National Security Strategy

It was an unusual showdown pitting present and former leaders, live on national television, with President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney dueling in back-to-back speeches Thursday over how to best protect the nation against terrorism. Obama pressed his case for closing the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and for discarding interrogation techniques he described as brutal, while Cheney warned that doing so would endanger the country.

LEXINGTON, Va. - President Obama's chief foreign policy achievement in his first term was his order to carry out the daring raid in Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden. But Mitt Romney challenged his rival on that turf Monday, arguing that Obama has not done enough to secure peace in the Middle East, allowing terrorist networks to build strength while “leaving our destiny at the mercy of events.” During a formal foreign policy address at the Virginia Military Institute here in Lexington, Romney said Americans should take pride  “in the blows that our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on Al Qaeda ” in Pakistan and Afghanistan - which he called “real achievements won at a high cost.”  But he argued that Al Qaeda “remains a strong force in Yemen and Somalia, in Libya and other parts of North Africa, in Iraq, and now in Syria.” “Drones and the modern instruments of war are important tools in our fight, but they are no substitute for a national security strategy for the Middle East,” Romney said.

Returning to the place where he unveiled his war strategy, President Obama on Saturday presented a broad view of national security policy grounded in international cooperation, marking the latest repudiation of the foreign policy of George W. Bush. In a commencement address at West Point, Obama said U.S. security policy works best in concert with international institutions, which he acknowledged were imperfect. The strategy Obama outlined stood in stark contrast to that of his predecessor, whose approach to national security was based on the right of the United States to act unilaterally.

Recent disputes among some of the United States' closest Asian allies over largely uninhabited islands in the Sea of Japan, the East China Sea and the South China Sea underscore the challenges facing Washington in moving beyond the classic hub-and-spoke structure of its security system in the Western Pacific and in crafting a more collective approach. For some time - and as most recently reiterated in the 2010 National Security Strategy, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review report and the 2011 National Military Strategy - the United States has sought to "multilateralize" its security relationships in the Pacific, similar to what exists in its ties to Europe.

The White House today will back away from the use of preemptive military strikes against perceived terrorist threats in its new National Security Strategy. However, it will harden its rhetoric against Russia, China and notably Iran, in the first formal review of foreign policy since the invasion of Iraq. The strategic report, to be published today, presents the first significant revision of the landmark 2002 document.

President Clinton unveiled his long-awaited national security strategy Thursday, outlining a broad approach to foreign policy issues decidedly more muted than the one he and his aides described during the early days of the Administration. The 50-page document, distributed without fanfare after the normal workday, contained watered-down versions of earlier White House pronouncements on issues such as the use of military force, global peacekeeping and expansion of democracy around the world.

Is America in decline? Is our global influence waning? Expect that question to get plenty of airtime as the presidential campaign heats up. According to the Republicans, President Obama's fundamental foreign policy problem is that he thinks America is a fading power and all we can hope for is to "manage the decline. " It's a claim that's long been echoing through the conservative blogosphere, and now the campaign trail. John Bolton, who's joined Mitt Romney's foreign policy team, minces no words: Obama "believes that the role of America in the world is to be a well-bred doormat.

Your March 17 editorial "Strategic errors" was substantive but wimpy. The Times is one of the few great U.S. newspapers that has taken a consistently rational position against the war in Iraq, and you should be proud. But your editorial is weak. You sound whiney with words like "moreover," and "but it's scary." Where's the meat? Pack in some muscle. Your issue is that Bush's strategic error may lead to a calamity in Iran that would dwarf the incomprehensible calamity in Iraq. Ironically, even Iran would appear to be afraid of the chimpanzee-like behavior of Bush and his advisors.

In American public discourse, national security is the first refuge of scoundrels. For six decades good and dreadful ideas alike have been buttressed by claims that they will help make us secure. President Eisenhower used the claim to promote spending on highways and education. President George W. Bush used it to justify wiretapping and torture. Now deficit hysterics have started trilling the national security song to justify a coming attack on Social Security and Medicare. In late May, the Obama administration released its National Security Strategy, a wide-ranging and broadly sensible 60-page document articulating a full menu of economic, human rights and environmental foundations of a strong security policy.

