening, "Intelligence-Led Policing," and engaging "key communities."

The solution that was implemented was a "bureaucratic" approach. This involved the creation of new intelligence agencies, departments, and offices such as:

• Department of Homeland Security
• Office of the Director of National Intelligence
• Homeland Security Council
• National Counterterrorism Center
• U.S. Northern Command

Along with these new agencies there was also sweeping legislation including:

• USA PATRIOT Act
• Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
• Protect America Act of 2007
• Reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

State, local, and tribal emergency response agencies were pressured to integrate with each other and their federal counterparts. This integration included a common command structure (the FEMA ICS) as well as shared communication systems. Finally, there was a call for citizen involvement (the "see something, say something" mantra).

---

Mattis' "National Defense Strategy" presents the most concrete and realistic approaches to national defense. The document advocates inoperability of defense agencies with the intel community, the modernization of key capabilities, cultivating workforce talent, and to prioritize the preparedness for war. 

Of the three documents, this one is the only to recognize asymmetrical warfare and irregular tactics by requiring the agencies charged with defending the United States to "be strategically predictable, but operationally unpredictable." It recognized that our enemies would engage in economic sabotage and other "Fourth Generation Warfare" tactics, and that we must "counter coercion and subversion".

---

The "Interim National Security Strategic Guidance" is the only one of the three to list non-military threats to the United States, specifically:

• The pandemic
• Economic downturn
• Racial justice
• "Climate emergency"

The document attributes our current geopolitical situation to changes in the "distribution of power across the world." It states that we will be unable to close the southern border overnight. 

This is the only one of the three documents to specifically mention the policies of the previous administration.

Conclusion

Of the three documents, the one that directly addresses how American engages in warfare is Mattis' "National Defense Strategy." It explicitly addresses the need to prepare for war and that our enemies will be using irregular tactics including economic sabotage. The Bush-era "National Strategy for Homeland Security" advocates the centralization of executive branch political power into the Department of Homeland Security. The "Interim National Security Strategic Guidance" is the only one to mention non-military threats to this country, and to treat these as equivalent in importance to military threats.

MISTER James Mattis

Bibliography

Homeland Security Council. (October 2007). "National Strategy for Homeland Security". Last retrieved 18 April 2021 from https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nat_strat_homelandsecurity_2007.pdf

Department of Defense. (2018). "Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America." Last retrieved 18 April 2021 from https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf

The White House. (March 2021). “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance.” Last retrieved 18 April 2021 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSC-1v2.pdf