• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • State Over Defense in Obama NSS

    The roll out of the administration’s first National Security Strategy this week has been a classic exercise in strategic communication, Obama style – a highly coordinated, choreographed exercise involving the highest levels of government.  First, the President himself laid the groundwork at the West Point graduation last weekend. Then, Deputy National Security advisor John Brennan handled the counterterrorism part of the strategy at CSIS on Wednesday, promulgating some depressingly sophistical approaches to terrorism, jihadism and Islamism. And Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at the Brooking Institution, presenting a bewilderingly broad range of issues that are now part of national security, according to the administration’s strategy.  In the Obama administration, tightly controlled messaging is almost an obsession, and what a message this was.

    From the get go, as far back as her confirmation hearings, Clinton has embraced the concept of “smart power” – a kind of Hegelian synthesis of the elements of hard and soft power.  Just like the government’s messaging involves the totality of all its major parts, according to the Obama administration’s National Communications Strategy, so in its National Security Strategy, everything is related to national security – “defense, diplomacy and development.” As Clinton  stated at Brookings, the three are not separate entities, either in substance or in process . . . but have to be viewed as part of an integrated whole,” which will demand the involvement of “the whole of the government.”  Clinton promised that these ideas would be further fleshed out in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, which  is allegedly now in its “final lap” as well as the Presidential Study Directive on global engagement, also reportedly close to completion.

    Not only is the U.S. government in this interpretation an ever evolving entity, but so is the world around us – which is evolving at an ever greater pace. “This is a comprehensive National Security Strategy,” Clinton said, “because we believe we have to look at the world in a much more comprehensive way.” All this change and interconnectedness, and the speed with which information travels, makes diplomacy so much more difficult than it has ever been, Clinton averred, even more so than during the days of the Clinton administration.  One of the aims of the administration is to turn this “multi-polar world,” into a “multi-partner world.” In other words, confrontation is out, and diplomacy is in.

    It is significant that it fell to Clinton to give the primary address on the NSS, on the day of its publication. The signal this sends suggests that, in the Obama world view, the State Department is the lead agency on national security.  It also means that as the budgets for diplomacy and development will increase, so the Defense Department budget will shrink – which is fact a real national security problem.  Equally troubling is the overly expansive view of national security outlined by Clinton. If everything is national security, then critically important focus on actual national security challenges is lost.  Rhetoric becomes a substitute for action, and redefinition and relabeling becomes the way you deal with real national security threats like “jihadism.” The world may be changing, but some things haven’t changed nearly as much as the Obama administration would have us believe. The threats of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, international confrontation and rivalry remain stubborn and real, and it remains the responsibility of the U.S. government to protect its citizens from them.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    8 Responses to State Over Defense in Obama NSS

    1. stephanie, washingto says:

      I think the post overstates the actual impact of placing emphasis on diplomacy / development. You state here:

      "It also means that as the budgets for diplomacy and development will increase, so the Defense Department budget will shrink – which is fact a real national security problem."

      First, the Defense Department budget is at over 10 times the size of the State Department budget, (the Defense budget in FY 2010 was 48 percent of U.S. discretionary spending whereas State was under 4 percent; – so that a marginal increase in the State budget – or even a doubling, which would never happen – would not make a significant dent in the Defense budget. Second, a national security strategy is not likely to change the respective budgets of either agency for several reasons. The most important is that Congress, which must approve the budgets, has little to no stake in the State Department budget, since it has little affect on their constituents. It is easy to cut – no one will be upset if we send less foreign aid and spend more on a home state – and it's unlikely that anyone in the representative or congressperson's home state will lost jobs if the request goes unfunded. It's not very popular to fund things overseas. Secondly, even if the Administration wanted to triple the State Department budget and gouge the Defense Department, it wouldn't do so for logistical reasons, and even the State Department wouldn't welcome the change necessarily because it doesn't have the capacity to execute the amounts involved; or infrastructure, or personnel, or anything else.

      Any change that the President signals here is going to be a change on the margin, and will likely have extremely little impact especially on the Defense Department budget, and probably not much on the State Department budget either.

      To the point directly following:

      "Equally troubling is the overly expansive view of national security outlined by Clinton. If everything is national security, then critically important focus on actual national security challenges is lost."

      The head of the Defense Department supports Clinton's view – a stronger role for the State Department in national security – so that the Defense Department can focus on its core mission of national security – rather than trying to do agricultural reform, build rule of law, and support service provision in conflict areas. Allowing the State Department to work on things like this that are more in its realm of expertise frees up critical Defense resources to do what they are trained to do and do best. It effectively targets national security.

    2. Pingback: State Over Defense in Obama NSS | The Foundry: Conservative Policy … : PlanetTalk.net - Learn the truth , no more lies

    3. Pingback: Garnett | Peoples Press Collective | Colorado Politics | Stan Garnett in the | My Income Multiplier

    4. Pingback: Fight And Beat Your Speeding Ticket. | bustspeedingticketsnow.com

    5. Neesh, DC says:

      Good comment, Stephanie. After reading the post above it, I especially enjoyed how you chose to use facts to back up your points.

    6. Pingback: Michigan Car Insurance Comparison Online | Make Money On Line

    7. Pingback: Family Camping – No Experience Necessary | Campfire Cooking

    8. stephanie, DC says:

      thank you! :-)

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.