What Is National Security? Kim R

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

What Is National Security? Kim R. Holmes, PhD

he challenge in devising a reliable measure of This idea was challenged by the philosopher U.S. military power is that the effort must be Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), who resurrected the Trooted in a concrete understanding of what universal principle idea not in the old religious context, national security is and what it is not. This essay but in a secular one inspired by the Enlightenment. examines the elements of national security, provid- In his 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical ing both definitions of terms and a clarification of Sketch,” he outlined his idea that the system of nation- related concepts. It concludes with a number of take- states should be replaced by a new enlightened world aways from this analysis to help guide the making of order. Nation-states should subordinate their national a National Security Strategy. interests to the common good and be ruled by international law. A Short History of National Security Thus was born the secular view of supranational Modern concepts of national security arose in the institutions governing international affairs, which 17th century during the Thirty Years War in Europe today is reflected in the global worldview of liberal and the Civil War in England. In 1648, the Peace internationalism and most clearly manifested in the of Westphalia established the idea that the nation- United Nations. state had sovereign control not only of domestic It is important to keep these two schools of affairs such as religion, but also of external security. thought in mind when considering the various defi- The idea of the nation-state is commonplace nitions of national security. They are present in cur- today, yet it would be wrong to assume that it is the rent debates over national sovereignty, internation- only way to look at international security. The pre- al law, and the role of international institutions in Westphalia international system was based on the world affairs. American liberal internationalists for assumption that there existed a universal principle example, with their dedication to the United Nations governing the affairs of states led by emperors, popes, and international governance, are neo-Kantians, kings, and princes. That was indeed the principle of whereas realists tend more to the views of Thomas the Holy Roman Empire. The new idea of the nation- Hobbes (1588–1679), Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), and state took a different approach. Peace and stability other philosophers who espoused the supremacy of could be better served if people were not slaughter- the nation-state. ing each other over some universal principle—in that case, religion. It would be far better to have an inter- Some Basic Definitions national system based on the equilibrium of nation- Before analyzing different definitions of national states dedicated to the limited purposes of national security, it is important to understand some of the sovereignty and self-defense. concepts the term incorporates.

2015 INDEX OF U.S. MILITARY STRENGTH

The first is the concept of power. It can best be defined from terrorist and other attacks either inside or out- as a nation’s possession of control of its sovereignty and side the country—has come to be understood as an destiny. It implies some degree of control of the extent element of national defense. to which outside forces can harm the country. Hard, or largely military, power is about control, while soft International Systems of Security power is mainly about influence—trying to persuade Understanding the major schools of thought on others, using methods short of war, to do something. international security that have arisen since the Instruments of power exist along a spectrum, end of World War II will also help to explain the from using force on one end to diplomatic means of international context in which American national persuasion on the other. Such instruments include security is expected to operate. These schools of the armed forces; law enforcement and intelligence thought include: agencies; and various governmental agencies dedicated to bilateral and public diplomacy, foreign aid, ll Collective Defense. Collective defense is an offi- and international financial controls. Variables of cial arrangement among nation-states to offer power include military strength, economic capac- some defense support to other member states ity, the will of the government and people to use if they are attacked. It is the basis of the classic power, and the degree to which legitimacy—either in defense alliances like the Triple Entente among the eyes of the people or in the eyes of other nations the United Kingdom, the French Third Repub- or international organizations—affects how power lic, and the Russian Empire before World War is wielded. The measure of power depends not I and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization only on hard facts, but also on perceptions of will today. It is distinguished not only by geographi- and reputation. cal limitation, but also by its focus on mili- Another term to understand properly is military tary commitments. strength. This term refers to military capacity and the capabilities of the armed forces, and it is a capac- ll Collective Security. Collective security refers ity that may not actually be used. It often is under- to various types of arrangements. Strictly speak- stood as a static measure of the power of a country, ing, collective defense involving mutual commit- but in reality, military strength is a variable that is ments of member states could be considered a subject to all sorts of factors, including the relative form of collective security, albeit one limited geo- strength of opponents, the degree to which it is used graphically to military defense. More often, how- effectively, or whether it is even used at all. ever, collective security is thought of as a regional Force is the use of a military or law enforcement and global concept represented by such interna- capacity to achieve some objective. It is the actu- tional institutions as the League of Nations and al use of strength and should not be equated with the United Nations. Often, such arrangements either strength or power per se. Using force unwise- are buttressed by concepts of international law ly or unsuccessfully can diminish one’s power and and international aid and governance. Their dis- strength. By the same token, using it effectively can tinguishing characteristic is their hybrid charac- enhance power. Force is an instrument of power just ter between collective action at the international as a tool or some other device would be, but unlike level and the acceptance of nation-states being institutional instruments like the armed forces, its ultimately responsible for their own security. use in action is what distinguishes it from static instruments of strength like military capacity. Thus, ll Global Security. Global security is a set of ideas, force should be understood narrowly as an applied developed largely by the United Nations since the instrument of coercion. end of the Cold War, that the world’s security is Finally, there is national defense. Strictly speaking, everybody’s business. It rests on the premise that this refers to the ability of the armed forces to defend no single nation is secure unless all are secure. the sovereignty of the nation and the lives of its peo- While lip service is given to the idea of national ple; however, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, defense, the far greater focus is on attempting to the mission of homeland security—using domestic as eliminate conflict through international law, aid, well as military instruments to defend the nation confidence-building measures, and global gover-

