Tuesday Evening Readings

If they have enough time.  They might consider what preparations they can begin making now and not wait for two or three years to begin a cold start toward unification (though I know they are not really waiting)

But I will again ask the question to US policy makers.  What is the US doing in terms of developing a plan to support the ROK in achieving unification because unification is the only way to both end the north's nuclear program and stop the horrific suffering of the Korean people living in the north who are subjected to some of the worst human rights abuses in modern history at the hands of the mafia-like crime family cult of the Kim Family Regime.

Panel pushes to finish unification preparation in 3 yrs

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2015/03/03/28/0401000000AEN20150303005600315F.html

Video at the link.  Can't tell if this is real or trick photography.  I am sure that if it is real that no American taught them to do something like this (or at least I hope not).

Afghan Special Forces demonstrate scary sharpshooting (Video)

AUTHOR: ARTURO | MARCH 2, 2015 | IN: ENDURING FREEDOM

HTTP://THEBRIGADE.COM/2015/03/02/AFGHAN-SPECIAL-FORCES-DEMONSTRATE-SCARY-SHARPSHOOTING-VIDEO/

Source

CATEGORY: ENDURING FREEDOM

N. Korea ready to fire medium-range Nodong missiles: military source

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2015/03/03/24/0301000000AEN20150303004800315F.html

MARSOC SHARES GLIMPSE INTO ASSESSMENT, SELECTION

By Sgt. Donovan Lee, Defense Media Activity

http://www.marines.mil/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/3258/Article/571247/marsoc-shares-glimpse-into-assessment-selection.aspx?utm_content=buffer3041c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Excerpt:

But beyond the knee-jerk criticism, the president’s National Security Strategy is not just a bowl of rice pudding. Although readers won’t find a strategy aimed at a unitary threat with clear ends, ways, and means, there is a pretty coherent philosophy at work. This strategy is the second and last of Obama’s presidency, and it rightly describes a world beset by challenges and in dire need of American leadership (“lead,” “leader,” and “leadership” appear 94 times in the context of the United States’ role in the world). It is not “leading from behind,” as the president’s restless and war-ready critics love to claim. Nor is it hard-charging unilateralism.

Instead, the world of President Obama’s National Security Strategy is one in which the United States’ economic and military might serve as the bedrock of strong, participatory, and rules-based global institutions. It’s smart multilateralism—working within the international system while also being willing to bear the burden of defending it, although not always with military power. This is likely as close as we’ll get to an “Obama Doctrine.” As the president told West Point graduates in a major foreign policy address last year:

Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will. The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership. But U.S. military action cannot be the only—or even primary—component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail. And because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expect every civilian leader—and especially your Commander-in-Chief—to be clear about how that awesome power should be used.

A lot of good words.  The problem in my mind is that a strong leader does not telegraph his strategy or publicly remove any options, e.g., a superpower can never remove military force as an option and in fact by leaving military force on the table and demonstrating not only the capability but the will to use it, can actually result in better diplomacy and in fact allows a leader to always be able to lead with diplomacy and refrain from using military force.  But stating self-restraint in public (in the vain hope that it will generate good will for the US) can lead to self defeat in statecraft.

Obama's Last National Security Strategy

The President and the Philosopher

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/143207/janine-davidson/obamas-last-national-security-strategy#cid=soc-twitter-at-snapshot-obama_s_last_national_security-000000

Excerpt::

This strategy, however, is not designed to provide answers to complex foreign policy questions. That task has nearly become impossible amid an almost implausible number of foreign tragedies and threats. In 2014 alone, an al-Qaida network the U.S. believed it had defeated in Iraq found new life in Syria and still controls massive swaths of that region now as the Islamic State group. Russia, considered an ally in 2013, invaded the sovereignty of Ukraine early last year and annexed the Crimean peninsula. Ebola swept through West Africa, and international cyberattacks became a reality for the American public. Throughout, China continues its mysterious march to superpower status with claims it will sail nuclear submarines to key points around the globe.

