NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY

JUNE

2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 3

II. DOMESTIC 4

Responsible Leadership for a Stable Democracy 4

Changing the Process of Engagement on the Home Front 5

Engagement Structure 7

Reforming the Intelligence Community 7

Education 9

III. GLOBAL 10

Nuclear Proliferation, Deterrence, and Iran 10

Terrorism 13

The A.Q. Khan Network 14

The Arab Spring 15

IV. THE WAY FORWARD 16

V. CONCLUSION 18

Heather McCormic

GOVT 391, Professor Arsenault

19 June, 2011

2

Word Count: 4858

I. INTRODUCTION

The United States values and promotes democracy, the system of government that involves

and empowers the individual. A citizen of a democracy such as ours has the power to

determine his or her own life path, exemplifying the true meaning of freedom. America is the

pinnacle of freedom in the world today; we promote the freedom of choice among all peoples,

wherever we are. Though the freedoms we cherish are not always the same as those treasured

by other states, we promote the right of foreign nationals to choose which freedoms they do

and do not have by encouraging their involvement in the creation of their governments.

We live in a global system, not a structure set in stone. Our world is dynamic, changing to

reflect the rise and fall of states and civilizations, races and religions. Generations have

witnessed the coming and going of trends, worldviews, regimes, and alliances. We, the United

State of America, have always supported growth in science, technology, philosophy; but when it

comes to power, we refuse to acknowledge that states are in a power cycle—one particular

country never remains at the top forever. America must come to terms with this reality. The

United States may be the only dominant world power, the hegemon, today, but it cannot be for

all time. As the global leader of this time, we must prepare for the future where another state

comes to equal, or surpass, America’s power. We need to set in place a stable world, one that

allows states to trust each other without hindrance. Creating that world starts at home with

investing in the infrastructure and laws that will both allow United States influence to endure,

and promote stability; from there, America must confidently approach worldwide problems and

3

issues. The trust needed to change the world must be initiated in the United States before we

can portray it in our global actions.

II. DOMESTIC

Responsible Leadership for a Stable Democracy

Legitimacy and public support rely on leadership that is responsive to its citizenry. If a

government cannot gain the approval of its people, it is unreasonable to expect foreign states,

especially allies, to view its policies as legitimate. Widespread support for a policy or ruling

presents a united front and stronger presence abroad when approaching worldwide debates

concerning new issues or events. The media is vital in holding domestic leadership responsible

for its actions because it is the means by which the public learns of goings-on. On the other

hand, the media holds up a mirror to the public sentiment so that leadership can act

accordingly.

Politicians can better understand the wants and needs of their constituencies by supporting

civic involvement among the public. Town hall meetings, rallies, and question and answer

sessions are options for leadership to hear and respond to the concerns of the citizenry. As

elected officials, representatives at all levels of government must reflect the will of the people

in debates and voting. In seeing the effects of civic engagement, the public will be encouraged

to become involved in the political system; this leads to a positive feedback system that is the

sign of a democracy. As a government we gain credibility and set an example for other states to

follow by showing our responsiveness to the public. By being a government known for its

connectedness to the people, we show the world that cooperation is possible. Increasing our

4

intergovernmental cooperation also forms a solid basis on which we can build lasting

collaborative efforts worldwide.

With power comes responsibility, the responsibility to keep only the best interest of the United

States as a whole in mind. This government must use its power wisely and finance programs in

the most effective and efficient way, minimizing the waste of human assets and resources. A

serious problem we face is our deficit; if we do not rein in our budget, we will not be able to

sufficiently fund our security institutions and efforts through the Defense Department, State

Department, Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community, etc.

Lastly, the public needs to be able to trust its leadership. Morality is key in the development of

this trust. Our country is founded on dignity, the fight for justice and right. Recent events

brought to light by the media about virtual immorality on social networking sites is grounds

enough for the public to be disillusioned about the honesty of its leadership. This government

cannot gain the trust of our allies if we cannot remain honorable in the eyes of our own people.

Changing the Process of Engagement on the Home Front

We have an unchecked system of going to war despite the War Powers Resolution. With this

piece of legislation, Congress attempted to hold the executive accountable in its war making

powers; however the Resolution has repeatedly fallen short of its full potential since its creation

in 1973. The president can deploy troops at a moment’s notice without Congressional support.

This quick reaction time is reassuring in that the United States does not remain idle after a

world event while waiting for approval to retaliate against an enemy; nonetheless, the War

Powers clock has only started once. Recent events in Libya prompted the president to deploy

5

U.S. forces in the Mediterranean and in the state; the sixty day limit allotted to remove troops

from the area has come and gone. To regain control over the executive, Congress must either

enforce the War Powers Act more precisely and cut funding for troops, or adopt new legislation

concerning the president’s powers as Commander in Chief.