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

nance. The use of force should thus be reserved resources away from the Pentagon. In other cases, it largely for international peacekeeping, peace is adjusting to the complexities of a changing inter- enforcement, and the protection of innocent cit- national environment. izens from violence and should be decided upon The following list provides definitions of the and organized by the U.N. major contending views of non-military definitions of national security, with no analysis of their merits ll International Law. To the American ear, the or deficiencies. use of the term “law” in the phrase “international law” conjures up the idea of binding rules ll Political security refers to protecting the sov- enforced by judicial authorities and law enforce- ereignty of the government and political system ment officials. However, what Americans under- and the safety of society from unlawful inter- stand as “law” in a domestic context is often out of nal threats and external threats or pressures. It place in considering U.S. compliance with “inter- involves both national and homeland security national law.” The U.S. government must comply and law enforcement. with the supreme law of the land, which the U.S. Constitution makes clear consists of the Consti- ll Economic security involves not only protect- tution itself, laws made in pursuance thereof, and ing the capacity of the economy to provide for the “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under people, but also the degree to which the govern- the Authority of the United States” (quoting Arti- ment and the people are free to control their eco- cle VI of the Constitution). The United States nomic and financial decisions. It also entails the also makes a practice of following what is known ability to protect a nation’s wealth and econom- as “customary international law,” which “is com- ic freedom from outside threats and coercion. prised of those practices and customs that States Thus, it comprises economic policy and some view as obligatory and that are engaged in or oth- law enforcement agencies but also internation- erwise acceded to by a preponderance of States in al agreements on commerce, finance, and trade. a uniform and consistent fashion” (quoting Unit- Recently, it has been defined by some in a human ed States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 91 n. 24 (2d Cir. security context to mean eradicating poverty and 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 993 (2003)). eliminating income inequality.

Non-Military Ideas of National Security ll Energy and natural resources security is most For most of the 20th century, national security often defined as the degree to which a nation or was focused on military security, but as a concept, people have access to such energy resources as oil, it expanded over time beyond what armed forces gas, water, and minerals. It would be more accu- could do (or not do as the case may be). In 1947, the rate to describe it as access freely determined United States created the National Security Council by the market without interference from other to “advise the President with respect to the integra- nations or political or military entities for non- tion of domestic, foreign, and military policies relat- market, political purposes. ing to the national security....”1 In the wake of total war, and at the dawn of the nuclear age, it was well ll Homeland security is a set of domestic securi- understood that the days of defining national security functions that since 9/11 have been organized ty solely in terms of armies fighting it out in set-piece in a single agency, the Department of Homeland battles were things of the past. Security. It includes airport and port security, Since then, national security has come to mean border security, transportation security, immi- different things to different people. Today, there gration enforcement, and other related matters. are all kinds of “national securities.” They include economic security; energy security; environmental ll Cybersecurity refers to protection of the gov- security; and even health, women’s, and food secu- ernment’s and the peoples’ computer and data rity. This proliferation of definitions has not always processing infrastructure and operating systems been for the good. In some instances, for example, it from harmful interference, whether from outside is merely a rebranding of domestic agendas to shift or inside the country. It thus involves not only

