U.S. government documents are a dime a dozen. The Pentagon, for example, puts out an annual report on China’s military power and capabilities. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence releases a worldwide threat assessment every year, which Congress uses to determine what resources should be authorized and appropriated to the various U.S. intelligence agencies.
The U.S. National Security Strategy and U.S. National Defense Strategy are, however, arguably more important than any of the other U.S. government planning documents. A considerable amount of work goes into drafting, editing, and eventually releasing them, and it’s typical for the entire process to get bogged down as inter-service rivalries within the U.S. military play out. Reporters covering the national security beat are keenly eager to report on the two strategies, for good reason. Ideally, both are meant to illustrate to the American people and the world at large what Washington’s foreign policy priorities are and how the United States aims to meet them.
According to public reports, the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy will reportedly become available over the next few weeks. The National Defense Strategy, which focuses exclusively on the War Department, is running into a bit more drama as chunks of the plan continue to receive pushback from senior U.S. military officers, including Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, who believe China, commonly referred to as Washington’s peer competitor, is getting short shrift. While we don’t know the exact contents of the strategy yet, some snippets have been leaked—the Western Hemisphere and the U.S. homeland are supposedly treated as the top priorities. And while great power competition will certainly still be a feature, the strategy is likely to rub a lot of conventional national security types the wrong way.
But move the specifics aside for a moment and ask yourself a big question: do these documents really mean much anymore?
Author
Events on Grand strategy
