{"id":459,"date":"2024-11-26T18:40:25","date_gmt":"2024-11-26T18:40:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/?page_id=459"},"modified":"2024-11-26T18:54:36","modified_gmt":"2024-11-26T18:54:36","slug":"2017-national-security-strategy-policy-analysis-effectiveness-analysis","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/2017-national-security-strategy-policy-analysis-effectiveness-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Effectiveness Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

2017 National Security Strategy Policy Analysis: Effectiveness Analysis<\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Hamza Demirel<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

CYSE425W
Edwin Wells IV<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

                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\u2019s 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\u2019s return towards realist themed policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Ethically we can determine that President Trump\u2019s National Security Strategy is poor in moral reasoning for intentions, means, and consequences. Nye calls the document, regarding intentions, a \u201czero-sum Hobbesian realism of a narrowly defined American self-interest\u201d which limits \u201cmultilateral institutions and global commerce\u201d (Nye, 2021, pp. 172, 178). In means the strategy emphasizes less on human rights and more on bilateral agreements which increase America\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                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 \u201cstrong skepticism toward established foreign policy priorities and positions involving American involvement in international affairs\u201d (Olsen, 2021, p. 82). Nostalgia, especially present in pillars II and III, gave \u201ca false sense of history, and it encourage[d] an inaccurate view of the present, both of which are bad for strategy\u201d (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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Strong economic ties and interdependence used to be considered beneficial were now considered the \u201croot of a problem that has major implications for US national security\u201d (Foot & King, 2019, p. 48). Specifically calling out China\u2019s actions and agenda as \u201cendanger[ing] the free flow of trade, threaten[ing] the sovereignty of other nations, and undermin[ing] regional stability\u201d (NSS, 2017, p. 46). The perceived threat of China\u2019s rapidly developing technology lead to the use of offshore balancing strategies in which \u201cTrump believes that the neighboring states of China are too much dependent on the U.S. for their security against China\u2019s threats and need to be more independent\u201d (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. \u201canxiety regarding China\u2019s growing competitiveness and global ambition\u201d (Wang, 2019, p. 390.). These factors lead to a trade war where \u201cmore than US$300bn worth of goods announced by both countries went into effect in July and September, respectively\u201d (Wang, 2019, p. 378.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s National Security Strategy<\/em>. Texas National Security Review. https:\/\/tnsr.org\/roundtable\/policy-roundtable-make-trumps-national-security-strategy\/#essay2<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Foot, R., & King, A. (2019). Assessing the deterioration in China\u2013U.S. relations: U.S. governmental perspectives on the Economic-Security Nexus. China International Strategy Review<\/em>, 39\u201350. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s42533-019-00005-y<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Nye, J. S. (2021). Do morals matter?: Presidents and foreign policy from FDR to trump<\/em>. Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Olsen, G. (2021). Donald Trump and \u201cAmerica first\u201d: The road ahead is open. International Politics (Hague, Netherlands), 58(1), 71-89.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saniabadi, E. R. (2018). Comparative Analysis of U.S. 2017 National Security Strategy Document towards China and Iran. Geopolitics Quarterly<\/em>, 14<\/em>(4), 188\u2013208.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wang, Z. (2019). Understanding trump\u2019s trade policy with China: International pressures meet domestic politics. Pacific Focus<\/em>, 34<\/em>(3), 376\u2013407. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/pafo.12148<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

2017 National Security Strategy Policy Analysis: Effectiveness Analysis Hamza Demirel CYSE425WEdwin 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… <\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":25223,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/459"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/25223"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=459"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/459\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":472,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/459\/revisions\/472"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/edwin-wells-4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=459"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}