The National Security Strategy
The White House has released an updated National Security Strategy. (It can be read here in html, or it can be read here in PDF.)
It is notable for the threats it identifies. It names names.
True, the document does not spell out what the US might or should do if diplomatic efforts fail, but at least we're publicly acknowledging the dangers Iran poses. It is the first step to taking real steps to counteract the threat.
China also is named. It is mentioned 28 times in the document. The strategy suggests China is also a cause for concern.
One way that China exhibits aggressiveness is in its quest for energy supplies, as I've talked about here, no matter where they may be found.
The document's closing words express a noble sentiment. But I fear the Democratic Party and its extremist wing will not rise to the challenge.
It is notable for the threats it identifies. It names names.
We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community. Yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime’s true intentions are clearly revealed by the regime’s refusal to negotiate in good faith; its refusal to come into compliance with its international obligations by providing the IAEA access to nuclear sites and resolving troubling questions; and the aggressive statements of its President calling for Israel to "be wiped off the face of the earth." The United States has joined with our EU partners and Russia to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations and provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided.
As important as are these nuclear issues, the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom. The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ultimately be resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decision to change these policies, open up its political system, and afford freedom to its people. This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy. In the interim, we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct. The problems lie with the illicit behavior and dangerous ambition of the Iranian regime, not the legitimate aspirations and interests of the Iranian people. Our strategy is to block the threats posed by the regime while expanding our engagement and outreach to the people the regime is oppressing.
True, the document does not spell out what the US might or should do if diplomatic efforts fail, but at least we're publicly acknowledging the dangers Iran poses. It is the first step to taking real steps to counteract the threat.
China also is named. It is mentioned 28 times in the document. The strategy suggests China is also a cause for concern.
China’s leaders must realize, however, that they cannot stay on this peaceful path while holding on to old ways of thinking and acting that exacerbate concerns throughout the region and the world.
One way that China exhibits aggressiveness is in its quest for energy supplies, as I've talked about here, no matter where they may be found.
These old ways include:
* Continuing China’s military expansion in a non-transparent way;
* Expanding trade, but acting as if they can somehow "lock up" energy supplies around the world or seek to direct markets rather than opening them up – as if they can follow a mercantilism borrowed from a discredited era;
* Supporting resource-rich countries without regard to the misrule at home or misbehavior abroad of those regimes.
The document's closing words express a noble sentiment. But I fear the Democratic Party and its extremist wing will not rise to the challenge.
The challenges America faces are great, yet we have enormous power and influence to address those challenges. The times require an ambitious national security strategy, yet one recognizing the limits to what even a nation as powerful as the United States can achieve by itself. Our national security strategy is idealistic about goals, and realistic about means.
There was a time when two oceans seemed to provide protection from problems in other lands, leaving America to lead by example alone. That time has long since passed. America cannot know peace, security, and prosperity by retreating from the world. America must lead by deed as well as by example. This is how we plan to lead, and this is the legacy we will leave to those who follow.






1 Comments:
At Fri Mar 17, 12:12:00 AM, Anonymous said…
Thanks Jimmy.
Yes, True, a massive, brutal military response is not always appropiate...however, how much would we have averted...?
Well, all I can say to that is look where we are now.
Post a Comment
<< Home