Ike Skelton: U.S. needs comprehensive strategy to advance national interests

Between July 9 and August 1, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton delivered a series of speeches in the U.S. House of Representatives, addressing the need for a comprehensive strategy to advance U.S .national interests.
Here is what Missouri Democrat Representative Skelton had to say:

"I rise today to talk about a fundamental problem affecting the national security of the United States which has not received the notice and consideration it deserves. The United States suffers from the complete absence of a comprehensive strategy for advancing U.S. interests. This strategic void detracts from almost every policy effort advanced by the United States Government. As a result, major policies are inconsistent and contradictory in different areas of the world and across different policy realms. We find ourselves unable to agree upon and set national priorities for addressing the major challenges of our time. We suffer from a splintering of national power, and an inability to coherently address threats and reassure and cooperate with allies.

"What do I mean by a comprehensive national strategy? The word strategy has military roots, coming from the Greek word for "generalship," but the concept of a strategy extends well beyond just the military context. In the context of this speech, and others that I intend to deliver on this topic, it means a commonly agreed upon description of critical U.S. interests and how to advance them using all elements of national power – economic, diplomatic, and military.

"The next President will have a unique opportunity to develop a successful strategy for the nation. When President Dwight D. Eisenhower took office, he commissioned the Solarium Project to review strategies for dealing with the Soviet Union. After a competitive process in which three teams of advisers promoted the merits of three strategies, President Eisenhower decided to continue the policy of containment developed by President Truman, and did so with a largely unified Administration.

"Over the course of our history, the U.S. has had numerous successful strategies. During the Cold War, both major political parties supported a strategy of containment for confronting the Soviet Union. During World War II, the United States had a widely-supported strategy of focusing first on the War in Europe, and deferring some effort from the War in the Pacific until the Nazi threat was contained. At other times in our nation's history, we have pursued less successful strategies, such as a strategy of isolationism during the period between World Wars I
and II.

"The next President would be well advised to engage in and personally lead a Solarium-type approach to determining a strategy for today's rapidly changing world. To ensure that a new strategy for America can truly develop support across the political spectrum, Congress should be involved in the process, and to ensure that a new strategy is one that the American people can support, the general outline of the debate should be shared with and involve the American people.

"This speech is the first in a series. In the future I will discuss the objectives and challenges that a new U.S. strategy will need to contend with; some of the means by which the U.S. will likely need to pursue its objectives and their ramifications for the national security apparatus of the United States Government; and some of the options that a Solarium-type review of strategy by the next President would need to consider.

"I hope that my colleagues will join me in urging the next President to address this problem and join with me in a conversation, both in Congress and with the American people, about what today's strategy should be."

America's Strategic Context

"I spoke previously about the need for America to embark upon a process to develop a comprehensive strategy to advance U.S. interests in the world. Today, I want to continue that theme; I want to take the conversation a little further. A strategy, as I said before, describes the way we employ all elements of national power to advance our critical interests. Ultimately, determining these critical interests depends upon the place America occupies in the world. What do we see as our role? Who do we want to be and how do we want to interact with the rest of the globe's inhabitants to get there? That is the fundamental question, of course, but we are not ready to answer it yet.

"Instead, we must first consider the domestic and global contexts within which we must act. As our vision of where we want to go evolves, we must have an ongoing dialogue about the effort and the sacrifices we are willing to make. We must also look at the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be, and we must acknowledge that much of the world does not necessarily see us as we would see ourselves. And we must look clear-eyed beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. Only with that understanding can we determine where we want to go and how we want to get there. But as this vision develops, we must keep in mind that it is no good if we cannot provide the means to achieve it, nor is it useful if it is not a realistic fit with the rest of the world.

"The global environment is ever changing. While we cannot control the sea swell of change, we must prepare ourselves to navigate those waters. Regional power is shifting; some large nation states, such as China, India, Brazil to name a few, are ascending and verge on global power status. Russia may already be there, again. Do their interests conflict or coincide with ours? Is their rise a challenge to oppose or an opportunity to engage? Some of our traditional security arrangements may fade in importance as others take on new meaning. But nation states are not our only concern. It is clear that a number of trans-national issues will challenge us while others may provide positive potential. Fundamentalist terrorism and the proliferation of dangerous weapons are obvious examples of serious challenges, of course, but what about climate change, the fragility of increasingly connected world financial markets or the outbreak of pandemic disease? These are challenges that present themselves without any malicious intentional human action.