By restricting executive unilateral efforts in war making, Congress can spare American lives,

energy, and resources. The legislature should be the most influential body in war making and

should make the president answerable to both representatives and the general public if he or

she oversteps the power given to him or her. More than that, the legislature must implement

consequences when the president does not follow protocol. For instance, Congress could

launch a campaign against the president condemning him or her for previous actions. This

negative image portrayed by the federal body most directly connected to individual

constituencies could cause repercussions in the president’s next election campaign. The

legislature could also refuse to support the president in his or her efforts to pass bills, or reject

his or her nominees for appointed positions in need of Congressional approval. These possible

courses of action by Congress could lead to serious ramifications in the executive branch.

Congress cannot be afraid to allot funds in the most effective way possible. In distributing the

budget, it is up to elected representatives to focus on either short- or long-term goals, or a mix

of both. In order to preserve U.S. national security, difficult choices must be made. Therefore,

Congress must prioritize for the executive where the military should be involved. A set of

criteria may be necessary to determine which world events or situations directly impact U.S

6

national security. If an event, situation, individual, etc. is a direct threat to national security, it

takes priority over an ally’s security; a threat to an ally supersedes a need for humanitarian aid

in a non-allied state. A hierarchy must be established to prevent our military from

overextending its resources in order to adequately ensure the protection of the United States’

most important assets. This prioritization may call for the reduction of humanitarian aid in

order to cut spending and reallocate funds. The United States should encourage regional

powers and multilateral institutions to become more involved in the international community.

Reforming the Intelligence Community

The Intelligence Community (IC) must increase its productivity by reorganizing its structure and

increasing cooperation among agencies. First, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence

(ODNI) must be empowered to truly encapsulate all the position was meant to be in the IC. The

ODNI should be a permanent Cabinet position, giving the Director the political prowess to make

7

Engagement Structure

This era demands a reprioritization of where we engage our uniformed men and women because we have depleted our human and financial resources. A three-tiered hierarchical scale would allow decision makers to categorize potential threats to U.S. national security and more easily determine where we should deploy troops depending on previous engagements and budgetary constraints.

1. Direct Threat: Situations endangering U.S. citizens’ lives (e.g., attacks on the homeland, attacks on U.S. property abroad including military bases and embassies, natural disasters within the United States)

2. Indirect Threat: Situations endangering U.S. assets (e.g., allies’ wars, attacks on allies, disasters demanding humanitarian aid within allied states)

3. Not a Threat: Situations not directly concerning the security of the U.S. citizenry or assets (e.g., non-allied states’ wars, situations demanding humanitarian aid among non-allies)

Our military is a zero-sum force; to address one situation is to neglect another. Hence the military must protect U.S. citizens before it considers reaching out to other states, even allies.

demands of the heads of the sixteen agencies he or she leads. Additionally, the Director must

be given control of the entirety of the intelligence budget. The person in this position

encourages the overall consolidation of intelligence into one impartial office where one agency

does not overrule the others. This directly assists the president; he will spend less time being

briefed by representatives from the myriad of separate agencies. Instead, he will be briefed

with consistency and will not waste his time listening to combating viewpoints formed from

different aspects of intelligence collection and analysis.

Second, the IC must invest more in the personnel it already has as opposed to adding to its

numbers with specialists; this allows for more flexibility and freedom to change to a constantly

evolving world. The IC can increase training for individuals employed in the IC to give them the

skills needed to approach a variety of situations that may arise. Subject area specialists are

worthwhile short-term investments; when their areas of expertise become obsolete, like the

USSR the mid-nineties, experts are rendered useless. Decreasing staff in Washington and

increasing the knowledge and skill sets of intelligence personnel will in time strengthen the IC

overall.

Third, an increase in integration and cooperation between agencies is imperative in creating a

more adept intelligence infrastructure. Collaboration across the IC allows analysts to compose a

more complete and accurate picture of a situation before advising on how to respond. By

creating more interagency resources that all agencies contribute to and use equally, the sixteen

individual agencies can support each other and decrease the exclusivity of information. This

reduces “stove piping” and provides context for leaders using intelligence to make informed

8

decisions. Intelligence in isolation is no better than reading a definition without revealing the

word it describes.

Education

A common trend we see today is that foreign students studying abroad in the United States

return home after completing their education instead of investing their skills in the U.S.

workforce. What we need is more domestic investment, more programs for American students

who pursue higher education especially in the sciences, engineering, and technical studies. By

encouraging innovation, we ensure that America will stay ahead of the curve intellectually and

scientifically, both of which are vital in this increasingly technological world.