2015 INDEX OF U.S. MILITARY STRENGTH

national defense and homeland security, but also An “all of the above” definition of national security, law enforcement. which primarily suits political constituencies, will only lead to confusion, waste, distractions, and pos- ll Human security refers to a concept largely sibly even military failures as the U.S. government is developed at the United Nations after the end asked to do things that are either beyond its capacity of the Cold War. It defines security broadly as or, worse, tangential to the real mission of protect- encompassing peoples’ safety from hunger, dis- ing the country from harm. ease, and repression, including harmful disrup- It is thus critical to identify what national secu- tions of daily life. Over time, the concept has rity is not. The best way to do this is to establish expanded to include economic security, environ- clear criteria for what exactly constitutes a threat to mental security, food security, health security, national security. personal security, community security, politi- Is it, for example, truly a threat to the American cal security, and the protection of women and people and the American nation as a whole? Can it be minorities. Its distinguishing characteristic is to tolerated, or must it be eliminated? If the latter, does avoid or downplay national security as a military the nation have the proper means to defeat, contain, problem between nation-states, focusing instead or influence the threat? If not, can it obtain those on social and economic causes and an assumed means within a reasonable time frame to make a dif- international “responsibility to protect” peoples ference and at an affordable cost? from violence. It is to be determined and admin- Is the threat external or internal? If internal, is it istered by the United Nations. from foreign, unlawful, and unconstitutional sources and thus reasonably understood as hostile and a risk ll Environmental security is an idea with multi- to peoples’ freedoms, or is it merely an act of lawful ple meanings. One is the more traditional concept dissent or protest by Americans? The last thing the of responding to conflicts caused by environmen- nation’s leaders should do is to mistake political dissent tal problems such as water shortages, energy dis- as a threat to homeland security; although surveillance ruptions, or severe climate changes; it is assumed and intelligence-gathering capabilities are necessary that these problems are “transnational” and thus to combat terrorism, it is imperative that America’s can cause conflict between nations. The other, leaders keep a bright line between watching terror- more recent concept is that the environment and ists and monitoring the political views of Americans. the “climate” should be protected as ends in and Are the threats man-made or natural in origin? of themselves; the assumption is that the environ- Natural disasters like hurricanes can be very dan- mental degradation caused by man is a threat that gerous, but even if one assumes they are caused must be addressed by treaties and international by climate change (which is disputable), are they governance as if it were the moral equivalent of threats to the nation? Are “threats” from the weath- a national security threat. In the past, natural er, disease, or lack of food due to manipulations by disasters were not considered threats to national states or terrorist groups or natural in origin, to be security, but that presumption is changing as the dealt with accordingly? ideology of “climate change” and global warming Finally, a crucial question: To what extent is the takes hold in the national security community. insecurity of other peoples related to our own? Does U.S. national security come into play only when the What National Security Is Not safety and security of allies who share America’s It is true in life, as in strategic planning, that if values and interests are endangered? Or is America you try to do everything, you will likely end up doing committed generally not only to the safety and secu- few things right. America’s definitions of nation- rity of all peoples around the globe, but also to their al security should be guided not only by a sensible health, human rights, and general well-being? understanding of what is truly vital to the nation’s The answers to these questions are not difficult. security, but also by what the nation can practically First, national security is not something that expect the government to do and not to do. merely affects the well-being of Americans. Rather, It is particularly important that the Department it involves their safety, their security, and their free- of Defense and armed forces understand this point. doms. It is becoming more commonplace to view

