Rick Gunnell and Colonel Michael Long discuss the latest National Security Strategy and its implications for the US posture toward the Indo-Pacific.

Mr. Rick Gunnell

Welcome to CLSC Dialogues. Production of the China Landpower Studies Center at the Army War College. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the guests and not necessarily those of the Department of Army, US Army War College, or the US government. I'm Rick Gunnell, research professor of China military studies here at the China Landpower Studies Center. And today, I'm talking to the director of the Army's China Center, Colonel Mike Long, about America's newly published National Security Strategy.

COL Mike Long

Thank you so much, Rick, for hosting this. And for those who aren't as familiar. The China Landpower Studies Center, as CLSC as we like to call it. I just wanted to first off, kind of make sure everybody knew who you were as one of the subject matter experts, chief researcher and experts on China, especially the PLA and its leadership. Rick is a Chinese speaker and an expert in the region, so we're very lucky to have him here hosting today's podcast. So, we're not just going to talk about the National Security Strategy. We're going to talk about its implications to the region as well as China specifically. So let me go to answer your question. And your question was on a little bit of background.

So first let's kind of think about what the National Security Strategy is. And it is that it's America's grand strategy. It's our highest-level strategy. It's mandated for the White House to produce this. So in 1986, a Congressional mandate called the Goldwater-Nichols Act came out. Most of the Goldwater-Nichols Act is focused on what the US military needs to do, but there are some portions for what the executive branch has to do, and one of them is publishing a National Security Strategy.

Gunnell

What is the goal of the National Security Strategy and who is the audience?

Long

The goal is to ensure that the executive branch is aligned around a singular strategy in all of its policies, and then what Congress is looking for is a rationale behind the budget. And so Congress controls the purse. And what they want to understand is what is the strategy that needs to be funded by Congress.

When you talk about the audience, which I thought was a great question, the audience is, of course, the rest of the executive branch to ensure that all of the service secretaries and those who work for them are aligned in policy and strategy. But it's also, like we said, Congress to say what the budget needs to be. It's also the American people.

You know, you can see when you read this document that a lot of this document is talking directly to the American people. In addition to that, it's our allies and our partners around the world as well as our adversaries. I think this has a wide audience after the National Security Strategy.

Gunnell

Are there other documents that will follow that will help kind of support or play out what is in the security strategy?

Long

The term we like to use is they nest. So from this document, the National Security Strategy, from the military's perspective, we have a series of other strategies now. This document, the National Security Strategy tends to be the most political. This one is no exception. It’s a very political document as you read into it. But when you look at these subordinate documents that the military produces, first is by the Secretary of War will develop a National Defense Strategy, then the chairman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff will develop a National Military Strategy.

From that, each one of the service secretaries will develop their own service strategies, and you'll see the combat commands make theater or more functional strategies for their areas as well. And so this is the overall document from which all that is aligned diving into the 2025 National Security Strategy, the NSS.

Gunnell

What would you say is the focus of the new NSS?

Long

I think when you look at it, I kind of like to look at it in a few pieces. One is to talk about how different it is than previous strategies. So the first is it's much shorter. It's about half the length of the previous strategies. We see this strategy, a lot is cut out because of its length. And one of those things that is cut out is a current state or an overall breakdown of the environment.

Because of that, there are elements that are different in this strategy than others. Additionally, this strategy tends to be much less antagonistic towards large scale powers like China and Russia than we've seen in the past. But you asked what the focus was, and I would say the focus is a few things. Right? So really when you look at it, it comes from an overall, it's a mostly a realist perspective.

If we're looking at international relations theory or political science, it really values hard power, military power, as well as economic power. It doesn't focus on great power competition in the way that we've seen in the past. And then I think the biggest aspect, and this is what we're going to talk about a lot, is this multipolar world view.

Gunnell

Why don't you think the US calls China or Russia threats? This is about accepting a new multipolar world order. Is it about trying to be as neutral as possible while also stating where our red lines are? How would you analyze that?

Long

I think it's a couple things. One is we don't have this sort of background of the environment that sort of lays out where everything is that you would see in the past, right. So you don't have this what we strategist call a current state of the environment articulated. So I think that's one reason why we don't see that. Another is exactly like you articulated, right, this multipolar world. We've heard Secretary Rubio talk a couple times about describing the world as multipolar. And this is the new position for the United States, at least recently. Right. So following the fall of the Soviet Union, we really went into a pretty unipolar world and most of the national security strategies since then, up until this, when really focused on a unipolar world with the United States as the lead. This one really looks at the world as potentially multipolar. And I would describe that as having spheres of influence.

And I know we're going to get into that a little bit when it comes to Western Hemisphere as well as Asia-Pacific.

Gunnell

Let's actually just go right into that then, because as I read through it, I think like many, we saw the biggest change as a focus more towards the Western Hemisphere. Over the past decade or so, we've been trying to balance or maybe pivot to Asia.

And I think that this puts the Western Hemisphere in a place that it hasn't been before. And why would you think there's such a focus on that? And can we kind of walk and chew gum at the same time, per the NSS, can we both focus on the Western Hemisphere but also counter Chinese influence, adversarial influences in the Asia-Pacific?

Long

I think one, that's an astute observation of the document. You know, it clearly articulates the Western Hemisphere as the priority theater. You know, it calls out the Monroe Doctrine, specifically stating that there's a Trump Corollary to this doctrine. I think the belief amongst the administration for this is that, you know, the real value in protecting our own backyard, for lack of a better term, small yard, big fence concept, vice giving up on some other area.

Also, if you accept that there is a multipolar world, you have to accept the other powers had some sort of regional hegemonic capabilities in them. I think that's one aspect of it. When you look at the document, what it talks about, the Western Hemisphere, it really articulates three specific threats that we've seen. The first is migration. The second is drugs and crime. Third is foreign power intervention. And I think we've seen all the military used to counter all three of those threats.

Gunnell

So, speaking of the Western Hemisphere, we can't ignore the most recent events in Venezuela. Do you see these events as something that is adhering to national security strategy? Is a nested within is it slightly different? How would you interpret the actual actions we've seen over the past week with what we saw in the strategy in December?

Long

I think that when you look at what we saw in Venezuela, and to be specific, I would describe that as a raid on the capital of Venezuela when military operation called snatch and grab for the president, his wife, and brought them back for them to face trial. I think you see a couple aspects of that. One part of the Monroe Doctrine, you know, when you look at it, a lot of presidents have viewed the Monroe Doctrine in different ways.

But the basic understanding of the Monroe Doctrine, it's that foreign powers don't have control over the Western Hemisphere. Now, there's this kind of famous Roosevelt Corollary to that, the Theodore Roosevelt Corollary to that, where you see Theodore Roosevelt really looking at having much more control inside of the countries of the Western Hemisphere. And this is where we get into the Panama Canal, the transition to Panama, becoming a country, [seceding from] Colombia.

I think this Trump Corollary is more similar to a Roosevelt Corollary. So if you look at, you know, each one of those specific threats, you know, one was drugs and crime. The indictment under President Maduro is about drugs and crime. Another concern is about foreign powers. You know, the vast majority of the military equipment inside of Venezuela that was used to protec

CLSC Dialogues – Ep 25 – Rick Gunnell and COL Michael Long – Discussion on the New National Security Strategy and its Relevance to the Pacific

CLSC Dialogues

CLSC Dialogues – Ep 25 – Rick Gunnell and COL Michael Long – Discussion on the New National Security Strategy and its Relevance to the Pacific