"The point here is that the world around us bears significant scrutiny because it represents the context that binds whatever strategy we choose. This is not to say that we cannot strive for an ideal – we can and we should. It is how this nation was formed. The ability to conceive a vision that is breathtaking in scope and heartbreaking in its beauty is America's gift to the world. But while the goal may be the ideal, our understanding of our environment and our selection of the means to reach it must be firmly rooted in realism.

"This is an ongoing theme within the Armed Services Committee. Our Oversight and Investigations subcommittee is currently holding a series of hearings on these topics, and the Full Committee will do so later in the year. In my next speech addressing these issues, I will talk about the need to return to the fundamentals of strategic understanding – a return to Sun Tzu, to Clausewitz, to strategic thought rooted not in slogans but in enduring principles."
The U.S. Role in the World

"I wish to continue the discussion about the need for a comprehensive strategy to advance U.S. interests in the world. Last week I delivered two addresses on this topic. In the second speech I argued that our understanding of the role the U.S. should play in the world is the foundation for our strategy. It will define our vital interests and will condition the means we use for advancing those interests.

"Today, the United States is the world's dominant economic, political, and military power. There is no peer or near-peer competitor to us nor does one appear likely to emerge in the near future. Some have characterised the U.S. as a hegemonic power or as the world's policeman, both those who approve and those who disapprove of such a state of affairs. President Clinton, echoing Winston Churchill, eloquently described a vision of the U.S. as "the indispensable nation," not a world hegemon but a consistent and ever present ally and arbiter acting around the world. Still others advocate that the U.S. withdraw from a place of central prominence on the world stage to avoid the costs and implicit responsibilities of that role.

"I believe the U.S. should remain the world's indispensable nation and in a later discourse I'll discuss the ways in which this role should inform the formulation of
our comprehensive strategy, but first let me discuss the other options.

"Those who would have us significantly reduce our role on the world stage cannot provide a credible description of whom or what would replace the U.S. in the role of world leadership. The U.N. is not up to the task nor is any other international organization. As already mentioned, there is no other country in a position to fill the role of world leadership. To embrace such an approach we would have to accept that significant portions of the world would simply be left to their own devices. Yet we know that places as remote as the Hindu Kush are home to those who would attack us and our allies. What other corner of the world then do we judge to be so distant and so remote as to be beyond our interest? And how would world fault lines such as the Taiwan Strait, the India/Pakistan Line of Control, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict respond to a world leadership vacuum? The answer is, not well. In short, for the U.S. to abdicate its position of world leadership would be highly detrimental to our national interest.

"What then does accepting a role of world leadership entail? And if it is a current necessity, is it an inherent good to be indefinitely maintained? In other words, should the U.S. view our position as world leader as so necessary to our security that we act largely to maintain this position, which is the primary characteristic of a hegemonic power or empire? Again, the answer is no. To do so is to put our national interest in opposition to the national interests of much of the rest of the world. It is inconsistent with the desires of the American people, with the extent of the costs they are willing to bear for world leadership, and I would argue with our sense of morality and fair play.

"Our vital interests should instead be defined, as suggested by President Clinton, by our role as the world's indispensable nation: taking a leadership role in advancing and protecting our interests around the world in concert with our friends and allies as part of an open and evolving international system that is fair to all nations. To do so, we must restore the prestige and credibility of the United States, and repair and rebuild our relationships with our major international partners. With this role as our goal, we can define those interests critical to achieving it, and develop and adopt an appropriate strategy."

The 'Indispensable Nation'

"Previously, I suggested that we strive to retain and even bolster our role as the world's indispensable nation, and that should guide our thinking as we consider the imperatives that define our national interest.

"'Indispensable nation' is a term with significant potential for misunderstanding, particularly in this time when our global credibility has ebbed. We must be careful how we explain our intent, and more importantly, we must ensure that our actions meet our words. Just as a person cannot demand respect – only earn it - so it is for nations, too. And so, we should define "indispensable" to mean that we inspire by our standards, not coerce with our demands. We should strive to be indispensable not because our wrath is feared, but because our strength is valued. The point is – and it is a fine one, but essential nonetheless – that our role as the world's indispensable nation cannot come by internal proclamation, but rather by external validation.

