Obama presents an idealistic security strategy
Thursday, 3 June 2010
America seems to have relinquished its self-imposed role of world police with the adoption of a new national security strategy. "The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone," President Barack Obama says in the strategy which was released on May 27. Obama's security strategy addresses a decades-old American obsession -- the obsession of shaping the world in its own image. It says, to succeed, America "must face the world as it is" and "America's greatness is not assured" in the realities of the 21st century. It calls for the US to work within international and regional institutions and expanding US engagement with "other key centres of influence -- including China, India and Russia, as well as increasingly influential nations such as Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia." It asks the US to play a leadership role in shaping a new world order as "An international architecture that was largely forged in the wake of World War II is buckling under the weight of new threats." Obama's idealistic view of creating a multi-partner world in this multi-polar 21st century underpins the 52-page US national security strategy of 2010.
The new US national security strategy marks a radical departure from George Bush's strategy documents of 2002 and 2006. Bush's documents were based on the doctrine of unilateralism and sought to achieve for America a total global domination unleashing pre-emptive wars on any state or non-state entity which crossed its path. The new security strategy of 2010 also formally repudiates Bush's 'Global War on Terror' and his crusade against 'Islamic extremism'. So, in the same paragraph in which it briefly mentions US's "strong partnership" with Israel, it says that the United States "also will continue to develop our key security relationships in the region" with Arab states.
But, the Bush-era legacies cast dark shadows over the new security strategy. It reiterates standard US position on the fight against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan and on the confrontation with Iran and North Korea on the issue of nuclearisastion. Only the future can say how the new strategy will work out on the ground while dealing with these flashpoints of conflicts. Two days after the new strategy was released, the Washington Post reported on May 29 that the American military was "reviewing options for a unilateral strike in Pakistan in the event that a successful attack on American soil is traced to the country's tribal areas." If this happens it would be a mockery of the rule of law which is upheld in Obama's security strategy.
Obama's security strategy deals with the issue of security in a comprehensive manner. It addresses America's domestic challenges of budget deficit, debt etc. and global challenges of economic crisis, non-proliferation, climate change, Millennium Development Goals etc. It projects America's military superiority but puts a premium on diplomacy, negotiations and international cooperation. It reads a superb document. Its Achilles heel, however, is the lack of "broad and bipartisan cooperation" which "places the United States at a strategic disadvantage." The document concludes with frank observations. It mentions: "Throughout the Cold War, even as there were intense disagreements about certain courses of action, there remained a belief that America's political leaders shared common goals, even if they differed about how to reach them… In today's political environment, due to the actions of both parties [the Democratic Party and the Republican Party], that sense of common purpose is at times lacking in our national security dialogue." With America itself being a divided house, how effective will be Obama's security strategy in determining America's role in the complex world of today?
The new US national security strategy marks a radical departure from George Bush's strategy documents of 2002 and 2006. Bush's documents were based on the doctrine of unilateralism and sought to achieve for America a total global domination unleashing pre-emptive wars on any state or non-state entity which crossed its path. The new security strategy of 2010 also formally repudiates Bush's 'Global War on Terror' and his crusade against 'Islamic extremism'. So, in the same paragraph in which it briefly mentions US's "strong partnership" with Israel, it says that the United States "also will continue to develop our key security relationships in the region" with Arab states.
But, the Bush-era legacies cast dark shadows over the new security strategy. It reiterates standard US position on the fight against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan and on the confrontation with Iran and North Korea on the issue of nuclearisastion. Only the future can say how the new strategy will work out on the ground while dealing with these flashpoints of conflicts. Two days after the new strategy was released, the Washington Post reported on May 29 that the American military was "reviewing options for a unilateral strike in Pakistan in the event that a successful attack on American soil is traced to the country's tribal areas." If this happens it would be a mockery of the rule of law which is upheld in Obama's security strategy.
Obama's security strategy deals with the issue of security in a comprehensive manner. It addresses America's domestic challenges of budget deficit, debt etc. and global challenges of economic crisis, non-proliferation, climate change, Millennium Development Goals etc. It projects America's military superiority but puts a premium on diplomacy, negotiations and international cooperation. It reads a superb document. Its Achilles heel, however, is the lack of "broad and bipartisan cooperation" which "places the United States at a strategic disadvantage." The document concludes with frank observations. It mentions: "Throughout the Cold War, even as there were intense disagreements about certain courses of action, there remained a belief that America's political leaders shared common goals, even if they differed about how to reach them… In today's political environment, due to the actions of both parties [the Democratic Party and the Republican Party], that sense of common purpose is at times lacking in our national security dialogue." With America itself being a divided house, how effective will be Obama's security strategy in determining America's role in the complex world of today?