Trump’s Security Strategy
Joseph Trevithick over at The Drive- War Zone wrote the article “We Broke Down Trump’s Security Strategy Into Bullets So You Don’t Have To Read All 60 Pages,” a good read but still a bit lengthy. He describes how then candidate Trump spent a significant amount of podium time describing the various threats facing the United States here and overseas, and now, after his first year in office, how he intends to implement a new national strategy putting “America First.”
This new strategy was broken down into an introduction, and four national security pillars:
Protecting the American way of life.
Promoting American prosperity.
Preserving peace through strength.
Advancing American influence.
•The full introduction appeals to the ideals of America’s founding principles and traditions, including freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and a respect for the rule of law, noting that “we are proud of our roots and honor the wisdom of the past.”
•“We will strengthen control of our borders and reform our immigration system. We will protect our critical infrastructure and go after malicious cyber actors. A layered missile defense system will defend our homeland against missile attacks. And we will pursue threats to their source, so that jihadist terrorists are stopped before they ever reach our borders.”
•“We will rejuvenate the American economy for the benefit of American workers and companies. We will insist upon fair and reciprocal economic relationships to address trade imbalances. The United States must preserve our lead in research and technology and protect our economy from competitors who unfairly acquire our intellectual property. And we will embrace America’s energy dominance because unleashing abundant energy resources stimulates our economy.”
•“We will preserve peace through strength by rebuilding our military so that it remains preeminent, deters our adversaries, and if necessary, is able to fight and win. We will compete with all tools of national power to ensure that regions of the world are not dominated by one power. We will strengthen America’s capabilities – including in space and cyberspace – and revitalize others that have been neglected. Allies and partners magnify our power. We expect them to shoulder a fair share of the burden of responsibility to protect against common threats.”
•“We will advance American influence because a world that supports American interests and reflects our values makes America more secure and prosperous. We will compete and lead in multilateral organizations so that American interests and principles are protected. America’s commitment to liberty, democracy, and the rule of law serves as an inspiration for those living under tyranny. We can play a catalytic role in promoting private-sector-led economic growth, helping aspiring partners become future trading and security partners. And we will remain a generous nation, even as we expect others to share responsibility.”
This is an outline of Trevithick’s article, amended for the sake of brevity here. I highly recommend reading the whole piece at The Drive, or one can view the speech here:
Category: Politics
Well, that is refreshing.
Merry Christmas to one and all, and I am looking forward to the New Year.
“respect for the rule of law”
That’s a bigee.
I like it.
It’s so nice to have adult leadership in the White House again! Odumbo would have us giving in to everyone if he had his way. Thank God pants suit is not in a position of leadership anymore!
One more “adult leadership” comment and I’ll eat a donut. And I hate donuts.
Be original, pleez.
I recommend you read the entire document and compare it to those issued under Obama before you pass judgement. He had a completely different viewpoint, true, but that does not necessarily mean the strategy is wrong. See for yourself-They can all be found here: http://nssarchive.us/
I would like to see the national military and defense strategies (NSS is issued by the POTUS but typically authored by the National Security Advisor- Defense and Military Strategies are Sec Def and Joint Chiefs documents, respectively).
The Defense Strategy covers all of DoD, it just the military, so it addresses each military service as well as things like Defense intel, procurement/acquisition, etc.
The Military Strategy, written by the Chairman, is a strategic document but it gets into some operational level stuff, like guidance for the development and deployment of the joint force- what goes where to do what.
McMaster is the primary author of this NSS-I have a great deal of respect for him, and I think this is the best strategy we’ve seen in a while.
I have a feeling that a Mattis National Defense Strategy will also be a good document. I don’t know much about Dunmore, but he has a lot of Joint Warfighting time,
The fact that the NSS is out so soon is a good sign. Some administrations never publish one.
NDS addresses all of DoD, NOT just the military
Ummmm….
Not a chance in hell of there being any comparison of Trump vs oblowme policies and strategies…
Using the US Military as a social experiment platform belies any serious discussion.
The only thing that oblowme accomplished with the Military is get transgender people a place in it and piss the rest of us off…
So, you didn’t read it?
Don’t mistake me for an Obama supporter because I read his strategy. The point is that Obama did have a NSS that laid out his policies. Believe it or not it was more than a single paragraph on transgender service followed by a section on global warming.
The idea here is to compare the two. Our enemies and allies did, because it gives them an idea of what and how much we will change and how much will remain the same. Both documents lay out what the US sees as threats and what we plan to do about them.
Just like Trump, Obama called for strengthening Defense and reinforcing homeland security. The question is, how is a Trumps’ plan different?
Red Devil, your RED color is becoming increasingly more noticeable.
Would you please enumerate the accomplishments of the Obama administration?
I haven’t found any, after looking deeply.
Can you show me where I said there were any?
Simply encouraging people to actually read the documents that laid out our national strategy in the past does not make me a supporter of those policies.
Nor does it make me a communist, if that’s what you’re implying. It’s hard to tell because of your subtle with and complete lack of a salient point.
>wit<,
Sounds like a solid plan to me. Too bad we have an administration tasked with “rebuilding” our military again so soon. Seems like that’s the ebb and flow of American politics now when it comes to the military. Democrat comes in, guts programs, closes bases, reduces staffing, and generally demoralizes the service. Republican comes in and starts fresh. You’d think we could all agree that a strong military would be a good thing.