Our youth must acquire more technical skills and knowledge as the workforce of tomorrow;

math, engineering, computer science, and chemistry all are fields the next generation should

invest in as the future’s innovators. To remain competitive in the global job market, our youth

needs to have the educational background to become a highly skilled workforce. Only with

education can the United States continue to have strong, competent leadership and

professionals to help us recover from the recent economic downturn.

Education is not solely based on what you learn in a classroom—it is also the acquisition of

knowledge throughout life. To improve our national security, we cannot wait to educate our

public about potential threats or what to do in times of crisis until a disaster like September 11 th

takes place. All citizens should be involved in national security; the security of our country is a

personal issue. Our citizenry, not just our men and women in uniform and those policymakers

and diplomats working with foreign nationals, must assume responsibility for U.S. security. The

9

government can encourage the public to become more involved in security by increasing

awareness about security issues via speeches and the news media. We can also start an

initiative of the same caliber as the Healthy Eating Campaign; advertising on television and

providing practical ways to improve safe living in America are the first steps toward a security-

focused society.

III. GLOBAL

Nuclear Proliferation, Deterrence, and Iran

Nuclear weapons today are considered symbols of modernity declaring a state’s legitimacy and

power to the world. However, nuclear armament causes tension within and among states

because, as former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz notes, “proliferation begets

proliferation.” States, in aiming to protect their populations, use deterrence to safeguard

against attacks; in the global system of deterrence we live in, every state is justified in seeking

to develop nuclear weapons for the safety of its people. This need for nuclear weapons must

cease, and the United States must lead the way to change this mindset.

The United States must shift its focus away from solely depending on hard power to affect

change in the global arena, and must seek to influence the world via diplomatic means. For

example, in the place of sending troops abroad, we should send more diplomats and Foreign

Service Officers (FSOs) to negotiate and reach conclusions with foreign leaders. In doing so,

states will feel less threatened by U.S. military and nuclear power and will not look to increased

defensive forces and nuclear proliferation for security. Instead, states will create more solid

political infrastructures, strengthen their economies, and increase their diplomatic capabilities

10

to imitate the United States and prove their legitimacy. By setting aside the need for nuclear

weapons to be a contender for global influence, we can initiate a new international norm that

encourages states to acquire legitimacy without threatening other states and causing intra- and

interstate conflicts. The United States was one of the first states to reject the societal norm of

slavery, it was one of the primary actors in fighting piracy at sea. If it could begin changing

ingrained norms like these, we can surely influence what defines legitimacy for states now.

Deterrence is an idea that must be left in past—it may have been the most appropriate mindset

for the post WWII era, but today in the post Cold War world it causes a cascade effect driving

global proliferation. To maintain peace, we cannot force countries to be peaceful by brute

force. Instead, we must replace our doctrine of physical superiority with a doctrine of mutual

respect for all states regardless of past relations.

There is a reason we seek to “reset” our relationship and diplomatic ties with our former

competitor Russia. A doctrine of deterrence indicates that the United States has something to

fear in foreign states. We should seek friendship and learn to trust in other states to ensure

development and peace in the world. Otherwise we put ourselves in a position to potentially

sustain heavy damage when a state retaliates to a threat we pose to them.

Today Russia and the United States possess a vast majority of the world’s nuclear warheads;

therefore we must collaborate to contain the expansion of proliferation. We—both the United

States and Russia—have already begun the process of disarmament by complying to the New

START Treaty that calls for the reduction of nuclear missile launchers by half. As we continue to

solidify our renewed relationship, we can work closely with Russia to ensure further

11

international security and non-proliferation. Our efforts in cooperatively striving for the reversal

of proliferation can influence change if we implement our collective strength in an organized

and efficient manner.

One way we can work toward our mutual goal of non-proliferation is by allotting specific states

or geographic regions to either the United States or Russia. The United States would be

responsible for the Americas, Europe, and Africa while Russia would focus on Asia; both U.S.

and Russian support is needed to maintain a safe environment in the Middle East. The division

of states troubled by proliferation would allot China, India, and North Korea to Russia, while the

United States would continue to focus its energy on Iran and Pakistan with support from Russia.

Current activity in Iraq places U.S. forces near Iran and Pakistan already; proximity is vital in

building a strong infrastructure and encouraging non-proliferation. Also, the United States in

assisting Iraq to construct a solid government structure and stable social system is supporting it

in becoming the next regional power to balance out Iran in the Middle East.

