Thread by @JJSchroden

Today, the @JoeBiden admin released its National Security Strategy. I’ll summarize its major points & put some thoughts on #terrorism & #Afghanistan specifically in this THREAD. 1/n

@JoeBiden (You can find the full text of the document here: whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…) 2/n

@JoeBiden The strategy exists in 5 parts: (1) overview of the problem; (2) sources of US strength (solutions); (3) global priorities; (4) strategy by region; (5) conclusion.

Oddly, part 1 starts on page 6. Nitpicky, I know, but still weird--who counts the cover as page 1? 3/n

@JoeBiden Part 1 lays out 2 strategic challenges for the US: (1) competition between major powers to shape the int'l order; (2) transnational, shared challenges that span borders (eg climate change, food insecurity, communicable diseases, terrorism, energy shortages, inflation). 4/n

@JoeBiden It also says the strategy rests on 6 key pillars: (1) foreign & domestic policies are intertwined--strength abroad requires strength at home; (2) alliances & partnerships are the US’ most critical strategic asset; (3) #China is the primary US competitor… 5/n

@JoeBiden …(4) Strategic competition is not the only US lens for the world (ie it's not a zero sum game for other countries); (5) adjustments to globalization are needed; (6) the US is committed to bilateral and multilateral cooperation & institutions. 6/n

@JoeBiden These pillars get less well defined & harder to follow/process as they go. It feels like the author(s) had to increasingly amalgamate topics as they went in this section. 7/n

@JoeBiden Part 2 gives details on three lines of effort to address these challenges: (1) investing in sources of US power & influence; (2) using diplomacy to build a strong coalition of nations; (3) modernizing & strengthening the US military. 8/n

@JoeBiden If one takes a "DIME" view of national power, these sections cover Diplomacy, Military, & Economics. Brazenly missing here (& really, throughout) is any tangible discussion of *Information*. Just a glaring hole in the entire strategy & my biggest criticism of it. 9/n

@JoeBiden Additionally, while I get playing up the military aspect is good politics, this section seems to assume the rest of the USG is up to snuff. That assumption is undermined somewhat by a callout box much later (pg 46) that calls out changes to USG agencies… 10/n

@JoeBiden …but I’d argue more in Part 2 about how we’re going to modernize the rest of the USG would’ve been good. Ex: If you intend to lead with diplomacy, having 1 bullet on page 46 of 48 about strengthening the @StateDept is weak sauce. 11/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept Part 3 sets priorities: (in order) #China, #Russia, shared challenges (climate/energy, pandemics/biodefense, food insecurity, arms control, #terrorism), & shaping the future world order (tech, cyber, trade & ...hostages? Seems like that should've been a callout box). 12/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept Part 3 also features callout boxes on transnational organized crime & corruption for reasons that aren’t apparent. One assumes they couldn’t figure out how these fit into the other categories & bolted them on as such. 13/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept On #terrorism, #alQaeda & #ISIS are called out specifically & #Syria, #Yemen & #Somalia are labelled as terrorist sanctuaries. Interestingly, #Afghanistan is not. Rather, the NSS touts having withdrawn from AFG & the efficacy of over-the-horizon CT (ie Zawahiri). 14/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept Specifically, it says: “We will ensure #Afghanistan never again serves as a safe haven for terrorist attacks on the US or our allies and we will hold the #Taliban accountable for its public commitments on #counterterrorism.” 15/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept I take that to imply the @JoeBiden admin believes the US-#Taliban Agreement signed in #Doha in February 2020 remains in effect (state.gov/wp-content/upl…). 16/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept It also says the US will move from a “US-led, partner-enabled” approach to one of “partner-led, US-enabled.” One presumes that translates to an increased use of enabling capabilities (eg airstrikes) & proxy forces (eg via the 127e program). 17/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept The US role is also described as helping to address what Gen Dunford used to call “connective tissue” among #terrorist groups (eg information, financing, recruitment & movement across borders) as well as “root causes of radicalization”. 18/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept Perhaps the biggest change is that it says the US will focus “when necessary” on "disrupting & degrading" terrorist groups. Gone is any mention of “defeating” these groups (or #terrorism as a general tactic), which was the central goal of the now-defunct GWOT. 19/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept It also says the Biden admin is committed to replacing the AUMF with a “narrow & specific framework” to address terrorist threats (about time!) & it talks briefly about domestic terrorism (while referencing the NSCDT: whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…) 20/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept Part 4 covers regional aspects: free & open IndoPacific; deepened alliances in Europe; democracy & economic promotion in the W. Hemisphere; de-escalation & integration in the Middle East; African partnerships; peaceful Artic; & secure sea, air & space. 21/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept The most change lies in the Middle East section: “We have too often defaulted to military-centric policies underpinned by an unrealistic faith in force and regime change…It is time to eschew grand designs in favor of more practical steps…” 22/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept It describes a 5-pillar framework for adjusting the US approach to the ME that puts a *lot* more onus on regional states. Says “We will not use our military to change regimes or remake societies, but instead limit the use of force to circumstances where it is necessary..." 23/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept ...to protect our national security interests and consistent with international law, while enabling our partners to defend their territory from external and terrorist threats.” 24/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept The #Africa section mentions, but does not focus on, #terrorism. Ex: “We will disrupt & degrade terrorist threats against the United States while supporting partners to prevent terrorist expansion.” 25/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept Part 5 concludes w/an assessment framework. Understanding that it’s a high-level strategy, as someone who's done a lot of work on this aspect of strategies, I'd call it a lackluster attempt. 26/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept To wit, it says the NSS “will be evaluated by an overriding metric: whether it makes life better, safer, and fairer for the people of the US & whether it lifts up the countries and people around the world who share our vision for the future.” 27/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept That's neither *one* metric (there are at least two ideas there) nor is it a metric at all (is that measurable?). The NSS does offer a vision of success that’s better laid out, but it's still quite grandiose & not particularly testable as a means of assessing the strategy. 28/n

@JoeBiden @StateDept Overall, I'd say the NSS isn't particularly surprising given what the @JoeBiden admin put out as interim guidance early in its tenure & b/c it's so late it does as much touting of accomplishments as it does give guidance. Nonetheless, good to finally have it on the street. 29/29