More Snarky Policy Statements

USD for Policy Michele Flournoy and CNAS fellow Shawn Brimley opine about strategy and the QDR in Proceedings. A lot of it doesn't sound too original, but this section caught my eye.

While this article focuses on security, it would be unwise to react to the emergence of tensions in the global commons by simply altering the mix of military investments and adapting America's global network of defense alliances and relationships. They are necessary but insufficient responses to what will be a lasting shift in international affairs. The task for the United States is to respond to these challenges with a whole-of-government approach that advances our interests while legitimizing our power in the eyes of others.

One way the United States could respond would be to (re)embrace a grand strategy that focuses on sustaining a healthy international system, the maintenance of which is not only central to our national interests but is also a global public good-something everyone can consume without diminishing its availability to others. Such a strategy would essentially update and make explicit what had been a consistent theme in U.S. grand strategy since the early years of the Cold War, but has been underemphasized in the post-Cold War period.

These developing challenges in the global commons also offer the United States a profound opportunity to reassert a leadership role in an area that will only grow in importance. Because stability on and within the global commons is a public good, others have powerful incentives to work with us on issues involving governance of cyberspace, ensuring peace in space, and settling contentious maritime issues. Protecting and sustaining stability throughout the global commons cannot be achieved by America alone.

We must lead in the creation of international norms and standards that can help advance the common good and expand the rule of law in these domains of growing importance. Helping to build the capacity of our partners and allies and working toward a common agenda on these increasingly complex issues should be a critical pillar of America's national security and defense strategy.

If I didn't know better, I'd think that Ms. Flournoy was trying to make a statement about the contrasts between the Bush and Obama administrations... but nah, that's crazy talk, right?

Comments

[jim hruska]

For US policy to be successful we must abandon unilateral solutions/actions worldwide.
The UN is in place to do the things this article discusses but the US fails to use or encourage use of this tool. This should be essential now that the Cold War is over and the world is no longer lined up ideologically.
The greatest threat to the world is US/Russian/Chinese/Indian/Pakistan and other nuclear powers having too many operational nuc wpns armed and ready to launch. Everything else is small potatoes. This is why we need multilateral policies to reduce/eliminate this threat.
Obama is as clueless as was Bush IF his recent actions in Russia are any indication. Comprehensive disarmament is needed more than just photo ops.
jim hruska

[Sven Ortmann]

I see many potential hot spots; nukes are just one of them. The greatest problem with nukes is probably that almost everyone seems to be stuck in Cold War ideas about nukes, but those ideas were specific to Cold War conditions.

This is what irritates me the most in the quoted text:
"approach that advances our interests while legitimizing our power in the eyes of others"

It sounds a lot like selling something, like PR.
The approach should rather be to stick to legitimate actions only - legitimation is no problem in that case.
Instead, they seem to want to trick the world into accepting whatever the U.S. does.