US national security strategy is on life support
Most people turn off when they hear terms like 'national security strategy.' In some ways, this rather esoteric use of language is purposely made obscure so that only so-called 'experts' can debate and talk or write about it.
But national security affects all of us and thus must be of great concern.
Since the end of World War II and the start of the Cold War, national security strategy rested on three simple principles. The first was a strong economy; the second was a system of alliances and allies determined to defend themselves against a common enemy — in the first instance, the Soviet Union. Third, and especially in a thermonuclear age when war could be existential to society, the capability to deter conflict.
Left unsaid was what would be needed to fight and win a world war, assuming winning were possible.
These basic principles made great sense. And while many lesser wars and conflicts were fought and not deterred around the world, world war between the West and the Soviet Union was prevented.
Some believe that it was the military might of the U.S. and its allies that was responsible when, in fact, the irrational nature of the Soviet system could not be sustained. When Mikhail Gorbachev took the reins of power in 1986, he attempted to reform and modernize his country through perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness).
Instead, the brittle system could not withstand any external pressure for change, and imploded in 1989.
The collapse raised a profound challenge for the U.S. and the West. Would the new Russia be capable of becoming a Western democracy and ally? And if yes, what were the policies to accomplish that aim?
Nearly 40 years since the USSR was dissolved, the answer was clear: 'Nyet!'
In U.S. strategy, Russia has become the ' acute ' threat and China the ' pacing ' threat. The problem is that neither word fits.
'Acute' can mean 'dire,' 'dreadful' or 'terrible.' It also means 'sharp,' 'shrewd' or 'astute.' 'Pacing' means doing everything in moderation.
Hence, it is not surprising that, from ill-defined danger, the subsequent strategy is flawed.
The current National Defense Strategy, relatively unchanged from the original Obama administration's 2014 version, is meant to compete, deter and, if war comes, prevail against a range of potential adversaries topped by China and Russia. That, in turn, raises a series of crucial questions.
In terms of competition, how is that measured and on what basis? None have been defined. If it is economic, Russia simply cannot compete. China can, but which factors make up the pacing threat?
Regarding deterrence, what is actually being deterred? China has not been swayed from expanding its influence, threatening Taiwan and building an impressive navy, at least on paper. Russia was not deterred from seizing Crimea in 2014 or invading Ukraine three years ago, as well as threatening the use of nuclear weapons.
Should war come, it could involve using thermonuclear and nuclear weapons. A thermonuclear weapon, by definition, is 1,000 times greater than a nuclear one. Who would win a thermonuclear or nuclear war? The likely answer is no one.
An intelligent person would ask, 'Can we do better than this?'
That means identifying exactly what the threats are and deriving a strategy far better defined than the ambiguous terms 'compete,' 'deter' and 'defeat.' That means starting from first principles and understanding exactly what threat China or Russia poses before moving to the strategy for countering it.
I have long argued that the major danger facing us comes from ' Massive Attacks of Disruption and Destruction,' whether wrought by man or nature. In both cases, prevention rather than deterrence is necessary. It's unlikely to stave off an attack that an enemy regards as inevitable, and nearly impossible to deter a pandemic, catastrophic storm or earthquake.
Whether Massive Attacks of Disruption and Destruction fits or not, a construct like it is needed now. Regarding the three bases for strategy, the Trump administration's tariff and tax policies are imposing great damage on the economy. Alliances are being eroded by America First policies. And we're not deterring anything.
This calls for a fundamental review of national security and strategy. Yet, the likelihood of a truly first principles approach in the current exceedingly toxic political environment is nil.
The crucial question is whether this nation is capable of such an effort. And on that, our collective future may rest.
Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of the forthcoming book, 'The Arc of Failure: Can Decisive Strategic Thinking Transform a Dangerous World.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Trump's looming cuts to high-speed rail project represent a ‘backward vision'
To the editor: The Pentagon is projected to spend a staggering $2.1 trillion on the F-35 fighter jet program. This weapons system has been plagued by cost overruns, technical failures and delays. Many military analysts now consider the F-35 already obsolete, a Cold War relic in a world facing very different threats. Yet, the Trump administration has raised no concerns. In fact, it's proposed increasing the Pentagon's budget by $150 billion this year, funneling even more money into machines of war. Now contrast that with California's high-speed rail project: a first-of-its-kind system in the U.S. that's projected to create tens of thousands of jobs, stimulate billions in economic activity and drastically reduce carbon emissions. Instead of supporting this vision of a cleaner, more connected America, the Trump administration has actively undermined it ('Trump administration sees 'no viable path' forward to finish high-speed rail project, moves to pull federal funding,' June 4). It's a backward vision: We pour trillions into fighter jets designed to kill, while blocking a transportation system designed to move people, strengthen our economy and protect our planet. Imagine if we invested that $2.1 trillion into a nationwide high-speed rail network, connecting major cities, revitalizing regional economies and leading the world in sustainable infrastructure. It's time to rethink our priorities. The California high-speed rail project deserves more support, not less. Donald Flaherty, Burbank .. To the editor: The fight over high-speed rail is ridiculous. I just returned from three weeks in Japan, a place where bullet trains run the length and breadth of the country and ordinary trains that connect with them go to places the bullet trains don't. When someone wants to go from Tokyo to Kyoto, they don't think about flying or driving, they hop on a train. Compared to Japan, it's as if we're in the Stone Age when it comes to transportation. Plus, these trains run clean on electricity and don't spew harmful exhaust fumes. Murray Zichlinsky, Long Beach
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
US presidents ranked by their approval ratings when they left office
President Donald Trump is seeking to rewrite US immigration policies, has reshaped how world leaders use social media, and has made historic changes to the federal workforce. But in his first term, he made history in a way he may wish to forget: He was the first president since Gallup began tracking presidential job approval in the 1930s to fail to exceed a 50% approval rating at any point during his term. In Gallup's latest poll, conducted during the first half of May, 43% of respondents said they approved of Trump's performance, down from 47% in polling conducted during the first six days of his second term in January. In the recent poll, 53% said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. This number has held steady since March, a month rocked by leaked Signal chats and the economic shake-up of tariff policies. (A handful of people in each poll said they had no opinion of Trump's job performance.) For nearly a century, the polls have been used to measure the public's perception of US presidents' performance, with Gallup asking Americans: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way [the current president] is handling his job as president?" The American Presidency Project from the University of California, Santa Barbara, compiled the final Gallup ratings of each president's term from the past 70 years, signaling how popular each leader was when they left the Oval Office. See how US presidents from Harry Truman to Joe Biden rank in this end-of-term polling. We've ordered them from the lowest approval rating to the highest. Richard Nixon Approval rating: 24% Even though Nixon won the 1972 election in a historic landslide, the end of his presidency was tainted by the Watergate scandal that led him to resign on August 9, 1974, when faced with the threat of an impeachment and removal. Surveyed August 2 to 5, 1974, after the House Judiciary Committee passed articles of impeachment against the president but before he resigned, 66% of respondents to the Gallup poll said they disapproved of Nixon's presidency, the highest of any president on the list. Harry S. Truman Approval rating: 32% Assuming the presidency after Franklin D. Roosevelt's death, Truman served two terms covering the aftermath of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, including the Korean War, which was widely unpopular and contributed to Truman's low approval rating by the end of his second term in 1953. When asked December 11 to 16, 1952, 56% of poll respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Jimmy Carter Approval rating: 34% Carter had high approval ratings — and a disapproval rating in the single digits — during the early days of his term, but his handling of international affairs, such as the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, along with a struggling economy, ultimately made him unpopular by the end of his term. He lost the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan and faced a disapproval rating of 55% in polling conducted December 5 to 8, when he was readying to leave the White House. George W. Bush Approval rating: 34% Despite uniting the nation in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Bush saw his public approval fade during his second term. His approval rating spiked after the 2001 terrorist attacks, the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, and the capture of Saddam Hussein. After his reelection, his popularity began to decline as the Iraq War extended. His handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the onset of the 2008 financial crisis also contributed to his growing unpopularity. From January 9 to 11, 2009, as Bush prepared to hand over the presidency to Barack Obama, 61% of poll respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Donald Trump Approval rating: 34% Trump's presidency was divisive from the start, as he