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

perceived social “injustices” as national security are rooted in Russia’s geopolitical ambitions, not in problems, but this distorts the very concept. Per- purported concerns about the ozone layer. ceptions of social injustice or inequality are domes- A current example of problematic thinking about tic concerns, not national security matters. Making national security can be found in ideas about envi- less money than a neighbor is hardly as important ronmental security and its link to climate change. to one’s life as being safe from incineration in a sky- Some purport that climate change is a “threat mul- scraper in a terrorist attack. tiplier” insofar as it supposedly could create natural A similar distinction holds true for so-called disasters, exacerbate conflicts, and make the operat- health security. While a pandemic disease could ing environment for U.S. armed forces more difficult. endanger the safety and security of thousands of Some also see it as a problem for “safeguarding the Americans, unless it is committed as an act of bio- global commons,” which is a foreign policy problem. logical terrorism, it should be considered a matter of From this perspective, government policies focus on health and domestic safety, not national security. As using international “engagement to transition to a for the social implications, whether individuals have low-carbon growth trajectory” for the entire plan- health insurance is vital to their lives, but that is a et.2 As for the Pentagon’s new role, it is about study- matter for them and their insurance agents or pro- ing global warming’s supposed impact on military gram administrators at the Department of Health installations, the operating environment, and the and Human Services. It is a matter of “social” secu- Arctic and the assumed increased role in humanitar- rity, not national security. ian assistance and relief that it expects to be caused Admittedly, global security concepts like health by “climate change–induced” disasters. and human security come into play mainly over- As noted earlier regarding the confused thinking seas—in definitions of international security—and that results when policymakers conflate social con- not in defining American security. But even there, ditions or public health matters with “national secu- some distinctions need to be made. “Food security,” there are a number of questionable assump- rity” often means little more than preventing mal- tions behind current environmental security policy. nutrition or responding to famine caused either by There may be a scientific consensus on the fact that natural causes or by political instability or war. The the climate warmed for a period, but there is no con- causes of these problems can be addressed through sensus on how much it is still warming or exactly humanitarian aid, mediation, or (in extreme cases) how factors like vapor and the sun contribute to it. peacekeeping or even military intervention, but lit- Thus, the more alarmist predictions are unreliable. tle is gained by creating neologisms that may intend This sort of uncertainty means not only that there to heighten political concern but do little to help may not be a grave threat, but also that, at the very shape an adequate response for solving them. least, we have little idea how bad it could be or when A similar problem exists with the concept of envi- it could occur. One sympathetic study of the risks ronmental security. Clearly, wars can cause envi- of climate change concluded confidently that there ronmental damage and disruptions. Water shortag- is a one-in-20 chance that catastrophic outcomes es can create transnational and social tensions that could cost $701 billion worth of coastal damage by may lead to conflict, and melting polar caps could the “end of the century.”3 But that is 85 years away. open up waterways that exacerbate international In the computer modeling world it is fairly common tensions. As far as national and international secu- to come up with such precise figures (why not $700 rity is concerned, however, the root causes of those billion or $702 billion instead of $701 billion?), but conflicts are not environmental; they are political in the real world—especially one that is almost nine and military. Environmental issues are tangential decades away—many unpredictable things can and and, at best, merely contributing factors. For exam- will happen. ple, Saddam Hussein did not burn the oilfields to Such unpredictability and such poorly disciplined damage the environment; he burned them to dis- thinking about national security are problematic rupt America’s military advance. Water shortages for Pentagon planning. How do military planners exist, but the problem begins when rival nations or make reliable plans for predictions that span almost groups start manipulating that scarcity for political a century and for which short-term predictions are purposes. Tensions with Russia over Arctic routes highly unreliable? It may be appropriate for military

