Read the most recent CSIS research on U.S. national security strategy.
As we enter 2018, the stage for defense is now set. The president has signed the NSS. The secretary of defense has released the NDS and NPR; the MDR is soon to follow. The White House has made its FY 2019 budget request, and posture hearings are close at hand. However, ambition often outpaces resources, and as with the Obama administration, there is reason for concern with the administration’s plans.
Despite the brief notoriety of U.S. special operations activities after the tragic ambush in Niger last October, U.S. strategic priorities in Africa remain inscrutable. For a recent example of the administration’s enigmatic approach to the continent, look in turn at the Africa sections in the National Security Strategy (NSS) and the National Defense Strategy (NDS). You will find a curious disconnect.
Last week, the Trump administration formally released its review of U.S. nuclear weapons policy. Judging by reactions over what amounts to the longest rollout in Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) history, there is something in it for everyone. That means almost no one is happy.
The release of the National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy offers a window to evaluate current and ongoing U.S. policy in the Asia-Pacific region. But while the documents offer bold, clear strategic direction at a time the United States and the world need clear guideposts, the administration’s actions are at odds with the strategies.
The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy outline a U.S. shift from counterterrorism to inter-state competition with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. However, U.S. policymakers need to be prepared for much of this competition to occur at the unconventional level, since the costs of conventional and nuclear war would likely be catastrophic.
CSIS International Security Program experts Kathleen Hicks, Seth Jones, Todd Harrison, Andrew Hunter, Mark Cancian, and Rebecca Hersman discuss the NDS and the resource challenges that may impact its implementation.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 was intended to promote compromise, yet that has not been the case in practice. Gregory Sanders explains why treating the budget caps as a one-off mistake, rather than a reflection of diminished political capacity, is a bad idea.
It is a bad idea for Congress to pursue a new AUMF without a constructive debate. In this piece, Tommy Ross outlines the importance of addressing critical questions and formulating a debate for any new AUMF legislation.
Although SOF provides a valued role in performing TAA and security cooperation missions; it is misguided for the defense department to solely rely on SOF. This piece examines the trade-offs of limiting security cooperation missions to SOF.
Intentions are well, but the formation of national unity governments in conflict-ridden states is a cookie cutter idea the U.S. should reconsider using.