Budgetary necessity may have been the mother of President Obama's reinvention of military strategy, but that doesn't mean the change is reckless or even imprudent. After the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and with the winding down of the American presence in Afghanistan, it's time for new thinking. In an appearance Thursday at the Pentagon, Obama unveiled the recommendations of a Defense Department study group that he said would produce a military that is "agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats.

Is America in decline? Is our global influence waning? Expect that question to get plenty of airtime as the presidential campaign heats up. According to the Republicans, President Obama's fundamental foreign policy problem is that he thinks America is a fading power and all we can hope for is to "manage the decline. " It's a claim that's long been echoing through the conservative blogosphere, and now the campaign trail. John Bolton, who's joined Mitt Romney's foreign policy team, minces no words: Obama "believes that the role of America in the world is to be a well-bred doormat.

Budgetary necessity may have been the mother of President Obama's reinvention of military strategy, but that doesn't mean the change is reckless or even imprudent. After the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and with the winding down of the American presence in Afghanistan, it's time for new thinking. In an appearance Thursday at the Pentagon, Obama unveiled the recommendations of a Defense Department study group that he said would produce a military that is "agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats.

The U.S. is "doubling down" on its strategy of covert targeted missile strikes in Pakistan in the wake of Osama bin Laden's death, believing that Al Qaeda is susceptible to a decisive blow, a senior Obama administration official said Friday. "I think there are three to five senior leaders that if they're removed from the battlefield, would jeopardize Al Qaeda's capacity to regenerate," said retired Gen. Douglas Lute, who oversees Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy at the National Security Council.

In American public discourse, national security is the first refuge of scoundrels. For six decades good and dreadful ideas alike have been buttressed by claims that they will help make us secure. President Eisenhower used the claim to promote spending on highways and education. President George W. Bush used it to justify wiretapping and torture. Now deficit hysterics have started trilling the national security song to justify a coming attack on Social Security and Medicare. In late May, the Obama administration released its National Security Strategy, a wide-ranging and broadly sensible 60-page document articulating a full menu of economic, human rights and environmental foundations of a strong security policy.

When Barack Obama arrived at the White House, he quickly acted on the foreign policy promises he'd made in his presidential campaign, drawing up a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, seeking diplomatic "engagement" with adversaries such as Iran and North Korea, and trying to "reset" the contentious U.S. relationship with Russia. But until last month, he hadn't laid out his broader approach to the world beyond our borders. Now he has, in the recently released National Security Strategy, a lengthy essay required by Congress.

The Obama administration on Thursday released a sweeping statement of its national security goals, emphasizing a strong counter-terrorism effort but also citing the importance of government action on issues such as climate change and the economy. The 52-page manifesto, called the National Security Strategy, aims to draw contrasts with President Bush's 2006 version, which focused heavily on the anti-terrorism fight, and began by saying, "America is at war." The Obama plan says that the government campaign against radical extremism is "only one element of our strategic environment and cannot define America's engagement with the world."

STRONG VOICE: Although Defense Secretary William J. Perry was widely dismissed when he took office as a technocrat with little experience in making foreign policy, he is quietly emerging as a force in the Clinton administration. Since assuming the post two years ago, Perry has gradually earned his stripes and now has considerable clout inside the Oval Office, administration officials say.

'AMERICA IS AT WAR." So begins President Bush's introduction to his administration's National Security Strategy, which was unveiled Thursday. But the president's approach to making the U.S. more secure will come at the cost of making many other nations feel less secure. The end result is a more dangerous world. The 49-page document defines two pillars for national security. The second makes sense.

Returning to the place where he unveiled his war strategy, President Obama on Saturday presented a broad view of national security policy grounded in international cooperation, marking the latest repudiation of the foreign policy of George W. Bush. In a commencement address at West Point, Obama said U.S. security policy works best in concert with international institutions, which he acknowledged were imperfect. The strategy Obama outlined stood in stark contrast to that of his predecessor, whose approach to national security was based on the right of the United States to act unilaterally.

It was an unusual showdown pitting present and former leaders, live on national television, with President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney dueling in back-to-back speeches Thursday over how to best protect the nation against terrorism. Obama pressed his case for closing the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and for discarding interrogation techniques he described as brutal, while Cheney warned that doing so would endanger the country.