2015 INDEX OF U.S. MILITARY STRENGTH

planners to study possible long-range implications, Focusing the Idea of National Security especially for the Arctic if one assumes the global It is clear that policymakers need a sharper focus warming forecasts to be accurate, but it would be as to what is and is not national security. It cannot be imprudent to assume that any specific adjustments all things to all people; if it were, it would be mean- to installations or operational planning can be made ingless. The definition of national security must reliably for periods of time further out than 10 or 20 be limited not only to decide what the government years.4 should be expected to do, but also, just as impor- Further, if things like climate change, global pub- tant, to decide what it should not do. This is espe- lic health, or volcanic eruptions in some distant cor- cially true because of budget restraints. While it is ner of the world are accepted as threats to national proper to task the U.S. government with protecting security, they are threats over which the United a spectrum of national security interests—from the States does not exercise sovereignty. Yes, the U.S. financial and economic system to access to natu- could choose to do things to help improve the health ral resources—the lion’s share of the government’s of its citizens or mitigate the impact on its cities of interest and thus budgetary resources should be changing weather patterns, but it stretches reason dedicated to safeguarding the country and its inter- to assert that the U.S. military should be shaped ests from foreign aggression. to account for the policies and conditions of other Focusing national security policy on what mat- countries and peoples relative to their own efforts in ters most requires a more accurate understanding such cases. of power. As mentioned earlier, power is the degree Finally, there is the issue of energy security. All to which a state can influence and control its destiny. nations need energy to survive, but the market can All too often in the debate over “trade-offs” between supply most of their energy needs. Nations like soft and hard power, people assume that the for- Russia use energy as a geopolitical tool of coercion. mer is interchangeable with the latter. In its crud- Indeed, the Ukrainians can attest to how serious est interpretation, it is the misguided belief that U.S. this coercion can be. Other nations like China make diplomats and troops are somehow interchangeable. satisfying their energy-hungry economies a central Diplomats, particularly skilled ones, are no doubt part of their foreign policy. By and large, however, important to American security, but it is inaccurate whatever attempts these and other countries make to suggest that they and U.S. troops play the same or to use energy as a geopolitical tool run up against the even similar roles. demands of the international market. Oil and gas It is not uncommon for elected and appointed markets are highly influenced by nations and car- officials to note that the foundation of all Ameri- tels, but they are also global in nature. This means can power is hard or military power. Unfortunately, that global economic demand also affects the price many seem to do this as a mere rhetorical flourish, of energy and typically exerts greater leverage than but in reality, it is a hard fact of international rela- do the actions of any one country. tions. Without military power, soft power is largely Energy security thus becomes more a policy task symbolic and ineffective. America draws its reputa- of keeping the global energy market as free and tion as a world leader from three sources, and none open as possible than a programmatic objective of of them derives from the unique skills of U.S. diplo- national security or even foreign policy. America’s mats. Those sources are America’s military power, main energy problem has been an intentional limit its economic capacity, and its dedication to the val- on domestic production and infrastructure like ues of freedom and democracy. pipelines and liquid gas facilities. Although energy Much of the emphasis placed on soft power comes insecurity is a real problem for some nations, the from a political desire to spend less on defense so as solutions for the United States are largely economic to have more to spend on diplomacy and foreign aid. and infrastructural in nature. Energy “security” is It may very well be that more can be done in some of mainly about taking advantage of new techniques these areas, but that still begs the question of wheth- such as fracking, more drilling for oil, and building er hard power and soft power are interchangeable. more refineries, pipelines, nuclear reactors, and liq- Those who think that they are interchange- uid gas facilities at ports for export purposes. able, or that soft power is actually superior to hard power, point to the supposed success of the Euro-

