For those who routinely read the National Security Strategy (NSS) published by law by each administration, the current Trump document is a departure from the typical government document. Where past documents seem rigid in format with clearly labeled vital and secondary interests, the Trump document is classic Trump. At first, it seems to be an instrument of meandering thoughts and uncertain direction, but adhering to that idea would be a mistake. News media and Trump haters have seized on this and are highly critical of the NSS document. I would admonish all to heed the words of John F. Kennedy, “Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
I have written before that strategy and strategic thinking have become one of many buzzwords that dominate our news and political discussions, most of the time, without regard to their true meaning. Their use is deliberate and designed to impress an audience with the speaker’s intellect. Words and phrases like “strategy” and “in harm’s way” roll off tongues smoothly but without any reflection. Past NSS documents have relegated economic and diplomatic leverage to a second tier behind military power. To many, economic and diplomatic issues, along with national values, diversity, and climate change, were soft power. There is a problem with that.
Hans Morgenthau, the American political scientist and a foundational figure in international relations realism, defined national interest in terms of power. He states, “It matters little whether the national values are Christianity, Communism, Islam, or vegetarianism. Only one question matters: is the statesman acting to preserve the state and its power? If so, his policy is rational.” In recent discussions with friends, it became clear that current foreign policy thinking equates national interests and the accumulation of power with territorial expansion. Their arguments point to military action in Venezuela, Nigeria, Gaza, and, operations in Iran. They point out that if you break it, you own it, and use Iraq and Afghanistan as examples. By looking at failed territorial expansion to prove their point (as our leaders did at the time), they miss, as Morgenthau points out, that national interest is power. You can list all the vital or peripheral national interests you want, but achieving them without power is futile. Right now, accumulation of power resides in natural resources (oil and minerals) with the aim of controlling them globally, with the ultimate intent of ensuring the American economy knows no equal.
I believe Trump knows this, and despite the serpentine nature of Trump’s NSS document, his primary focus of American power is economic. His focus is on the absolute control of energy and the minerals and rare earths that make all forms of energy, transportation, and manufacturing more efficient. Despite climate activists’ views, oil and natural gas remain the world’s most efficient and readily available energy source. Oil from Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and rare earths from Ukraine, Greenland, and Africa accumulate and solidify power for the US and, by extension, for all Americans.
The use of power as a national interest must also be protected against entities that threaten it. Tariffs, while we still have an American market, have successfully begun to shield American economic power by building a superior manufacturing base that creates more jobs, factories, services, and revenue for the US and Americans. China’s, Russia’s, Iran’s, and drug cartels’ physical encroachment into the Western Hemisphere has been thwarted at the Panama Canal, in Venezuela, in Mexico, and in Cuba, securing a Western Hemisphere barrier and consolidating energy and mineral wealth. Russia’s expansion into Ukraine and into Europe has been blocked for four years, denying Russia total access to the richest mineral deposits in the world. In Africa, the Trump Administration has reevaluated the wandering off the strategic point nature of development aid to bilateral efforts focused on mineral rights, supply chains, and security. For example, Nigeria has the second-largest oil reserves in Africa, behind Libya. The purpose of the military strikes last year targeting groups involved in terrorism, the U.S. purpose was to stabilize the region and Nigeria in particular, thus protecting the oil supply chain from disruptions. More action, whether using economic power, or kinetic force will be needed to push back efforts by the Chinese and militant groups from their growing economic and territorial foothold on the continent.
In the end, only one question matters: Is the action being taken to preserve the United States and its power? If so, the policy is rational.