Don’t worry the second a leftist gets elected our “strategy” will go back to America never. That is the problem with our bipolar setup. It’s why we can’t get any long term goals accomplished and why allies don’t really trust us. Meanwhile the force of evil don’t have that and they can plan for decades and gain the advantage for it. E.g China, Iran, Russia.
We need that setup to keep everyone honest. We have a pretty good system and we tinker with the first principles upon which it is based at great peril to ourselves and the world.
Democrats/Progressives generally belong to the ‘liberal’ school of thought in international relations- they think that our stinging example of awesomeness will serve as an example to the world, and despots and tyrants and Theo/autocratic regimes will dump their oppressive systems to adopt a liberal democracy like ours
That briefs well, but the theory misses the first principles of an autocratic regime- power is awesome, and even more awesome when I have it.
Realists(like HR McMaster, the real author of this NSS, and even DJ Trump) recognize this, and prefer to operate with their eyes wide open- or as the NSS says, “with a clear eyed assessment of US interest”
I’m really not sure most politicians, on either side of the aisle, go that deep. It’s more about money – to generalize, Republicans want to spend on the military and Democrats want to spend on people. And both, often, do it for the votes it brings them, not some high-minded principles. (With some notable exceptions, of course.)
I’ve never met McMaster, but he seems like a bright guy with a big-picture view, so he might be one of the few. The President? I don’t think he has a ‘big picture’ view, but if he defers to McMaster, all is well.
One thing I’ll give them credit for -and the Democrats scorn for- is at least they acknowledged Taiwan as a country, much to the dismay of China. In the ‘liberal’ school of thought you posit, advocating democratic rule should be non-negotiable, yet we skirted that for trade reasons under previous administrations.
McMaster absolutely is a bright guy with a big picture view- we dodged a bullet when Flynn got fired and McMaster got hired.
This NSS is all McMaster- he even talks about the dangers of placing too much faith in technology to win wars. And the need to modernize the force,two of his main points since he was in TRADOC- he was heavily critical of FCS and the modular brigade.
I’m not positing the liberal world view, it’s one of the main schools of thought in international relations- a key idea is ‘democratic peace’- democracies rarely go to war with each other. Liberals do not believe tha international relations are all about the interaction of power.
Realists, on the other hand, essentially believe that all relations between nations are about maneuvering to a position of advantage- they believe there can be competition without war, but that hard power itself prevents war.
Well, you all missed several things that are right in front of you: 1 – We do not have dynastic succession in this country. Never did and never will. There’s a reason for it: it does not work very well. 2 – Those other countries are not ethnically diverse the way the USA is. Yes, Russia/former USSR has many tribal groups, but in the past, unless you were ethnically Russian, you were not part of and never would be part of the elite. Period. Same thing in China. China invaded Vietnam 1200 years ago and interbred with the local Vietnamese tribes, who hated the Chinese then and still despise them, but China still think it owns Vietnam, hence the “one China” attitude. All that ethnicism that exists in Europe and Asia and elsewhere (Indian, Pakistani, Japanese, Philippino, Thai, Cambodian, Laotian, any and all central and South American natives) is still in existence. And feudalism still exists in Russia now and in China now, and elsewhere. It may not seem like it, but it does. Their differences are in reference to religion and/or locality or tribe. That includes the MIddle Eastern tribes. 3 – This country is unique in that there are NO ethnic Americans, unless you count the native tribes. WE come from everywhere in the world. We are all Americans, but as a people we are so diverse that the proper term for us is polyglot. There is NO ethnic American. And we have no long-term “rulers”, because they can be fired by us in the next election (unless we get lazy about it). We don’t have to bother with shooting them and most of the time, they aren’t worth the cost of a single bullet, anyway. Yes, we have a group of very stupid people here, with feathers for brains, but how long will it be before winters shut them down? Not long. And there are more of US then there are of them, anyway, especially when the hourly rates for bridge construction ($40 to $48/hr) are posted in public in plain sight for anyone to see? How… Read more »
If that’s Trump’s strategy, then someone ghost-wrote it for him. Even you guys recognize that he is too utterly clueless about US history and world affairs to have what could remotely be called a strategy. His only real plan is the classic narcissist’s strategy – I, me, mine.
Seriously, Joe? You had to type that comment twelve times? Grow the fuck up.
That would be a Christmas gift worth receiving.
Is Joey looking for attention again?
Careful what you ask for, Joey. You might get it. Go find a snowbank to fall into, and please stay there until spring.
I have a special place in my heart for people who lie about me, as in calling me a draft dodger for example. Then compound the error by blocking me. Since I have screenshots of your lies, do you think I have a legal case for libel? You all proud about your manliness – well, here’s a clue – real men own up to their mistakes. The ethical, and manly, thing to do would be to publicly admit you over the top in defaming me and apologize. But I’m not gonna hold my breath.
Hi, again, Joey. Still looking for attention, are you?
Crickets………
” What’s he all on about, eh?”
Why does a Chihuahua bark?
A libel case? Because I’ve libeled everyone named Joe? You’re still a draft dodger. And a moron to boot.
Clown.
Or maybe I should just challenge Jonn to a duel at 100 paces for besmirching my honor?
Or maybe you could do something more useful to humanity, such as NOT trying to pick fights.
You seem to desperately want attention for nothing but showing up. I suggest that you get some professional help with that at the local walk-in clinic for society’s dropouts like you. You can tell the counselor that people like ME think you are a crashing bore and an attention-seeking, self-centered jerk.
Those two kind of go together, which means you’re also as likely to be a politician as not.
Otherwise, please, just go away and bother your feet.
For your honor to be besmirched, it first has to exist, Joey.
BURN!