“It’s not a political document, it’s a strategic document that reflects a broader strategy of smart people within the U.S. government and how they see world issues,” says Johan Bergenas, deputy director of the Stimson Center's Managing Across Boundaries Initiative. “It’s really a reflection of a broader group of people who are in charge of U.S. policy.”

But the question is - Is it really a strategy?  (In defense of the Administration I do not think any administration has really produced a strategy for execution in any of the NSS's since 1987).

I do think that it is worth comparing the NSS with Reagan's NSDD 32 US National Security Strategy from 1982: 

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-32.pdf

This is also an interesting document:  NSDD 277 National Policy and Strategy for Low Intensity Conflict at this link: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-277.pdf

In defense the above documents were formerly classified documents but they were much more succinct with clear objectives and priorities and seem to be executable.  This is unlike every NSS since 1987 that has been more aspirational than strategy.  But I think the NSDD 277 has more application to today's world that one might think despite the use of the term Low Intensity Conflict.  It is too bad that the portions on support to resistance are redacted though I think what was not redacted is very instructive (we could certainly apply this to resistance movements we are trying to support or considering supporting around the world)

The New NSS: Any Shift in U.S. National Security?

New strategy offers much-needed perspective currently absent in Washington, says National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/06/obama-tries-to-clarify-national-security-policies-amid-isis-russia-china-dangers

White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice discusses the U.S. National Security Strategy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., on Friday.

By Paul D. ShinkmanFeb. 6, 2015 | 4:00 p.m. EST+ More

Anyone looking for specific direction on what the U.S. government hopes to achieve abroad, and how it plans to achieve it, likely won't receive any more clarity as of Friday.

The administration released its National Security Strategy, a document that outlines the president's priorities but focuses more on broad and lofty goals for America's place in the world than on a specific plan for resolving today's crises.

The strategy, while reiterating oft-repeated themes from President Barack Obama's two terms in office, was issued amid widespread criticisms that White House foreign policies are, at best, vague.

During testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, some of America's most influential military commanders of the last decade echoed the concern that the U.S. needs a “refreshed national security strategy.”

“We’ve disappointed a lot of friends out there, from Abu Dhabi to Riyadh, from Tel Aviv to Cairo,” said Marine Corps Gen. Jim Mattis, a former chief of U.S. Central Command, .

Obama was elected twice on a mandate of bringing American forces home from protracted Middle East wars and focusing instead on the Asia Pacific region. That narrative was the crux of his last National Security Strategy released in May 2010, just over a year after he first assumed office.

[READ: ISIS, Ukraine Wars Confront Defense Nominee Ashton Carter]

The commander-in-chief’s latest version, released Friday doesn’t stray much from those priorities: “Advance Our Rebalance to Asia and the Pacific” remains the top point under the key “International Order” section of the document. Strengthening alliances with Europe is the second, followed by security and stability in the Middle East and North Africa.

This strategy, however, is not designed to provide answers to complex foreign policy questions. That task has nearly become impossible amid an almost implausible number of foreign tragedies and threats. In 2014 alone, an al-Qaida network the U.S. believed it had defeated in Iraq found new life in Syria and still controls massive swaths of that region now as the Islamic State group. Russia, considered an ally in 2013, invaded the sovereignty of Ukraine early last year and annexed the Crimean peninsula. Ebola swept through West Africa, and international cyberattacks became a reality for the American public. Throughout, China continues its mysterious march to superpower status with claims it will sail nuclear submarines to key points around the globe.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/06/obama-tries-to-clarify-national-security-policies-amid-isis-russia-china-dangers