Regional nuclear treaties play a vital role in non-proliferation. These regional agreements are

associated with the most responsible states that hold each other accountable for proliferation.

States in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific, and Southeast Asia have

designed and signed regional treaties; those regions today do not display the nuclear insecurity

seen in other states not participating in nuclear agreements such as Iran, Pakistan, India, and

North Korea. Also, these treaties can lead to further cooperation ensuring that participating

states help protect each other from outside threats. A regional treaty diminishing the presence

of nuclear weapons decreases the amount of distrust states feel toward each other, lessening

12

tension and allowing for more collaboration in other aspects of security such as politics and

economics. The United States must encourage the creation of more regional and bilateral

agreements limiting proliferation, especially among quickly rising world powers like Pakistan

and India. Peaceful treaties between states ensure that states both contribute to and gain from

agreements; in the case of non-proliferation agreements, states disarm and consequently save

vital resources that can be used for infrastructural improvements or other governmental needs.

Another state that continues to cause tension throughout the world by acquiring nuclear

warheads is Iran. Incentives may not be the most effective means to dissuade Iran from nuclear

proliferation. Instead of trying to make nuclear weapons unappealing, we should approach the

situation in a way that makes peaceful negotiations the better option. Iran has refused to

consent to disarm despite the opportunity to gain a more integrated economy and better

international reputation; we should counter Iran’s proliferation by providing it a better outlet

for legitimacy. Granting Iran political power by granting it a seat in the UN Security Council will

allow it to voice its interests and have influence—influence that can be checked by the veto

powers of other Council members—over decisions made. If Iran refuses to accept this offer of

power, the United States must present Iran an ultimatum: either become an ally and begin

disarmament, or stand in opposition of U.S. interests and continue proliferation.

Terrorism

A terrorist will stop at nothing to wreak havoc on his or her target; these men and women must

be stripped of their weapons and supporters. In today’s nuclear world, a terrorist can cause a

great amount of physical and psychological damage to a state or population by building a dirty

13

bomb from illegally acquired fissile materials. An option to help prevent the acquisition of these

materials is to merge the storage locations where nuclear and radiological products are kept

and increase the security in those areas with the assistance of allied states. This added security

ensures that a watchful eye always rests on dangerous materials and that there is less of a

chance that nuclear devices fall into the hands of inimical states or non-state actors. Also,

imposing more export controls on these materials will lessen the threat of a terrorist or other

malcontent obtaining nuclear capabilities. Controlling the shipment of nuclear materials

prevents the seizure or diversion of dangerous substances, keeping threatening actors like the

Khan network at bay.1

Export controls slow the process of obtaining nuclear devices, but restricting trade may be

detrimental if new technology or products related to nuclear development are kept from the

world market. This also poses a problem for developing nuclear energy sources and the like.

1 “The Man Who Sold the Bomb.” Time Magazine. Feb 06, 2005. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1025193,00.html>.

14

The A.Q. Khan Network

Born in 1936, Abdul Qadeer Khan is a Pakistani nuclear scientist and metallurgical engineer. Dr. A.Q. Khan studied at universities and laboratories across Europe throughout his life, enabling him to develop Pakistan’s gas-centrifuge uranium enrichment program. Khan’s extensive knowledge of different states’ nuclear developments combined with the many professional and personal connections he made with labs and scientists worldwide allowed him to create a network based on the exchange of information and nuclear technology. The Khan Network has been one of the most active proliferation rings in the world.

Khan’s main motivations for increasing global proliferation are denying the Western world sole power over nuclear technology and empowering Muslim nations to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Since the early 1980s Khan has dealt nuclear tools and information to Iran and Libya; he has also used the Network to export Pakistani technology to North Korea and Iraq since the 1990s. In 2003, Libya revealed that it acquired nuclear capabilities and accused Pakistan’s Khan of releasing the technology for the weapons to it. Pakistan denounced the Khan Network, stating that it did not support Khan. A.Q. Khan later confessed that he ran a global proliferation ring in February 2004.

These export controls must be used with great prudence to not hinder the development of

better energy sources in this world so dependent on non-renewable energy. Many multilateral

solutions exist to support export controls; the United States does not have to approach this

global issue alone. International institutions, the UN in particular, use this type of preventative

measure to hinder both state and non-state actors from acquiring nuclear weapons.

We as a state must encourage the populations of areas known for being terrorist strongholds to

rise up against the terror threat. They cannot depend on a foreign country coming in to save

the day; they must be the solution for their own problems. We can provide technical support,

training, and some supplies, but to eradicate this problem the people must choose to stop

allowing terrorists to live in their land. Without a safe-haven among a timid people

unconcerned about global safety and security, terrorists cannot continue to thrive in the

problem areas of the world.