entered the White House with an approval rating below 50%. He's the first president in modern history to never exceed 50% approval on the Gallup polls during his presidency. While his approval ratings dwindled over the course of his four years in office, his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in particular came under scrutiny ahead of his loss in the 2020 election. His lowest approval ratings in office came during the final Gallup poll, conducted January 4 to 15, 2021. Most of that polling period took place immediately after the Capitol insurrection on January 6, and Trump faced a disapproval rating of 62%, the worst after Richard Nixon's at the time he left the office. Joe Biden Approval rating: 40% While Biden saw continuous approval ratings over 50% during his first six months in office, rises in inflation and illegal immigration, as well as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, contributed to lowering approval ratings. His lowest-ranking Gallup poll, in which 36% of respondents said they approved of his handling of the role, came in July 2024, a month after his debate performance against Trump shifted focus toward his age and fitness for office. As he left office, in polls collected January 2 to 16, 2025, Biden received a disapproval rating of 54%. Lyndon B. Johnson Approval rating: 49% After assuming the presidency because of John F. Kennedy's assassination, Johnson won the 1964 election in a historic landslide, but he faced decreasing approval ratings over his handling of the Vietnam War. Low approval ratings, along with a divided party, led Johnson to withdraw from the presidential race in 1968. At the time of his withdrawal, 36% of poll respondents said they approved of his handling of the presidency. By the time he left the office, however, his ratings had gone up to 49% approval. In polling conducted January 1 to 6, 1969, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the role, and 14% said they had no opinion, one of the higher percentages among the listed presidents. Gerald Ford Approval rating: 53% Assuming the presidency at the time of Nixon's resignation, Ford served as US president from August 1974 until January 1977, after he lost the election to Jimmy Carter. During his presidency, Ford faced mixed reviews, with his approval dropping after he pardoned Nixon and introduced conditional amnesty for draft dodgers in September 1974. Polled December 10 to 13, 1976, after he had lost the reelection to Jimmy Carter, 32% of respondents said they disapproved of Ford's handling of the presidency, and 15% said they had no opinion on it, the highest percentage of the listed presidents. George H. W. Bush Approval rating: 56% Though the elder Bush lost his reelection bid in the 1992 presidential election against Bill Clinton, the public opinion of him was positive by the end of his term. In the weeks before his nomination as the Republican candidate for the presidency in 1992, however, he had only a 29% approval rating, the lowest of his presidency. A recession and a reversal of his tax policy contributed to his drop in popularity. In polling conducted January 8 to 11, 1993, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency, while 56% said they approved. Barack Obama Approval rating: 59% Since the beginning of his presidency in 2009, Obama had a high approval rating for a modern-day president; he averaged nearly 47% approval over eight years. At his lowest point, in polling conducted September 8 to 11, 2011, 37% of poll respondents said they approved of his presidency, the decline most likely influenced by the president's healthcare policies and his handling of the 2008 economic crisis and the following rise in unemployment rates. In polls conducted January 17 to 19, 2017, when Obama was leaving office, 37% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the role, with 59% saying they approved. Dwight D. Eisenhower Approval rating: 59% After winning the 1952 election in a landslide, Eisenhower saw high approval ratings throughout his presidency, never dropping below the disapproval rating. Holding office during critical Cold War years, Eisenhower saw his stay positive throughout the end of his second term, with only 28% of respondents polled December 8 to 13, 1960, saying they disapproved of his handling of the presidency, the lowest of the presidents listed. Ronald Reagan Approval rating: 63% Reagan's strong leadership toward ending the Cold War and implementing his economic policies contributed to consistently positive ratings during his presidency and the subsequent election of his vice president, George H. W. Bush, as his successor to the presidency. By the time he left office, 29% of respondents in a Gallup poll conducted December 27 to 29, 1988, said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency. Bill Clinton Approval rating: 66% After winning the 1992 elections against the incumbent George H. W. Bush, Clinton saw high approval ratings throughout his presidency, though he faced mixed opinions at times during his first term because of his domestic agenda, including tax policy and social issues. Despite being impeached in 1998 by the House of Representatives over his testimony describing the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Clinton continued to see positive approval ratings during his second term. Near the time he left the White House, he had an approval rating of 66%, the highest of all the presidents on this list. In the poll conducted January 10 to 14, 2001, 29% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the presidency.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The British military base preparing for war in space
