National Security Strategy Analysis Paper

For almost 15 years the U.S. has been in a constant state of war. Various terrorist organizations, from al-Quade, to the Taliban, and now Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have maintained our focus so much so that we have almost forgotten about prior threats. Ten years prior to the start of the conflict in the Middle East, the Cold War had officially concluded, ending almost 45 years of server political and military tensions between the U.S. and Russian following WWII. During this period of time, Russia was the central focus of the U.S., although China and North Korea also posed a significant threat. While terrorist threats and activates remain a significant threat, Russia recent annexation of Crimea proves that they are still a very

The United States and Communist Russia endured a complicated relationship in the first half of the 20th century. In the early 1940’s the U.S. had encouraged an alliance with the Soviets against their common enemy, Nazi Germany. This short-lived accord began to deteriorate as WW II ended. By 1947 U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union had shifted from one of cooperation to a policy of containment. In 1949, when the Soviets tested their first atomic bomb, it was a widely-held belief in the U.S. that the Russians were an untrustworthy enemy with plans to invade the United States. America’s mood turned on American Communists, labeling them traitors and Russian spies. Underlying a domestic sense of well-being in the United States in the 1950’s

In “Questing for Monsters to Destroy,” John Mueller, an American political scientist, says American policymakers put “a truly massive emphasis on exquisite theorizing and on defense expenditures,” because these policymakers, “became mesmerized by perceived threats that scarcely warranted the preoccupation and effort,” of actual military action (p 117). He argues that American decision makers constantly saw Russia’s actions as bigger threats than they really were and acted accordingly, which resulted in the U.S. spending money and troops to fight wars they should have never been involved in.

The President’s recent actions to send troops to Poland and Lithuania to defend our NATO allies has led to questions regarding the constitutionality of such action and the role congress plays in crafting American foreign policy. It is very important to understand these questions and the debates that surround them are not new to our nation. In fact, two of our nations most important founders, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, debated the balance of congressional and presidential power in foreign affairs all the way back in 1793. Similarly, the need to defend our NATO allies is nothing new. As Russia looks to expand its “sphere of influence” and return to its Cold War Self; we must ensure that our military and our NATO allies have the

In present day, the U.S. nuclear weapons and DCA (dual capable aircraft), which is used to deliver the weapons, are currently deployed in five European countries (Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and Turkey). In order to maintain the credibility of its assurance and deterrence, the U.S. should not withdraw its own DCA (dual capable aircraft) and its nuclear weapons from Europe. In the past years, Russia became significantly more aggressive politically and militarily. The annexation of Crimea and the “upgrades of its nuclear and conventional capabilities” are a few examples of Russian’s aggression. Sustaining the DCA and nuclear weapons is a visible demonstration of the U.S. commitment to the security of the transatlantic region and its allies.

Constrained by this press statement, Secretary of State Rusk further warned Kennedy of the huge loss of political capital if there was no response by the United States. He stated that Soviets would consider no response a “major backdown” by the United States, and it would “free their hands for almost any kind of intervention that they might want to try in other parts of the world” (May and Zelikow

According to the National Research Council, “further progress in this area depends to a large extent on the results of bilateral U.S.-Russian cooperation” (U.S. National Academies Committee 2004: 13). The Obama administration took assertive steps in securing a disarmament treaty with Russia, an essential part of a grander strategy that targets the entire global community. With Russia as an ally, the U.S. gains more leverage in addressing the developing nuclear program in North Korea, a serious mutual concern for both countries (U.S. National Academies Committee 2004: 14). In regards to numerous issues on which U.S. and Russia hold contrasting points of view, such as the nuclear program in Iran, an effort to gain valuable compromise holds potentially greater benefits than military action or economic sanctions. President Obama seems to be taking deliberate steps towards achieving his long-term goals involving diplomatic effort and multilateral cooperation despite Americans’ growing concerns with domestic issues.

With the election of Donald J. Trump, the United States has met a strong change of position in the international playing field. The Obama years, characterized by periods of soft power playing and reliance on international frameworks with intermittent reliance on military intervention, have been all but cast aside by a President often associated with ideals of isolationism. Foreign policy can change throughout administrations, but the scale at which these two administrations differ in how they see the world is unparalleled. Whether it be the willingness to work with Russia, a state condemned by the previous administration, in the pursuit of defeating ISIS, the hardline approach which Trump and his Defense Secretary General Mattis approach

The National Military Strategy of the United States articulates several specific challenges to U.S. National Security interests that will confront JF-2025. Russian aggression toward its neighbors and defiance of international standards of behavior threatens stability in Europe. Iranian nuclear ambitions and support of terror imperils Israel and the Middle East. A bellicose and nuclear North Korea is a threat to America’s allies, Japan and the Republic of Korea. The emerging power of China offers both opportunities in the form of greater economic cooperation, but also challenges as they expand their military capabilities, menace Taiwan and make provocative claims in the South China Sea. Finally, violent extremist organizations (VEOs) such as ISIS and al-Qaida continue to degrade regional stability and threaten U.S. interests.