(Cliff Notes) Fact Sheet: The 2015 National Security Strategy

The entire NSS can be downloaded here:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf Note that since Strategic Patience and Persistence is not used in these Cliff Notes it must not be a key pillar of the strategy (or at least not a key phrase in the White House's strategic communications strategy).  And this is too bad because there is a possible book proposal that I received from a friend: A bestselling book will be written of the pendulum devolvement and journey from Engagement and Enlargement to Patience and Persistence.  But on a serious note this list below is something to work with.  The question for me is will every agency in the US government take these principles and priorities and use them in all their planning and decision making. What is the plan for strategic execution using this strategy?  Theoretically if the NSS was institutionalized in the interagency process and made the foundation of department and agency planning and execution we should see the government conducting a well synchronized foreign policy and military strategy. Will department and agency heads be held accountable if they do not follow this strategy? The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release February 06, 2015 Fact Sheet: The 2015 National Security Strategy Fact Sheet:  The 2015 National Security Strategy http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/06/fact-sheet-2015-national-security-strategy Today, the United States is stronger and better positioned to seize the opportunities of a still new century and safeguard our interests against the risks of an insecure world.  The President's new National Security Strategy provides a vision and strategy for advancing the nation's interests, universal values, and a rules-based international order through strong and sustainable American leadership.  The strategy sets out the principles and priorities that describe how America will lead the world toward greater peace and a new prosperity.       We will lead with purpose, guided by our enduring national interests and values and committed to advancing a balanced portfolio of priorities worthy of a great power. We will lead with strength, harnessing a resurgent economy, increased energy security, an unrivaled military, and the talent and diversity of the American people. We will lead by example, upholding our values at home and our obligations abroad.  We will lead with capable partners, mobilizing collective action and building partner capacity to address global challenges. We will lead with all instruments of U.S. power, leveraging our strategic advantages in diplomacy, development, defense, intelligence, science and technology, and more. We will lead with a long-term perspective, influencing the trajectory of major shifts in the security landscape today in order to secure our national interests in the future. We will advance the security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners by: Maintaining a national defense that is the best trained, equipped, and led force in the world while honoring our promises to service members, veterans, and their families. Working with Congress to end the draconian cuts imposed by sequestration that threaten the effectiveness of our military and other instruments of power. Reinforcing our homeland security to keep the American people safe from terrorist attacks and natural hazards while strengthening our national resilience. Transitioning to a sustainable global security posture that combines our decisive capabilities with local partners and keeps pressure on al-Qa'ida, ISIL, and their affiliates. Striving for a world without nuclear weapons and ensuring nuclear materials do not fall into the hands of irresponsible states and violent non-state actors. Developing a global capacity to prevent, detect, and rapidly respond to biological threats like Ebola through the Global Health Security Agenda. Confronting the urgent crisis of climate change, including through national emissions reductions, international diplomacy, and our commitment to the Green Climate Fund. We will advance a strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity by: Strengthening American energy security and increasing global access to reliable and affordable energy to bolster economic growth and development worldwide. Opening markets for U.S. goods, services, and investment and leveling the playing field for American workers and businesses to boost our economic competitiveness. Advancing a trade agenda - including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - that creates good American jobs and shared prosperity.   Leading efforts to reduce extreme poverty, food insecurity, and preventable deaths with initiatives such as Feed the Future and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Proving new sustainable development models like the President's Power Africa Initiative. We will advance respect for universal values at home and around the world by: Holding ourselves to the highest possible standard by living our values at home even as we do what is necessary to keep our people safe and our allies secure. Promoting and defending democracy, human rights, and equality while supporting countries such as Tunisia and Burma that are transitioning from authoritarianism. Empowering future leaders of government, business, and civil society around the world, including through the President's young leaders initiatives. Leading the way in confronting the corruption by promoting adherence to standards of accountable and transparent governance. Leading the international community to prevent and respond to human rights abuses and mass atrocities as well as gender-based violence and discrimination against LGBT persons. We will advance an international order that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges by: Working with partners to reinforce and update the rules of the road, norms, and institutions that are foundational to peace, prosperity, and human dignity in the 21st century.  Strengthening and growing our global alliances and partnerships, forging diverse coalitions, and leading at the United Nations and other multilateral organizations. Rebalancing to Asia and the Pacific through increased diplomacy, stronger alliances and partnerships, expanded trade and investment, and a diverse security posture. Strengthening our enduring commitment to a free and peaceful Europe by countering aggression and modernizing the NATO alliance to meet emerging threats. Pursuing a stable Middle East and North Africa by countering terrorism, preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and reducing the underlying sources of conflict. Building upon the success of the U.S.-Africa Leaders' Summit by investing in Africa's economic, agricultural, health, governance, and security capacity. Promoting a prosperous, secure, and democratic Western Hemisphere by expanding integration and leveraging a new opening to Cuba to expand our engagement.