In a fake village in Buckinghamshire, several members of Space Command are huddled around a computer screen watching a foreign missile approach a Ministry of Defence communications satellite. It is just an exercise, but it is a scenario that is increasingly worrying military chiefs, who fear space is now the most important theatre of war. With satellites controlling everything from EasyJet flight plans, to Amazon deliveries, to army advances, targeting them would cripple society. Russia took down Ukraine's satellite communications hours before it began its full-scale land invasion in 2022. China and Russia have both tested anti-satellite missiles, while Moscow is allegedly developing a programme to arm some of its satellites with nuclear warheads, meaning it could destroy enemy networks while in orbit. In recognition of this new orbital battlefield, Space Command was established at RAF High Wycombe in 2021, to 'protect and defend' UK interests in space. It is now home to the UK Space Operations Centre, opened officially by government ministers this week. The RAF base is the former headquarters of Bomber Command, a military unit responsible for strategic bombing during the Second World War. With its winding streets, faux church towers and manor house office blocks, it was designed to look like a quintessential Home Counties village, should the Luftwaffe be passing over. The Bomber Command motto 'Strike Hard, Strike Sure' has been replaced with Space Command's 'Ad Stellas Usque' – Latin for 'up to the stars'. While Bomber Harris's team had its eyes fixed firmly on the ground, Space Command's are turned skywards. Maria Eagle, minister for defence procurement, who helped open the operations centre this week, said: 'From a national security point of view, space is a contested and congested and competitive domain, and we need to make sure, as our adversaries advance their capabilities, that we're able to deal with what that throws up.' She added: 'It's an extension of the more earthbound worries that we've got. The usual kind of things that you worry about on Earth, it's just extended upwards, because that's now a domain that is as important as land, sea or air to the potential of war-fighting or defending national security. 'The National Space Operations Centre does vital work in monitoring and protecting our interests. It's a recognition of the fact that our adversaries are active there, and we need to know what's going on.' Although the United States performed the first anti-satellite tests in 1959, space warfare has largely been consigned to Hollywood and science fiction until recently. Fears began to ramp up in January 2007, when China shot down one of its own ageing weather satellites with a ballistic missile creating a cloud of space junk, which is still causing problems. In November 2021, Russia conducted its own direct-ascent anti-satellite test, destroying the Soviet intelligence satellite Kosmos-1408, and generating a debris field that forced astronauts on the International Space Station to take shelter. However it is not just anti-satellite missiles that are causing concern. According to the latest Space Threat Assessment, from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, nations are developing evermore elaborate space weapons. These weapons include electro-magnetic pulses, microwaves and lasers to fry electronics, dazzlers to blind optical sensors, and grapplers to latch on to satellites and pull them out of orbit. China, Russia, Iran and North Korea all have the capability of jamming and hijacking satellite signals and launching cyber attacks. A 10-second delay in Google Chrome loading may seem like a domestic internet glitch, but bad actors could also be behind it, Space Command has warned. Space Command is particularly worried about China, which in the past year has launched increasingly advanced and highly-manoeuvrable satellites for purposes that remain unclear. CSIS believes Beijing may be creating a 'formidable on-orbit counter-space arsenal' and that manoeuvrability testing is allowing Chinese operators to develop 'tactics and procedures that can be used for space war-fighting'. US Space force commanders have also warned that Chinese satellites have been spotted 'dogfighting' in space, moving within less than a mile of each other. 'China continues to develop and field a broad set of counter-space capabilities,' a member of Space Command told The Telegraph. 'It's certainly one of the more capable adversaries. Space is no longer a sanctuary, it's a space of contest. It's the modern battlefield.' Russia's Luch satellites have also been spotted stalking European communications and broadcast satellites, moving close to their orbits for reasons not fully understood. Space Command fears they are probing the systems to find out how best to disrupt signals. Although Russia continues to deny it is developing an orbital nuclear anti-satellite weapon – which would breach the 1967 Outer Space Treaty – US intelligence suggests otherwise. Chris Bryant, minister of state for data protection and telecoms, said: 'There's a lot of stuff up there now … and the risks from deliberate bad actors, in particular from Russia and China, and the havoc that could be created either deliberately or accidentally, is quite significant. 'So we need to monitor as closely as we possibly can, 24/7, everything that is going on up there so that we can avert accidental damage, and we can also potentially deter other more deliberate, harmful activity.' Space Command currently employs more than 600 staff, roughly 70 per cent of whom are from the Royal Air Force with the remaining 30 per cent from the Army and Navy, plus a handful of civilians. Not only is it monitoring the sky for threats from foreign powers but it is also keeping an eye out for falling space debris, asteroids, and coronal mass ejections from the Sun which could wipe out power grids and satellites. When a threat is spotted, the team can contact satellite providers to warn them to reposition their spacecraft, or advise them to power down until a powerful jet of plasma has passed through. It also informs the government and the security services on the orbital movements of foreign powers. Space Command also launched its first military satellite last year, named Tyche, which can capture daytime images and videos of the Earth's surface for surveillance, intelligence gathering and military operations. It is part of the Government's £968 million Istari programme which will see more satellites launched by 2031 to create a surveillance constellation. Mr Bryant added: 'Lots of people think 'space' and joke about Star Trek and the final frontier, but actually the truth is you couldn't spend a single day of your life these days in the UK without some kind of engagement with space. 'The havoc that could be created, which might be military havoc, or it might be entirely civil havoc, could be very significant.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
