Friday, February 3, 2012

Long War Storyline: The Pentagon Pitches its New Strategic Narrative

 Allen Ruff & Steve Horn*

[An abbreviated version of this article initially appeared at as "The Pentagon Pitches Its New Staregic Narrative" -AR]

Speaking from the Pentagon press room on January 5, President Obama announced what initially appeared to be a major new strategic course and global military posture for the US. His brief DoD address laid out a redirected focus on East Asia and a reconfiguring of the military machine.[1]

By delivering his policy address from the Pentagon, Obama set a precedent as the first standing president to do so. His press room presence at military HQ actually symbolized the leading role that the military high copmmand now occupies, not just in mapping out war contingencies, but in shaping broader foreign policy objectives and the related mobilization of domestic support for the maintenance US globalism.

That shift in the Pentagon’s role, more significant than the reconfiguration of armed forces announced on January 5th, has been well underway for some time.[2] Most significant in regard to the Pentagon as a leader in shaping imperial policy have been the steps taken to shape domestic public opinion in preparation for what has been described as a permanent war.

A public relations pitch for a new “grand strategy,” aimed at mobilizing broad domestic support for that decades-long projection of US  power came out in early April 2011. It was issued  not by the State Department or intelligence community, but by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Appearing under the pen name “Mr. Y,” A National Strategic Narrative has received considerable notice from an expanding circle of foreign policy planners, think tank academics, public opinion makers and private sector elites. Its promoters hope it will serve as a blueprint for a new “national consensus,” a re-branded American globalism capable of winning the “Long War for the 21st century.”

Matk "Puck" Mykleby
The document’s actual authors were Navy Captain Wayne Porter and Marine Colonel MarkPuckMykleby, two “strategic assistants” to the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), Admiral Mike Mullen. Ostensibly written in an unofficial “personal” capacity, the Narrative clearly would not have seen the light of day without a “sign off” from the JCS and probably then Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. It was vetted by key figures in the foreign policy establishment before its release.

Captain Wayne Porter
The anonymous “Mr. Y” consciously referenced the Foreign Affairs article on “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” that appeared in 1947 under the pseudonym “Mr. X.” Actually written by the State Department Russia hand and Moscow envoy, George Kennan, it argued that an insatiable Soviet expansionism posed the primary threat to world peace and national security. It came to provide the cornerstone for the U.S. Cold War “grand strategy” of “containment” – the policy to confine the Soviet Union within its East Bloc sphere and halt the spread of communism.

As Anne Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s recent Director of Policy Planning pointed out in her preface to the newer document, Kennan’s “X article” provided an intellectual framework, a “narrative that fit the facts of the world… well enough to create and maintain a loose bipartisan national consensus for forty years.”

The backers of Mr.Y’s piece clearly hope that it will do the same.

Context Is Everything…

The Cold War’s end in the early 1990s spelled the demise of containment as a unifying grand strategy. It brought to a close the popular framing of the East-West conflict that portrayed the struggle as a moralistic “good versus evil” ideological crusade which presented the United States as the “free world” defender against “tyranny” and “totalitarianism.”

As Slaughter pointed out, a new “story” was needed since such phrasings as “leader of the free world” that encapsulated U.S. power and the structure of the global order for so long now mean nothing to anyone under the age of 30, the majority of the world’s population.[3]

With that Cold War narrative gone, it became clear to foreign policy planners, military strategists, their imperial think tank allies and corporate elites that a new set of explanations was needed to legitimize and maintain domestic support for America’s world power position and global pursuit of new century “national interest.”

Containment or defense against the “Red Menace” and “communist aggression” had functioned, after all, to win domestic support for ever-spiraling military spending, unchallenged expansion of the “military industrial complex,” growth of the national security and surveillance state, costly wars and interventions abroad, and an American globalism constrained only by the existence of the Cold War adversary. 

The Launch

The National Strategic Narrative was formally issued by the public-private “non-partisan” think tank, the Woodrow Wilson International Center at midnight on April 8, 2011.  A “roll out” event that same day at the Center’s Washington DC headquarters was billed as a kick-off of anational conversation on the “search for a new national security narrative to guide US policy in the 21st century.”