The National Security Strategy of the United States 2015

The New NSS can be downloaded here: https://db.tt/4PAmJLYH

Strategic Patience and Persistence is the new phrase.  Strategic Patience used to belong only to our policy in Korea but now it seem we are going to apply it globally.

The challenges we face require strategic patience and persistence. They require us to take our responsibilities seriously and make the smart investments in the foundations of our national power. Therefore, I will continue to pursue a comprehensive agenda that draws on all elements of our national strength, that is attuned to the strategic risks and opportunities we face, and that is guided by the principles and priorities set out in this strategy. Moreover, I will continue to insist on budgets that safeguard our strength and work with the Congress to end sequestration, which undercuts our national security.  (page 4)

Next US Strategy Carries Heavy Expectations

Although in today's age of transparency having a classified national security strategy is probably not feasible but I would suggest that the staffers who are going to write the national security strategy go back and start with a review of President Reagan's top secret national security strategy (NSDD 32) at this link: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-32.pdf  

Obviously it was focused heavily on the Soviet Union so most will say it is of little relevance but I would submit there are some useful ideas in the short 8 page document.

V/R
Dave

DefenseNews.com
December 11, 2013

Next US Strategy Carries Heavy Expectations
By PAUL McLEARY and JOHN T. BENNETT

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131211/DEFREG02/312110022/Next-US-Strategy-Carries-Heavy-Expectations 

WASHINGTON ‹ The new national security strategy document that the White
House plans to release in 2014 is shaping up to be key to laying out the
administration¹s thinking on everything from diplomatic engagement to
counterterrorism to training and advising allies, a host of national
security experts say. 


 But how it should do that is a matter of debate. 
 The broad outline of what the document will contain has been expressed in
speeches by President Barack Obama and administration officials over the
past several years: a push for nuclear disarmament, a rebalance of
diplomatic and military attention to the Asia-Pacific region, helping build
economic stability in emerging regions, and a continuing focus on the global
counterterrorism mission. 


 The administration¹s first national security strategy was released in 2010,
a little more than a year after Obama entered the White House and as the US
was still engaged in Iraq, preparing to surge more troops into Afghanistan,
and still firmly in the grips of a crippling global economic crisis. 
 Four years on, with the economy stronger, Osama bin Laden dead, as much as
$1 trillion in government spending to be slashed over the next decade, and
American troops out of Iraq and heading for the exits in Afghanistan, the
landscape has changed. 
 Most notably, there has been a shift from the Defense Department to the
State Department taking the lead as the face of American foreign policy,
with the jet set diplomacy of Secretary of State John Kerry dominating the
headlines as he brokers deals with Syria, Iran and Libya, while preparing to
set his sights on the Israel-Palestine peace process. 


 As for specific recommendations for how the administration can use the
document to help shape the way it uses both diplomatic and military power
until the end of Obama¹s presidency in 2016, Rachel Kleinfeld, of the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Truman Foundation, said
the strategy must address the Arab Spring and subsequent political changes
in the Middle East and North Africa.