"The engines of our claim to leadership in the future are the engines that made this country great in the first place: our robust economy that provides opportunity while connecting us with the rest of the world; in productive partnerships; and our unceasing pursuit of what is right, fair, and just, even when we fall short of those ideals. To the extent we've veered off course in those areas, whether because of crippling energy dependence, unprecedented levels of foreign debt, our departure from sound constitutional practices, or even when and how we marshal our forces for war, we must refocus internally to address those challenges and master them once again.

"If we redouble our efforts, we can recapture the international prestige that more than anything else translates our unmatched power into the ability to alter the course of world events. As part of this course correction, we must recall the essential truths about war and international relations that were stated so well by Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. I mentioned several of these to our current President in 2002, but we lost sight of these truths in Iraq.

"As we do that, there is no reason why we cannot gain the confidence to understand that the term 'challenge,' even in the international context, need not always have an adversarial meaning. In our daily life, we are challenged by those around us and we come out the better for it. We are challenged by our professors to be better students. We are challenged by our coaches to be better athletes. We are challenged by our clergy to be better people and we are challenged by our spouses to be better partners. All of these relationships help refine us, and in so doing, enrich our lives so that all benefit.

"We might regard many of our international challenges in much the same way. In the free market place of ideas, are those ideas that the United States exemplify clearly superior? Do we remain the guarantor of liberty and the natural ally against tyranny? Do we provide the best economic and social opportunities for all people with whom we interact? We need not see that as solely an external challenge – it's also a challenge within ourselves and we should not miss the opportunity to refine the good things about America so that we remain the obvious – the indispensable – choice for a continued global leadership role."

Seven Principles for a National Strategy

"Earlier in my discourse I have asserted that we currently lack an effective strategy and that the next President should engage in a focused effort, in concert with Congress and the American people, to identify and adopt a new strategy early in his Administration. I have noted that we live in a time when the U.S. is the world's pre-eminent power, but also in a time when transnational events are increasingly significant and in which several large nations, and some entire regions of the world, are returning to prominence. All of this stresses the international system.

"I have asserted that the U.S. should continue to accept the challenge of world leadership, serving as the world's indispensable nation, just as we have for the free world since the end of the Second World War; that we should fulfill this role not to seek or to maintain power for power's sake, but by earning the mantle of leadership. We should advance our national interests not at the expense of others, but wherever possible in cooperation with them, as part of an international system that offers fairness and opportunity to all nations.

"So, I advise the next President, whoever it may be, to embark upon a process modeled on President Eisenhower's Project Solarium in order to develop a new strategy for America. You will recall that in Project Solarium, President Eisenhower selected three of our nation's top strategic thinkers to gather teams to study, propose, and report back to him on a national security policy. Should our future President follow this model, I recommend that he judge those new proposals against a simple set of principles:

1. The first priority of the federal government is the protection of the U.S. homeland and its citizens.

2. The foundation for continued U.S. leadership is the strength of our economy and our commitment to our values and principles.

3. Do not let an outside power dominate Europe or the Western Pacific, and in addition maintain freedom of the seas.

4. U.S. world leadership should be earned by virtue of the esteem other nations hold for us, engendered by our productivity and moral leadership, and not through a self-justifying hegemony which views the peaceful rise of other nations as an inherent threat.

5. Insulate the Western Hemisphere from hostile outside powers with a collaborative approach.

6. Transnational events that can undermine states and challenge or dislocate large numbers of people – the AIDS pandemic, terrorism, and global climate change to give a few examples – should be addressed by international coalitions coordinating globally, using the full range of national power.

7. Our military strength serves as both a source of deterrence for would-be aggressors, and reassurance for our friends and allies, but military action is a last resort. When it is used - whether multilaterally or unilaterally - strict adherence to the essential strategic tenets propounded by Sun Tzu and Clausewitz is mandatory.

"These principles do not in and of themselves define our strategy, for they leave many questions unanswered. What kind of international institutions, coalitions and alliances are essential? What red lines should trigger a certain U.S. response, even if it must be a unilateral response? How do we define what constitutes a fair opportunity to advance for those nations which perceive their current share of the world's resources as inadequate? And what transnational events require a concerted international response?

"These are judgments for the next President; he should make them with input from a wide variety of sources. I ask all of my colleagues and all of those who have listened to my discourse to take part in a dialogue to help forge a new national consensus on a clear cut strategy that fulfills our principles and helps us answer these hard questions, ultimately guiding us to policies that are wise and just."