Obama's new security doctrine

4 June 2010, 18:00 PM

Barrister Harun ur Rashid

ON May 27th, President Barack Obama announced the new national security doctrine. It is rooted in diplomatic engagement and international alliances, essentially repudiating his predecessor's emphasis on unilateral US power and the right to wage preemptive war. The President unveiled a preview of the new security doctrine on 15th May, at the US Military Academy at West Point. Eight years after President George Bush came to the US Military Academy to set a new security doctrine after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, President Obama used the same setting to lay out the broad principles of his National Security Strategy, a document required by law of every administration, stressing international engagement over Bush's "cowboy diplomacy." Vowing no retreat against enemies while seeking "national renewal and global leadership", the President told graduating cadets: "Yes, we are clear-eyed about the short-falls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping out of the current cooperation. We have succeeded by steering in the direction of liberty and justice, so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities and face consequences when they don't." While President Obama never mentioned his predecessor's name, Obama's revised approach is to implicitly repudiate the 2002 "Bush Doctrine" asserting the right to wage pre-emptive war against countries and terrorist groups deemed a threat to the United States. It was part of a policy Bush called a "distinctly American internationalism" established after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Cooperative international response On 27 May, the White House rolled out Obama's first formal declaration of national security goals, which deviated sharply from the go-it-alone approach of the Bush era that included justification for pre-emptive war and alienated many in the Muslim world. The 52-page document on national security doctrine reads like an argument for restoration of an older order of reliance on international institutions, updated to confront modern threats. It is reported that the author of the draft of new security doctrine is Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser. In the 2002 document President Bush explicitly said Washington would never allow the rise of a rival super power. President Obama argues that the US faces no real military competitor, but that global power is diffusing increasingly. "To succeed, we must face the world as it is." The document tries to balance the idealism of Obama's campaign promises with the realities of his confrontations with a fractious and threatening world over the past sixteen months; Obama recognises limits on how much the US can spend to shape the globe. He said: " The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone. Indeed our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power." Obama's insistence that the United States cannot act alone in the world is also a message to current and emerging powers that they must shoulder their share of the global burden. Obama's move to replace the Group of 8 nations with a broader group, G-20 that includes China, India, and Brazil, recognises the reality. The President argues that the "the gravest danger to the American people and global security continues to come from weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. He considers cyber threats, climate change, and the US's dependence on fossil fuels as fundamental national security issues. Larry Summers, President Obama's chief economic adviser used to ask a year ago "How long can the biggest borrower remain the world's biggest power?" America is broke. The US government's outgoings will exceed income by about $US1.6 trillion this year; over the next 10 years combined, the predicted gap is $US8.5 trillion. Grappling with a fragile US economy and mounting deficits, Obama also signalled he would place new emphasis on the link between US economic strength and discipline at home and restoring America's standing in the world. The President thus defines national security more broadly than his predecessor did; for example, reducing the deficit in the national budget is critical to sustaining US power. The United States' fiscal problems presented a long-term threat to its diplomatic clout and it cannot sustain this level of deficit financing and debt without losing its global influence. In short, the deficit begins to threaten the post-1945 security architecture. No war against Islam John Brennan, Obama's leading counter-terrorism adviser, said: "We have never been and will never be at war with Islam. The President's strategy is unequivocal with regard to our posture - the United States of America is at war. We are at war against al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates," Brennan's words dovetailed with Obama's outreach to the Muslim world, where the US image under former President George W. Bush was hurt by the US-led invasion of Iraq, the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and his use of phrases like "war on terror" and "Islamo-fascism." Obama has been widely credited with improving the tone of US foreign policy but is still struggling with unfinished wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea, and sluggish Middle East peace efforts due to intransigence of Israel, supported by a strong Jewish lobby in the US. Terrorism threat Obama's strategy refers to Al Qaeda and its affiliates as the enemy, rather than terrorism and terrorists. Terror, administration officials say, is a state of mind and a tactic, not an enemy. The Bush administration repeatedly referred to the war against terror in its strategy. Obama has dropped the term. Brennan made clear there would be no let-up in the counter-terrorism fight, saying the United States would need a broad campaign that "harnesses every tool of American power, military and civilian, kinetic and diplomatic." "We will take the fight to al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates wherever they plot and train - in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond," he said. "We will not simply degrade al Qaeda's capabilities or simply prevent terrorist attacks against our country or citizens, we will not merely respond after the fact, after an attack that has been attempted. Instead the United States will disrupt, dismantle and ensure a lasting defeat of al Qaeda and violent extremist affiliates," he said. Middle East observers believe that until the Palestinian issue is resolved, Islamic militants will continue to disrupt the stability of the region and beyond through violent means. Brennan said curbing the growing threat of "home-grown" terrorism would be a top priority, along with boosting defences against lone al Qaeda recruits who hold foreign passports, allowing them to enter the United States with little to no screening. This comes in the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day bombing of a US airliner and the botched Times Square car-bomb attempt earlier in May - incidents Brennan called part of a "new phase" of the counter-terrorism fight. "The President's national security strategy explicitly recognises the threat to the United States posed by individuals radicalised here at home," he said. Critics say some of his efforts at diplomatic outreach show US weakness and they question whether he jeopardizes American interests by relying too heavily on "soft power." There was no discussion of what has become an emerging consensus in foreign policy circles - that heavy US indebtedness to countries like China poses a security problem. But the report did reflect Washington's enigmatic relationship with Beijing, praising it for a more active role in world affairs while insisting it must act responsibly. It also reiterated unease over China's rapid military build-up. The author is former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.