³


The Arab revolutions show an urgent need to weigh more heavily in our
security calculus the risk factors that could create a sudden state collapse
in allies and strategic states,² Kleinfeld said. ³That means greater weight
to acute corruption and population unrest in our security strategy ‹ and
developing the tools to help allies alter gradually rather than fail
catastrophically.² 


 What¹s more, with the Afghanistan war winding down and al-Qaida more
globally dispersed than when the wars began, the US needs ³a new strategy to
fight terrorism,² Kleinfeld said. 


 The issue here is the contentious debate over the 2001 Authorization for Use
of Military Force (AUMF), which many on Capitol Hill want rewritten to clip
some of the broad powers that it has granted the White House to use the
military.

³


This document will have to catch up to the shift from stability operations
to a more limited train, advise and assist mission, and hopefully fill in
the blanks on what the civilian agencies provide in that realm,² said
Kathleen Hicks, who served as principal deputy defense undersecretary for
policy from 2012 to 2013, and is now with the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington. 
 When it comes to the global counterterrorism mission, ³I don¹t think we
really have a strategy right now for that,² Hicks added. ³At the tactical
and operational levels, there¹s a lot of good work going on, but I don¹t
think we¹ve articulated the problem at a strategic level. This is an
opportunity for that.² 


One former government official said the AUMF will have to be addressed in
the document, predicting that ³I would expect to see a legal framework
that¹s very much tied to al-Qaida and what this means in terms of how the US
conducts itself going forward.² 


 Related to the AUMF issue are the lingering questions over the targeted
killing program the Obama administration has employed, largely by using
armed drones. 
 Lawrence Korb, a former Pentagon official now with the Center for American
Progress, expects the strategy will include ³something about the use of
drones and covert action.² Korb also said he thinks the strategy will stress
that ³diplomatic solutions should always be our first option.² 


 Diplomacy also plays a major role in writing such a sweeping, high-profile
document. Aides and senior officials spend months changing words and entire
sections, worried a friend or potential foe will react poorly.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131211/DEFREG02/312110022/Next-US-Strategy-Carries-Heavy-Expectations

MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT: A Plastic Moment to Mold a Liberal Global Order

The 3.2 MB briefing book can be downloaded at this link (for my Korea friends Jonathan Pollack's Korea memo is on page 64): 

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2013/1/big%20bets%20black%20swans/big%20bets%20and%20black%20swans%20a%20presidential%20briefing%20book.pdf

V/R
Dave

MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT | January 17, 2013

A Plastic Moment to Mold a Liberal Global Order

By: Martin S. Indyk and Robert Kagan

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/01/a-plastic-moment-to-mold-a-liberal-global-order

In the next four years, President Obama has a choice about whether to make democracy building and a liberal world order key tenets of his foreign policy plan. Martin Indyk and Robert Kagan wrote this memorandum to the President as part of the Big Bets and Black Swans: A Presidential Briefing Book. 

• Will America turn inward and away from an increasingly unstable world?
• How can American take advantage of this plastic moment to mold the emerging global order to best serve the United States and humankind?
• Will America launch a new effort to strengthen and extend the liberal world order?

Download Memorandum (pdf) | Download the Presidential Briefing Book (pdf)

TO: President Obama

FROM: Martin S. Indyk and Robert Kagan

As you enter your second term, the state of the world is remarkably unsettled. The leading powers are beset with economic crises or are in various states of political transition or gridlock. The Middle East is in a state of political upheaval. Tensions are rising in East Asia. The world’s institutions, whether the United Nations, the G-20, or the European Union, are weakened and dysfunctional, and seem to be pulling apart in the absence of concerted leadership. The liberal world order established after the Second World War — characterized by a free, open international economy, the spread of liberal democracy, and the deepening of liberal, peaceful norms of international behavior — is fraying at the edges.

It is a time of uncertainty and instability for the world, and for the United States; but it is also a moment of opportunity. Almost a century ago, when the United States entered the First World War, the philosopher John Dewey observed that the world was at a “plastic juncture.” He and many other progressives believed that the unsettled world of their day offered the United States and the other democratic powers a chance to remold the international system into something better. Americans walked away from that challenge and would embrace it only after a second catastrophic breakdown of world order. Today, we are at another “plastic juncture.” Will America turn inward and away from an increasingly messy world? Or will we launch a new effort to strengthen and extend, both geographically and temporally, the liberal world order from which Americans and so many others around the world have benefited?