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

pean Union, but this reveals a misunderstanding. National security is the safekeeping of the nation The EU’s soft power diplomacy is influential only as a whole. Its highest order of business is the pro- because Europe’s basic security needs, provided tection of the nation and its people from attack and largely by America’s armed forces, are already other external dangers by maintaining armed forces being met. Not having to spend money on defense and guarding state secrets. Since the attacks of Sep- enables Europe to spend disproportionately on tember 11, 2001, the defense of the homeland from foreign aid and social development programs. Fur- terrorist and other attacks, broadly understood as thermore, it is important to keep in mind that the homeland security, has risen as a major national confidence the world has in European stability is security concern. based in part on the security guarantee provided Because national security entails both national by the United States. defense and the protection of a series of geopoliti- This is not a model that the United States has the cal, economic, and other interests, it affects not only luxury of following. Unlike Europe, the U.S. has no defense policy, but foreign and other policies as well. one to whom it can turn for its security. It is a net Foreign and defense policies should be seen as mutu- security provider, not a security taker as the Euro- ally reinforcing, not as zero-sum trade-offs in bud- peans are; for this reason alone, America’s hard mili- getary fights. While hard choices will indeed have to tary power responsibilities are unique and should be made in national security spending, they should be a top priority. This does not mean that the U.S. be decided by realities, not by fatuous comparisons should not do a better job in diplomacy, foreign aid, or incoherent and tendentious concepts. and other means of soft power influence. It means The next question to address is how to attain only that any assumptions of zero-sum trade-offs national security. For decades, the United States between hard and soft power are fatuous. has tried to answer this question with the official Another false assumption is that the U.S. needs National Security Strategy (NSS). Unfortunately, only to “rebalance” or “streamline” its way out of a these official documents have a bad reputation. They need for military capacity. This presumes that shift- are often seen more as public relations exercises ing the military’s focus from one region to another than as reliable guides for strategic planning. or being more efficient with fewer resources com- Crafting a full NSS is beyond the scope of this mitted to defense will somehow lessen the require- essay, but as a bare outline, the U.S. should have ment for hard power. In fact, the opposite occurs. goals that are clear, achievable, and mutually rein- Less hard power capacity undermines the effective- forcing. The following suggestions for National ness and impact of soft power, encourages oppor- Security Strategy goals are listed in descending tunism by competitors, and eventually leads to even order of importance: greater demand for more hard power. For example, the rebalancing strategy in Asia has been largely 1. Preserve the safety of the American homeland rhetorical and diplomatic, covering up the fact that and protect the integrity of the nation’s domes- U.S. military capacity in East Asia is dwindling. tic institutions and systems vital to that purpose. Moreover, the notion of a “whole of government” This goal requires strong Active, Guard, and approach, which was prominent in the 2010 Nation- Reserve forces as well as effective intelligence, al Security Strategy, appears to assume that strenu- law enforcement, counter-terrorism, cyberse- ous coordination in training across departments curity, and immigration policies to protect the can replace the loss of hard power capacity. “Rebal- homeland and secure America’s borders. ancing” and “whole of government” sound sophisti- cated and almost prosaic; in reality, they are covers 2. Maintain a global balance of power in favor of for America’s diminishing capacity to maintain its America’s security and interests and those of its influential role in the world. friends and allies. This requires an armed force capable of successfully completing all of the mil- What National Security Is itary missions assigned to it and fulfilling U.S. Now that it is fairly clear what national security commitments to defend the security of America’s is not, the task of crafting a definition of what it is allies and friends. should be easier.

