Anglosphere Rising? The New Joint National Security Strategy Board

May 24th, 2011 by zen

Strategy is the crystallization of a kind of thinking process that needs to be present in the room or what you will have in the NSSB is a “coordination council” rearranging the deck chairs instead of charting the course. The British Cabinet and the Obama administration should strongly consider adding a few mutually acceptable wise men who do not have to juggle the supremely hectic schedules of a Foreign Secretary or a National Security Adviser, or at least some executive staffers recommended for the excellence of their strategic thinking.  It will help lean against the relentless and universal gravitational pull of bureaucratic and political culture toward the short term time horizon and the tactical details.

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

Posted in 21st century, America, analytic, anglosphere, britain, DIME, diplomacy, foreign policy, geopolitics, government, ideas, intellectuals, national security, organizations, politics, reform, strategy, Tactics | 3 comments

Previous post:
Next post:

  1. Lexington Green:

    May 25th, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    Interesting that this is happening now.  Britain’s capabilities seem to be in serious decline in recent years.  What does the USA hope to get out of this at this stage, I wonder?

  2. J. Scott Shipman:

    May 25th, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    Lex, I’m guessing the "special relationship" is designed to help both parties; for the Brits, relevance as a world power and for us, a continued ally and ear toward Europe (the Brits still play the game quite well). The Brits are also building a next generation TRIDENT ballistic missile submarine—in conjunction with our similar efforts for a follow-on (we’re actually collaborating on design). Once another party has that much insight into your only credible and sustainable nuclear deterrent, it would be wise to keep that ally close. Further, these are enormously expensive platforms for a very exclusive club—I’d want to have them on the same page.

  3. David Billington:

    May 30th, 2011 at 11:14 pm

    In addition to the reasons given by Scott Shipman, I think there might be several others.

    For us, the strategy board is a way to give more emphasis to the long-term in our relationship with London.  As joint military involvements in southwest Asia draw down, it signals a continued interest of the United States in having a partnership that might extend beyond Europe.  It is also (possibly) a way for us to convey to the British the importance of a united United Kingdom, at least in matters of foreign policy and defense, at a time when Scotland has taken a step closer to independence. 

    For the British, it could give them a voice in US strategy and perhaps more choice as to their own.  It is true that the UK does not have as direct a concern with China as the United States, but any conflict with China would be global in its implications.  The Queen is also still the head of state in both Australia and New Zealand.  Whether Australia will keep the monarchy under her successor is unclear, but if the UK values the connection, it should take some interest in the security of the region.  It will inevitably do so if tensions spread from the western Pacific into the Indian Ocean, as may happen in the 2020s and 2030s.

    The question about a strategy board will be its remit, ie. whether its work amounts to little more than a gloss on conventional wisdom, or whether it looks to challenge that wisdom.  We will have to see.