Obama's Brave New Strategy

From the Huffington Post, by Stephen Goldsmith and Daniel Wagner.

Apart from the issues of Taiwan and the Spratly Islands, China lays claim to much of India's state of Arunachal Pradesh, and caused major jitters in 2009 with incursions into the territory combined with strident rhetoric. It has blocked Asian Development Bank projects approved for India over the issue. It helped Pakistan develop its nuclear arsenal and ballistic missile technology. Currently, the largest recipients of Chinese military aid are India's neighbors, including Burma, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka in addition to Pakistan; India fears that China is engaged in a concerted campaign to undermine and contain it. In addition, China is rapidly developing its "string of pearls" strategy in the Indian Ocean, investing significant resources to develop deep water ports in the Bay of Bengal, the Arabian Sea, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the Seychelles. These appear to be a basis for the projection of a powerful naval presence into what India considers its backyard.

I want to ask a serious question - how worried are you about China's "String of Pearls" (PDF) strategy? If you wargame CS-21, the NSS, or virtually any strategic document to be found coming out lately, what does it tell us about China's "String of Pearls" strategy?

If the United States is pleased to have China contributing maritime security towards piracy, indeed if this responsible contribution to global security is encouraged and desired under our nations maritime strategy (and National Security Strategy 2010), then why would a "String of Pearls" activity by China be undesired?

The United States rightfully points to the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean as the regions where security challenges are most likely to develop, and where our military forces must be prepared to operate towards the security of our national interests. As a result, we have naval bases in Bahrain and Japan, among many other places, to support our military activities promoting regional security in these regions. If we expect China to be a responsible contributor to security as well, as is the case with their anti-piracy forces, then why would the development of forward bases to support those security efforts be an unexpected or undesired outcome?

Indeed, a better question might be, isn't the establishment of a "String of Pearls" strategy by China directly in line with our emerging national security strategies built on the idea of responsible cooperative security and regional participation? Isn't the shared responsibility of the global commons one objective of the Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower? Wouldn't a Chinese base in Sri Lanka or Pakistan be a positive development under our National Security Strategy because it ties together our stated strategic interest that China becomes a responsible stakeholder in the security of the maritime domain, and that it ties together our strategic interest in cooperation by countries in regions where contribution towards security is mutually beneficial?

I highlight the "String of Pearls" example as one of several major differences I see emerging under the Obama administration that can be contrasted with the Bush administration when it comes to national security. It surprises me that some have read the National Security Strategy of 2010 and can't tell the difference or can't identify what has changed between the 2006 and 2010 NSS. The debates the National Security Strategy concludes are now about five years old, have been incrementally evident in documents like the Navy's Maritime strategy, but for the most part those debates have always been discussions on what policy should be in the 21st century - where NSS 10 is the governments statement of what our policy and strategy is.

The distinctions of what has changed are easier to observe when they are applied to specific events or examples. For example, Progressive National Security policy under the Obama administration changes the context of a "String of Pearls" strategy by China. Under the Bush administration, "String of Pearls" represented the expanding threat of China, but within the context of the National Security Strategy 2010 - a "String of Pearls" strategy by China would be an expected behavior of China as they exercise the responsibilities we expect from them towards the shared goals of security built in cooperation with regional partners.

I find it noteworthy that under the same strategic blueprint (NSS 10), it is the responsibility of the broader foreign policy establishment of the US government to insure India is OK with any "String of Pearls" strategy by China towards the Indian Ocean.

Whether you agree or disagree with the strategic approach chosen by the Obama administration, I believe I have fairly represented the distinction between the Obama administrations National Security Strategy 2010 and the Bush administrations National Security Strategy 2006. This new way of thinking about the 21st century security environment is not going to happen overnight, and won't be easy.