2017 National Security Strategy Policy Analysis: Effectiveness Analysis

Hamza Demirel

CYSE425W
Edwin Wells IV

                The 2017 National Security Strategy from the Trump administration laid the groundwork for national policies with the intent of strengthening the American power set and sovereignty to protect national interest. In the strategy four pillars were listed and described to protect the American way of life, promote prosperity, promote peace, and to increase America’s influence. However, the strategy is not entirely an effective guide politically, socially, or ethically. This is due to the highly polarized political climate and President Trump’s return towards realist themed policies.

                Ethically we can determine that President Trump’s National Security Strategy is poor in moral reasoning for intentions, means, and consequences. Nye calls the document, regarding intentions, a “zero-sum Hobbesian realism of a narrowly defined American self-interest” which limits “multilateral institutions and global commerce” (Nye, 2021, pp. 172, 178). In means the strategy emphasizes less on human rights and more on bilateral agreements which increase America’s hard power, an increased role of regional allies, and economic policies to control both the middle east and China (Saniabadi, 2018, pp. 204-205). In the pursuit of the intentions and means sought by the National Security Strategy, President Trump consequently shattered American credibility and thus its soft power by pulling out of treaties, walking away from U.S. responsibilities, breaking policies, and constant lying (Biden, 2020, p. 11).

                The influence and power for these realist styled national and international policies were strong political polarization and American nostalgia. Political polarization was evident with opinion surveys which showed “strong skepticism toward established foreign policy priorities and positions involving American involvement in international affairs” (Olsen, 2021, p. 82). Nostalgia, especially present in pillars II and III, gave “a false sense of history, and it encourage[d] an inaccurate view of the present, both of which are bad for strategy” (Ashford et al., 2017, p. 24). These two factors help to fuel the American exceptionalism that influenced and shaped the National Security Strategy which inverted the way America performed foreign politics.

                Strong economic ties and interdependence used to be considered beneficial were now considered the “root of a problem that has major implications for US national security” (Foot & King, 2019, p. 48). Specifically calling out China’s actions and agenda as “endanger[ing] the free flow of trade, threaten[ing] the sovereignty of other nations, and undermin[ing] regional stability” (NSS, 2017, p. 46). The perceived threat of China’s rapidly developing technology lead to the use of offshore balancing strategies in which “Trump believes that the neighboring states of China are too much dependent on the U.S. for their security against China’s threats and need to be more independent” (Saniabadi, 2018, p. 201). Economic pressures were also implemented because of a shortened technological gap between the U.S. and China along with U.S. “anxiety regarding China’s growing competitiveness and global ambition” (Wang, 2019, p. 390.). These factors lead to a trade war where “more than US$300bn worth of goods announced by both countries went into effect in July and September, respectively” (Wang, 2019, p. 378.).

                The document that laid a groundwork for strengthening the American power set and sovereignty to protect national interest failed in its execution. The National Security Strategy was written from a skewed vision of history and inaccurate assessment of the present. Leading to it failing ethically with a poor rating in the moral dimensions of intentions, means, and consequences. Also, fueled with increased U.S. anxiety and fear of eroding power at rapid advancement of foreign powers resulted in a costly trade war, loss of U.S. soft power, and ultimately left U.S. and world institutions for the worse. Thus, the National Security Strategy of 2017 was not an effective strategy for long term growth of the U.S. or international institutions.

References

Ashford, E., Itzkowitz Shifrinson, J. R., Hill, A., Buchanan, B., Cooper, Z., Rapp-Hooper, M., Medina, C., McGrath, B., & Deptula, D. A. (2017, December 21). Policy roundtable: What to make of Trump’s National Security Strategy. Texas National Security Review. https://tnsr.org/roundtable/policy-roundtable-make-trumps-national-security-strategy/#essay2

Biden, J. R., & Jr. (2020, January 23). Why america must lead again. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-01-23/why-america-must-lead-again

Foot, R., & King, A. (2019). Assessing the deterioration in China–U.S. relations: U.S. governmental perspectives on the Economic-Security Nexus. China International Strategy Review, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42533-019-00005-y

NSS booklayout fin 121917 – the white house. Trump Whitehouse. (2017, December 18). https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf

Nye, J. S. (2021). Do morals matter?: Presidents and foreign policy from FDR to trump. Oxford University Press.

Olsen, G. (2021). Donald Trump and “America first”: The road ahead is open. International Politics (Hague, Netherlands), 58(1), 71-89.

Saniabadi, E. R. (2018). Comparative Analysis of U.S. 2017 National Security Strategy Document towards China and Iran. Geopolitics Quarterly, 14(4), 188–208.

Wang, Z. (2019). Understanding trump’s trade policy with China: International pressures meet domestic politics. Pacific Focus, 34(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/pafo.12148