The Arab Spring

This year has been a golden opportunity for democracy to take root and grow in the Muslim

world. Arabs have risen up in an organic grassroots effort making demands of their

governments. The actions taken by the Muslim youth in Northern Africa have set in motion the

process of democratization that the United States has anticipated for decades. However, we

cannot impose the American form of democracy on the new Arab state governments. Instead,

we must allow them to develop on their own, following the will of their peoples. The Arabs’

wills for their respective governments differ from the will we have for them. This reality is a fact

we must accept. Not all cultures have the same values we do; in many cases we do not

15

prioritize rights as other states do. We must step aside and leave the process of

democratization to the people who began this movement—we do not have a place in this

transformation unless we are asked to step in to provide assistance.

The United States can still publicly support and foster the new democracies in Northern Africa

by opening more trade opportunities for them and acknowledging their governments. What the

United States needs is a strong set of allies that will stand by us in the face of injustice.

Therefore, we cannot master the new democratic governments in Africa; that domination

would cause those countries to act out of fear instead of respect for us. To instill democracy in

states across the world, we need allies, not subordinates.

IV. The Way Forward

The United States cannot force itself to choose to promote either domestic or international

issues. On the contrary, we must be wise in where we invest our human and financial resources

to strike a balance between the two. Our country cannot focus solely on forwarding

improvements on the home front at the cost of ignoring global concerns; isolationism is not an

option in this increasingly integrated world. Also, America cannot overlook issues at home to

solely address global problems; without the leadership, intelligence, and education needed to

form a solid domestic foundation, America will not have the necessary means by which it can

continue its worldwide involvement.

The United States must not overuse its military power and other resources by engaging in all

situations that might be considered threats to U.S. national security. The American public does

not have the will or means by which we can become involved in affairs not directly of our

16

concern; we must allow those situations to be addressed by other states or international

organizations. The United States must abate overextension with selective engagement and

increased diplomacy to form relationships and partnerships with states.

In recent history, the United States has focused on hard balancing with other states in the

global system. We have neglected diplomacy in many situations, deciding that the use of hard

instead of smart power is the best way to instill peace and protect U.S. interests and security.

This approach to international relations is flawed in that it creates strained relationships with

states that otherwise have the potential to become trusted allies. Our government must set

down the spears of war and utilize the forgotten olive branches of peace and prosperity.

Decreasing U.S. military presence will allow diplomats and FSOs to better connect with the

citizens of other states, learning of their cultures and, more importantly, their values. These

relationships will help our men and women working with foreign states find viable ways that

the United States can assist governments and peoples to improve their conditions of living. By

reducing tension in foreign states by cutting the number of armed individuals in communities,

the United States can instill the trust needed to create a safer global society.

The United States must encourage global multilateralism and involve international

organizations in managing worldwide issues to reduce the number of situations it engages in.

We must learn to relinquish our responsibility for policing the world while promoting states to

pursue more mutual, not unilateral, interests. We can begin by reducing U.S. presence in some

humanitarian aid projects. By showing the world that we cannot reach our goal of global peace

and prosperity by our efforts alone, we will make other states conscientious of U.S.

17

involvement worldwide, and inspire them to be more accountable for international issues that

concern them. States may become more involved in organizations such as the United Nations

and contribute to their human and monetary resources in response to the reduction of U.S.

assistance. The world has learned to trust in the United States and our desire to help states and

peoples in need; unfortunately we can no longer sustainably assist all of the areas that require

aid. We must encourage states to trust in large entities that have the capability to support

entire regions rather than in singular states. States must seek more integration with other

states and institutions to begin openly trusting each other. International multilateralism is vital

in creating a more peaceful and secure world.

V. CONCLUSION

In a world where we have seen the ascent and descent of nations, we must embrace the reality

that our hegemony will one day end. However, this does not imply that our fate is to decline in

authority and legitimacy. Instead, we can secure our continued influence by refocusing our

involvement in the global arena to promote the sustainable use of our forces and resources. By

reforming the executive branch and Intelligence Community, we can be sure that we are

involved in situations directly concerning the good of the American people and our assets.

Additionally, we can secure the economic well-being of our people by promoting education in

American society. Nuclear proliferation and terrorism may pose threats to the United States,

but we will persist in our fight against insecurity and injustice. There is hope to be found for the

promotion of U.S. values with the introduction of democracy to the Muslim World; our world is

18

growing to respond to the people. With this response comes a future of peace, of trust. Trust is

the key that will open the door to a new era of global history.

19