First, the United States will support and strengthen partnerships with countries that subscribe to the rules-based international order, and we will make sure those countries can defend themselves against foreign threats. The section on the Middle East is a case in point. The emphasis on the main challenges abroad (China and Russia) and at home (economic growth and democratic institutions) all come through clearly. But as the report continues beyond these grand themes, it often confuses mere preferences with vital interests and then doesn’t consider any inherent tradeoffs that emerge. Given that relatively low bar, the Biden administration seems to have done better than most in drafting an internally coherent report. These reports, required by Congress and the product of untold man-hours across the executive branch, have largely degenerated into political treatises intended for domestic audiences rather than efforts to provide guidance to those who must execute US policies.

We are far too divided at home for a single document to represent a national consensus the definition of security is often stretched to include anything that a given administration favors and strategies, unlike these documents, require prioritizations rather than lists of equally weighted preferences along with a clearly defined alignment between desired ends, ways, and means. In the eighteenth century, Voltaire opined that the Holy Roman Empire was “in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.” Today, a similar quip can be made every four years, as one administration after another publishes a National Security Strategy that is not entirely national, not truly centered on our security, and certainly not strategic. Warrick: DHS is everywhere and almost nowhere in this strategyĪrun Iyer: A welcome focus on conflict in the “gray zone”Īsh Jain: A success on defining core challenges, but many questions remain A strategy in name only, but it does better than most Justin Sherman: A promising vision on privacy that now needs to be put into practiceĭanielle Jablanski: Cybersecurity is front and center-with good reason Jason Marczak: Why the NSS devotes more attention to the Americas than any other region

Qutaiba Idlbi: A limited commitment to Syria will only push the US further to the sidelines Peek: A surreal strategy that doesn’t recognize reality for US powerĭaniel Fried: Biden molds the US strategic tradition to new challengesīarbara Slavin: On Iran, only vague and unsurprising pledgesĬhristopher Skaluba: A non-strategy strategy, but a compelling one nonetheless Shapiro: The Middle East makes mincemeat of good strategyĪndrew L. Wechsler: A strategy in name only, but it does better than mostĭaniel B. Does this strategy deliver? What does it get right and what’s missing? How will the rest of the world view the administration’s strategic vision? Read on to find out. On Wednesday, the White House released its long-awaited National Security Strategy (NSS), which US President Joe Biden described in the introduction as “a 360-degree strategy grounded in the world as it is today, laying out the future we seek, and providing a roadmap for how we will achieve it.” So we put the call out to our experts from across the Atlantic Council, many of whom have previously served on the National Security Council, which takes the lead in drafting the document. OctoExperts react: The hits and misses in Biden’s new National Security Strategy

Define hemispheric defense zone