FYI. Not directly related to Cambodia, but worth reading for those interested in international affairs.
*US/INTERNATIONAL: Obama understands limits of US power* Thursday, June 17 2010 Oxford Analytica Relevant Country Data: United States<http://www.oxan.com/oxweb/countrydata.aspx?country=United States> *SUBJECT: *Assessing the White House National Security Strategy (NSS) released last month, in the context of long-term trends in US foreign policy. *SIGNIFICANCE: *The themes discussed in the NSS reflect a fundamental continuity with the policies of earlier administrations, in that Washingtonwill continue to underwrite global security, maintain military superiority, and reserve the right to use force unilaterally. Nevertheless, several ideas contained in the document will be politically and bureaucratically difficult to adopt, but could portend significant changes over the next six years.Go to conclusion<http://www.oxan.com/Display.aspx?S=EES&SD=20100617&PC=OADB&SN=3&ST=DB#conclusion> *ANALYSIS: *The National Security Strategy (NSS) is a congressionally mandated high-level statement to domestic and international audiences of the US government's worldview and priorities. Within the government, the document seeks to convey the president's principles and priorities, and can serve as a 'measuring stick' by which to judge performance. However, the NSS is not an 'ends, ways, and means' strategy that offers detailed analysis or solutions involved in executing any particular policy. President Barack Obama's first NSS, released last month, largely favours continuity over change -- but there are some revealing aspirations that could shift US policy over the long term. NSS structure. Though it establishes priorities, the NSS does not rank resources allocated to competing objectives, such as how much to spend on the military relative to diplomacy and development: 1. Framework document. In principle, the NSS is intended as a framework for strategy documents produced by other parts of the government. Yet it often derives principles from actions already taken, rather than providing a new strategic vision. Due to the delay in producing this NSS, some departments have already published strategy documents based in large part on the policies of the previous administration. However, future strategy documents, such as the next National Defense Strategy, will reflect the themes enunciated in the 2010 NSS. 2. 2002 predecessor. In contrast to earlier NSS documents, the 2002 version gained notoriety for its references to 'pre-emption' (ie 'prevention'), known as the 'Bush Doctrine', and its military-centric tone. Although pre-emption had been an 'unspoken assumption' of US national security for decades, the fact that it served as a central NSS theme gave the document unprecedented attention. During the run-up to the Iraq war, the NSS gave the administration of former President George W Bush a means to signal that it 'meant business' and was prepared for unilateral action. Subsequently, foreign policy analysts have paid greater attention to the NSS in order to discern administration intentions. 3. Continuity over change. There are no major bureaucratic reforms proposed in the 2010 NSS. According to its principal author, Ben Rhodes, the approach to national security reflected in the document in many ways mimics that taken by Bush after 2006: - As in the 2006 NSS, democracy promotion is still listed as an administration priority, but only in reference to encouraging democracy and building democratic institutions, rather than 'ending tyrannies' (*see US/INTERNATIONAL: Obama shifts tack on human rights - October 7, 2009*<http://www.oxan.com/display.aspx?StoryDate=20091007&ProductCode=OADB&StoryType=DB&StoryNumber=2>). - Its emphasis on diplomacy, while not new, reflects Obama's reluctance to consider employing an overstretched military to resolve conflicts, such as with Iran or North Korea. - Issues such as cyber-threats, climate change, global health pandemics, and dependence on fossil fuels have received more attention than under Bush, but are ranked relatively low compared to non-proliferation and counter-terrorism. Redefining counter-terrorism. A key theme of the NSS is its treatment of counter-terrorism. Similar to earlier administration statements, the 'threat' being countered has undergone considerable rhetorical revision from the Bush presidency. At the start of the Obama administration, the term 'war on terrorism' was banned from official discourse. Similarly, during the drafting of the NSS, the authors were told to stress that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, and that terms such as 'jihadists', 'Islamic radicalism' and 'Islamists' were to be removed. Moreover, the adversary being confronted is not terrorism writ large, but is limited to "al-Qaida and its affiliates": 1. WOT legacy. Despite ending the 'war on terror' (WOT) rhetoric, the