2015 INDEX OF U.S. MILITARY STRENGTH

3. Guarantee the freedom of the seas, upon which Takeaway #1: Make capacity and flexibility both the U.S. and world commerce and econom- the watchwords of strategic and military plan- ic viability depend. This in particular requires ning so as to give the President as Commander in a strong U.S. Navy and Marine Corps and over- Chief and his military leaders as many options as seas bases capable of supporting the projection of possible to deal with any contingency that may arise American power around the world. to threaten the nation. Understand that the more capacity and credibility U.S. forces have, the less 4. Exert U.S. influence as much as possible over- likely it is that they will be challenged and the more seas through the entire spectrum of instruments able they will be to respond effectively to surprises of power, including diplomacy, foreign aid, selec- when they occur, as they inevitably will. This “peace tive intelligence sharing, public diplomacy, and through strength” strategy is not just a slogan; it is a human rights and humanitarian programs. This tried-and-true strategy pursued largely successfully requires integrating U.S. diplomacy and foreign during the Cold War to avoid actual war. aid and humanitarian programs more closely to Takeaway #2: Avoid the trap of artificial achieve the purposes of the national strategy. “trade-offs” between non-military and military programs dedicated to national security. In the real 5. Dedicate America to maintaining as much as world of budgets, there will always be hard choices, possible a global economy based on economic but political leaders and policymakers should avoid freedom (sometimes called democratic capital- pretending that funding for a climate change pro- ism), including free trade and the openness of gram is anywhere nearly as important as funding for energy markets and international financial sys- a new-generation fighter aircraft or for maintaining tems based on the rule of law. America’s fleet of aircraft carriers. Takeaway #3: Focus non-military instru- 6. Focus U.S. energy security policy on developing ments of power and policies on supporting domestic resources and keeping the internation- the discrete goals of national strategy listed al energy market as free as possible from harmful above. This means consciously aligning U.S. diplo- political manipulation. macy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, international trade and financial policies, and human rights poli- 7. Ensure that America’s dedication to values and cies to advancing discrete national interests. While their promotion overseas reflects not only its own this involves a global perspective as defined by the history of liberty, but also the universal prin- national strategy, it does not envision the use of ciples of freedom—thus defining human rights these instruments of soft power either to create as freedom of expression, the right of democrat- a global order of international governance run by ic self-government, economic freedom, equal- international organizations or to bolster the exist- ity before the law, and freedom from persecution ing international “system” in which the sovereignty and oppression. Values should guide and inform of tyrants and human rights abusers is assumed to the nation’s strategy, not direct or control it. Geo- equal America’s own. political compromises will have to be made from Takeaway #4: Be as clear as possible about time to time, and America should not see itself as what can and cannot be achieved by military the world’s policeman enforcing certain values. intervention. Much of the controversy surround- However, it is important to recognize that this ing the issue of military intervention stems from nation’s commitments to universal values like confusion over what can and cannot be achieved by freedom and democracy are reasons why foreign force and, just as important, over what Americans nations and peoples support America. expect their armed forces to do. Are these troops nation builders and humanitarian police forces? Or The Way Forward are they military defenders of narrower security Any discussion of national security must be interests? In truth, they have been employed for all rooted in a clear understanding of the concepts it of these purposes with varying degrees of success, involves. The following are the four most important but the true trade-offs of doing so are scarcely ever takeaways from this analysis of national security. understood and articulated by this nation’s leaders.

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The United States cannot eliminate every bad actor, right every wrong, or correct every perceived injustice in the world. That is impossible. But the United States can contribute to building a world order in which the rule of law, the integrity of national borders, democratic capitalism, freedom of the seas, democratic self-government, human rights, and international trade prevail, not as guaranteed outcomes but as opportunities. It is an exhausting and costly enterprise, but no one else can do it. Not only that: It is for America’s own good.

2015 INDEX OF U.S. MILITARY STRENGTH

Endnotes: 1. National Security Act of 1947 (Public Law 80-253), Section 101(a), now codified at (50 U.S.C. 3021). 2. The White House, National Security Strategy, May 2010, p. 34, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf (accessed September 15, 2014). 3. Risky Business Project, Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States, June 2014, p. 4, http://riskybusiness.org/pdf (accessed September 15, 2014). 4. Climate change policy supporters have been stymied by the now over 15-year temperature hiatus in the rise of the global temperatures. It is not something their computer models had predicted. Scientists are not sure why this is occurring, but at the very least, it shows the difficulty (if not futility) of using computer models to predict specific outcomes over 10- or 20-year time spans. See “Technical Summary” inClimate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), p. 61, http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf (accessed October 25, 2014). See also Judith Curry, “The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown,” The Wall Street Journal, October 9, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/articles/judith-curry-the-global-warming-statistical-meltdown-1412901060 (accessed October 28, 2014).