Much of the past decade of the american foreign policy debate has been dominated by the discussion over the merits of counterterrorism. Prior to the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center, counterterrorism was a theoretical measure at most (Cronin). After America threw its weight behind the ‘war against terror,’ however, the coordinated international campaign quickly overwhelmed multiple militant extremist groups. The main target of the ‘war against terror’ was al-Qaeda, an organization that subscribed to the ideas of Islamic thinker Sayyid Qutb and claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks in 2004. The attacks were a double-edged sword for al-Qaeda because the ensuing media storm increased their influence like no other while also drawing a target a mile wide on their back. The ‘war against terror culminated in bin Laden 's assassination in May of 2011 by Navy SEALs (Katulis and Juul). Al-Qaeda has since experienced a steady and significant decline of power and influence after bin Laden’s demise. No matter its past status as the dominant extremist group in the Middle East, al-Qaeda has crumbled after American intervention in killing various key figures.

Primacy pays much attention to identifying potential threats to American interests and measures to contain them. A rising China and a resurgent Russia top the list of potential challengers to American preeminence. We as primacy advocates are also concerned with non-traditional military threats from non-state actors such as terrorist organizations with weapons of mass destruction. Also, fear that a rogue state like North Korea may try to strike the American homeland is the rationale behind primacy’s call for the continued strong support for the development and eventual deployment of ballistic missile defense. Meeting all potential threats to America’s preeminence will not be cheap however it will be needed.

From the beginning of his presidency, President Obama determined that increasing our strategic focus on the Asia-Pacific Region and rebalance our national power and resources toward this region. This shift from the war footing in Iraq and Afghanistan to an increased peace and stability in East Asia was determined to be in the best national interests of the United States in the 2015 National Security Strategy. This strategic shift would have two major focus areas. First, the United States would focus on peace and stability in East Asia through sustained commitment to our traditional allies; second, we would build a cooperative, constructive relationship with China that addressed our differences. China’s aggressive actions in the East China Sea have tested the viability of this strategy. China declared a zone in this area that included the Senkaku Islands which Japan also claims as its own territory. While the United States has stated that it is a sovereignty dispute and will not take an official position, it stands by our allies in the region directly affected by this action; Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. The United States must apply a strategic approach in pursuit our four enduring national interests:

This paper is to serve as an analysis of the country of MONGOLIA using the operational variables of PMESII-PT and its role in the U.S. strategy in the Pacific Command (PACOM). With the the majority of attention being given to a more aggressive China or perhaps violent extremist organizations (VEO’s) in Southeast Asia, it is easy to forget about Mongolia. Although, those threats in Southeast Asia and the growing tensions with China cannot be ignored, it would be foolish of the U.S. to ignore the country of Mongolia. In fact, further developing relations with the Mongolian government could prove to be a huge factor in our success in the region going forward. Given its geopolitical location and unique political and economical

1. POLICY DECISION AND OBJECTIVES. The 2015 National Security Strategy (NSS) identifies climate change as a top strategic risk and seeks “to shape standards for prevention, preparedness, and response over the next decade”. On 3 September 2016, the United States (U.S.) and China ratified the 2015 United Nations (UN) Paris Agreement on climate change. A month later, the European Union (EU) followed suit, building international momentum to combat climate change. The President of the United States (POTUS) released, Presidential Memorandum – Climate Change and National Security on 21 September 2016. It directs Federal agencies to consider climate change impacts in all national security doctrine, policies, and plans. To maintain momentum into the next administration, the memorandum also requires agencies to specify climate change consideration objectives, milestones, and timelines by 21 December 2016 and to provide an implementation plan by 21 February 2017.

It can be said that in the case of the USA and North Korea, the current tensions developed further because of the start of nuclear weapons programmes in North Korea which created panic in US government (Pevehouse and Goldstein, 2017, p. 31). Realism highlights how this shift in the balance of power threatens US security as they are no longer a more