administration has not fundamentally rethought the post-September 11, 2001 policies associated with it, though economic constraints and military overstretch will probably force a re-evaluation after 2012. The only significant change has been to shift the 'central front' of the war from Iraq to Afghanistan-Pakistan. Furthermore, US Special Forces have increased their 'counter-terrorism' activities, and the number of US drone strikes against targets inside Pakistan has surged. These relatively inexpensive 'low intensity' missions will remain a central part of the next NSS, even as large-scale efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq wind down. 2. Nixon doctrine returns? Following the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner in December, and the linkage of the bomber to the Yemen-based 'Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula', the administration's reaction avoided consideration of an overt military response and relied on increased military and intelligence assistance to the Yemeni government. This case, along with several others, highlights the administration's rejection of a policy of military intervention with ground forces in response to 'terrorism'. Instead, it prefers an 'indirect approach' of assisting local governments in 'counter-terrorism' (*see YEMEN/US: Defeating al-Qaida requires broader effort - January 6, 2010*<http://www.oxan.com/display.aspx?StoryDate=20100106&ProductCode=OADB&StoryType=DB&StoryNumber=1>). 3. Economic emphasis. Recent NSSs have contained one dominant 'takeaway' theme. In 2002 it was 'pre-emption'; in 2006, it was 'democracy promotion'. This year, the main theme is that a strong economy provides the bedrock of US power: - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has noted that US commanders and diplomats see the national debt as one of the largest threats to US influence and ability to project power abroad. - This renewed recognition of economic constraints on US power projectionmarks a major shift in official thinking, and will almost certainly reduce the willingness of US leaders to emphasise the use of conventional military force for the next several years. Unsustainable defence budget? Although not specifically mentioned in the NSS, recent statements by senior Pentagon officials suggest that the military is under increasing financial strain, whereas previously it had been relatively immune from budgetary constraints despite the poor economic climate (*see UNITED STATES: Weapons systems face new DoD scrutiny - May 14, 2010*<http://www.oxan.com/display.aspx?StoryDate=20100514&ProductCode=OADB&StoryType=DB&StoryNumber=1> ): - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on May 8 that "the gusher has been turned off". - This comment coincided with the announcement that the Defense Department was trying to cut 15 billion dollars from its over 700 billion dollar budget. - In early June, officials went further, announcing that the Pentagonhopes to realise total savings of 100 billion dollars over the next five fiscal years. Yet despite the rhetorical emphasis on defence cuts, the reality is likely to be quite different. Given the historical reluctance of Congress and other interested parties to reduce defence expenditure, it is more likely that large savings will only be realised with reductions in Afghan and Iraq war-related costs. Changing landscape? If Obama wins a second term, the strategic environment his administration confronts in 2013 will have altered considerably since 2009, particularly regarding Afghanistan and Iraq: - By early 2013, the vast majority of US personnel will have left Iraq. - Similarly, although Washington will maintain some form of overt military presence in Afghanistan, it is likely to be significantly reduced. The financial costs associated with both these interventions will decline. Anticipating this shift, officials are currently discussing retaining a large portion of the system of 'emergency' funding in order to manage the transition from a military that is mostly at war, to one that is mostly at peace. The strategic shift of national resources from 'war' to 'peace', combined with the need for austerity, may provide a more politically acceptable opportunity for substantial reductions in defence expenditure, but major cuts are unlikely. *CONCLUSION: *The NSS has codified the idea of constraints to US power, a notion that is almost certain to become more prominent in US strategic thinking -- particularly in a budget-constrained environment. ========================= "A good exercise for the heart is to bend down and help another up." - Anonymous. "The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice." - Mahatma Ghandhi -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group. This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language. Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