The answer depends very much on how you choose to make use of your next four years in office. Unfortunately, there is not a lot to show for your first four years. In many respects, this is understandable. The economic crisis that you inherited made steady concentration on foreign policy more challenging. The two wars you inherited in the Greater Middle East had been bungled by your predecessor and cost the United States dearly, both materially and in terms of reputation. You began to restore that reputation through your own global appeal and the efforts of your Secretary of State.

You have done especially well in raising America’s profile and deepening our engagement in East Asia. However, so far it is hard to list many durable accomplishments. Most of the major challenges are much as you found them when you took office, or worse: from the stalled Middle East peace process and turmoil in the Arab world to Iran’s continuing march toward a nuclear weapons capability to China’s increasing assertiveness in East Asia. Your understandable preoccupation with reelection has left much of the world wondering: Where is the United States?

For all the talk of American decline from certain quarters, the United States is actually well-positioned for a new era of global leadership. If you can strike the difficult but necessary compromise with Congress that begins to address America’s fiscal crisis, the United States could well emerge as among the world’s most successful and dynamic economies. America enjoys unique advantages in the international economic system: a natural gas revolution that promises soon to make it a net-exporter of energy, a superior university education system and an open and innovative economy that continues to attract the world’s best and most creative young minds. On the international stage, the United States remains the only world power with global reach, uniquely capable of organizing concerted international action and serving as a source of security and stability to nations and peoples facing threatening neighbors.

Recommendations:

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/01/a-plastic-moment-to-mold-a-liberal-global-order

U.S. National Security Strategy Must Go Beyond Counterterrorism

Key excerpt:

There is an assumption that expressions such as national security, foreign policy, national security doctrines, grand strategy, vital, and national interests are the same concept; they are not. The most talked about issue today in national security is counterterrorism. Thus, a common mistake made by many is to assume that the specific and tactical policies of counterterrorism are, in and of themselves, national security policy or even national security strategy. In this example, counterterrorism is merely a specific policy that is subordinate to the national security policy of the immediate time. If the American people are lucky, this immediate national security policy is somewhat clear and cohesive.

V/R
Dave 

U.S. National Security Strategy Must Go Beyond Counterterrorism

By LAMONT COLUCCI

January 17, 2013

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/01/17/us-national-security-strategy-must-go-beyond-counterterrorism_print.html

Dr. Lamont Colucci is an associate professor of politics at Ripon College, recent Fulbright Scholar to the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, and author of The National Security Doctrines of the American Presidency: How they Shape our Present and Future, among other books. You can find out more atlamontcolucci.com.

For the past two weeks this column focused on threats and solutions to immediate national security threats that the United States faces. In both cases grand strategy has been mentioned. The very concept of an American Grand Strategy has almost vanished from any discussion of national security and foreign policy. Neither the current occupant of the White House, nor the many (though not all of)  former Republican challengers were discussing, let alone promoting, a grand strategic vision for the United States. Some have come up with pieces of national security and foreign policy, but few have any sense of where the country should journey in order to protect American vital and national interests; few have presented a vision to guarantee American primacy, prosperity, and values.

There is an assumption that expressions such as national security, foreign policy, national security doctrines, grand strategy, vital, and national interests are the same concept; they are not. The most talked about issue today in national security is counterterrorism. Thus, a common mistake made by many is to assume that the specific and tactical policies of counterterrorism are, in and of themselves, national security policy or even national security strategy. In this example, counterterrorism is merely a specific policy that is subordinate to the national security policy of the immediate time. If the American people are lucky, this immediate national security policy is somewhat clear and cohesive.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/01/17/us-national-security-strategy-must-go-beyond-counterterrorism_print.html