- By Josh Rogin
Josh Rogin covers national security and foreign policy and writes the daily Web column The Cable. His column appears bi-weekly in the print edition of The Washington Post. He can be reached for comments or tips at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Previously, Josh covered defense and foreign policy as a staff writer for Congressional Quarterly, writing extensively on Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay, U.S.-Asia relations, defense budgeting and appropriations, and the defense lobbying and contracting industries. Prior to that, he covered military modernization, cyber warfare, space, and missile defense for Federal Computer Week Magazine. He has also served as Pentagon Staff Reporter for the Asahi Shimbun, Japan's leading daily newspaper, in its Washington, D.C., bureau, where he reported on U.S.-Japan relations, Chinese military modernization, the North Korean nuclear crisis, and more.
A graduate of George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs, Josh lived in Yokohama, Japan, and studied at Tokyo's Sophia University. He speaks conversational Japanese and has reported from the region. He has also worked at the House International Relations Committee, the Embassy of Japan, and the Brookings Institution.
Josh's reporting has been featured on CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, CBS, ABC, NPR, WTOP, and several other outlets. He was a 2008-2009 National Press Foundation's Paul Miller Washington Reporting Fellow, 2009 military reporting fellow with the Knight Center for Specialized Journalism and the 2011 recipient of the InterAction Award for Excellence in International Reporting. He hails from Philadelphia and lives in Washington, D.C.
The Obama administration will roll out its first National Security Strategy Thursday, which will seek to place this administration’s mark on national security thinking while simultaneously justifying the continuation of many of the Bush administration’s policies.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will unveil the document with a speech at the Brookings Institution and National Security Advisor Jim Jones will follow up with a briefing at the State Department’s Foreign Press Center. There was an extensive and orderly consultative process that led up to this release, including deputies meetings that elicited feedback and outside consultations with eminent former officials from both parties, including Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
That process tracks more closely with the bottom-up approach of the Clinton administration, as opposed to the top-down, White House driven process used by the Bush team. The advantages of the inclusive approach are that there is more consensus and buy-in from the interagency up front. The downside is that the document gets longer and reads more like a committee report if more chefs are allowed into the kitchen.
President Obama previewed the strategy at the West Point military academy last weekend and portrayed it as a divergence from the past administration, in that it pledges a focus on multilateralism and building partnerships around the world.
"Yes, we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping out of the currents of cooperation," Obama said. "So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation. We will be steadfast in strengthening those old alliances that have served us so well…. As influence extends to more countries and capitals, we also have to build new partnerships, and shape stronger international standards and institutions."
Left-leaning foreign-policy experts are already preparing to call the new strategy document a course correction from what they see as the misguided practices of the Bush administration.
"Progressives have long held that international rules and institutions play a vital role in U.S. security and global problem solving," Brian Katulis, fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote today. "Progressives shouldn’t overlook this moment — when their ideas are becoming the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy."
But the other two previews of the strategy, one given by Jones at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last month and another given by top counterterrorism advisor John Brennan today at the Center for Strategic and International Security, reveal a strategy that has more in common with past iterations than divergences.
In his speech, Jones laid out the four pillars of the new strategy: security, prosperity, values, and international order. That’s somewhat different from Bush‘s 2006 NSS, which named two key pillars: "promoting freedom, justice, and human dignity," and "confronting the challenges of our time by leading a growing community of democracies."
But the basic tenor, aside from the "international order" part, is the same.
"The word ‘democracy’ is not in the header of that section, but the values they are talking about are all democratic values," said Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University professor who worked directly on the last NSS at the Bush White House and writes for FP‘s Shadow Government blog
"They want it to be different, but there will be way more continuity than change," said Feaver. "When you read the NSS, what will be striking is how similar it is, because at the level of grand strategy there is more similarity than differences."
Brennan admitted as much in his preview speech, when he defended some policies liberals have eschewed, such as indefinite detention and the delays in closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in response to a question from Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent.
"When this administration came in, in January of last year, we dealt with a number of legacy situations that we wanted to make sure we were able to deal with appropriately without compromising the security of the American people," Brennan said.
When asked by The Cable if the NSS would mandate any new changes to the national security bureaucracy, Brennan said, "This document embodies that which has been part and parcel of this administration’s policies heretofore, and it also lays out the vision of where we are going in the future."
Feaver said that the document, by nature, isn’t meant to call for big changes in government organization on its own, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable.
"Precisely because it’s a public document, it must reflect what they’ve been doing. You’re not going to get big surprises," he said. "The document is important because it is meant to string together in a strategic logic what they’ve already been doing."