Obama's National Security Strategy: Is 'I'm not Bush' ending?
As the Obama administration seeks to differentiate itself from its predecessor, it may risk playing down the role of 'hard power' too much. The National Security Strategy will be unveiled Thursday.
President Obama’s first National Security Strategy, to be unveiled by the administration this week, is being summed up in some circles as a repudiation of President Bush’s reliance on “unilateral” American power.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
But in its emphasis on strong international alliances, the promotion of universal values like democracy and human rights, and the crucial role of a strong economy and an innovative society at home, the document looks to be just as much a reaffirmation of traditional US foreign-policy themes.
The National Security Strategy, a broad statement of foreign-policy goals for addressing key international threats to America’s well-being, is slowly emerging from its wraps. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is to lay out the strategy in a speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington Thursday. Mr. Obama gave a preview of the strategy’s key points in a West Point commencement address Saturday, White House officials say.
In the West Point speech, Obama spoke of an “international order” that “can resolve the challenges of our times.” It will be promoted through four “pillars” of American action: renewed and expanded alliances; strength abroad through strength at home, with an emphasis on education, clean energy, technology, and innovation; support for international development and a revitalized diplomatic corps; and promotion of democracy and human rights.
The new National Security Strategy will underscore that the American military is unrivaled in the world in its reach and resources, and it will call for the United States to maintain its military superiority, according to the Associated Press, which obtained a summary of the strategy.
It won’t surprise anyone that any White House would vaunt the essential role of US military might.
Still, the Obama White House may be at risk of playing down the role of “hard power” in the world too much, some foreign-policy analysts say, especially as the administration seeks to differentiate itself from its predecessor.
“Every presidency starts off defining itself by trumpeting the opposite of whatever its predecessor did, and that’s been true in spades going from George W. Bush to Obama,” says Robert Lieber, a professor of government and international affairs at Georgetown University in Washington. “But at a certain point that gets old, and we’re at a point where the overplayed ‘we’re not Bush’ mantra is raising anxieties among friends and allies in Asia and the Middle East.”