Attended by an elite overflow crowd, the launch featured a bi-partisan panel moderated by New York Times foreign affairs mavin and imperial spinmeister, Thomas Friedman. Speakers included the former national security advisor for Presidents Ford and H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft and the Brookings Institution’s neoconservative realist Robert Kagan. Also on board were the soon-to-be editor of the Atlantic Monthly and New America Foundation grand strategy pundit, Steve Clemons, and Minnesota liberal U.S. Representative Keith Ellison.[4]

Friedman, Slaughter, & Kagan at the Wilson Center

Prominently featured was Anne Marie Slaughter. The former dean of Princeton’s influential Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, she served as Director of the State Departments Policy Planning Staff under Hillary Clinton. In that capacity, she headed the 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), the first Presidentially-mandated 4-year assessment of short- medium- and long-term imperial objectives.

Arguing that the “Global War on Terror” was too narrow in scope, Slaughter previously was co-director of the Princeton Project on National Security, a mid-2000s multi-year initiative to construct a U.S. national security strategy. Retruned to Princeton, she also sits on the advisory board of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), the increasingly influential liberal hawk think tank serving the Obama administration.

Slaughter’s Narrative introduction began by noting that a national security strategy – a definition of “core” national interests and the way to advance them -- already existed and that the “Mr. Y” document was something quite different.

Raising the “fundamental question that more and more Americans are asking” regarding the U.S. role in the world, she pointed to the lack of “guiding stars that will illuminate the path along the way.”

She then highlighted the need for “a story with a beginning, middle, and projected happy ending;” a broadly defined a “national strategic narrative” with a plot line that could “transcend our political divisions, orient us as a nation, and give us both a common direction and the confidence and commitment to get to our destination...” Further on, she described such a story as “one that all Americans can understand and identify with in their own lives.”

Slaughter’s Wilson Center remarks emphasized a main theme – “...that in an interconnected world, the United States must remain the strongest competitor” and “greatest source of credible influence—the nation most able to influence what happens in the international sphere—while standing for security, prosperity, and justice at home and abroad.”

The New Story

Describing an interconnected world filled with both “uncertainty and opportunity” created by an undefined “globalization,” Porter and Mykleby pointed to the need for “sustainment (sustainability) over containment,” a U.S. “place in a complex and dynamic strategic ecosystem,” and a revival of a liberal international order based upon American values.

As such, the document is loaded with an often contradictory “good cop, bad cop” rhetoric.

Running through it are constant calls for an increasingly sophisticated “global engagement” resting on the “3 Ds” of “diplomacy, development, and defense” – favorable relations and assistance for those aligned with U.S. interests backed, ultimately by a thinly veiled threat of sanctions and force for those state and non-state actors displaying, in the words of the authors, “destructive behaviors.”

Not coincidentally, the same 3-Ds, viewed as “the three legs of U.S. foreign and national security policy,” had already surfaced as the new mantra coming from the strategic think tanks at Washington’s National Defense University, the closely associated CNAS, the State Department and the USAID.

Calling for international cooperation but not mentioning an increasingly unequal global playing field, the Narrative also emphasizes the gains to be made from “fair competition,” no longer viewed as a “zero sum game,” but a “win-win” situation for those involved. The piece also promotes the increased use of “smart power,” a shift away from a prioritized a “hard power” focus on military deterrence and defense left over from the East-West conflict. 

Stalwart believers in an American exceptionalism, Porter and Mykleby also speak of spreading the broadly defined but seemingly universal “core values” of an abstract “freedom” based upon “fair competition and hard work,” “a vibrant free market” and “an indomitable entrepreneurial spirit,” as the “engines of… prosperity.”

Clearly moving away from the Bush era’s “my way or the highway” unilateralism, their Narrative focuses on maintaining “credibility” and “influence through example.” Cooperation and free competition, they tell us, are the best ways to forward an amorphous “national interest” and “world leadership.”

The idea  of  “a whole of nation effort” [5] combining the “3 D’s’ abroad with “smart growth” on the home front – longer term investment in the young as “human capital,” sustainable resources, the environment and infrastructure -- also runs throughout the document. 

“Mr. Y” highlighted the need to ensure the nation’s “sustainable security – on our own soil and wherever Americans and their interests take them.” It spoke of the need “to develop a plan for the sustainable access to, cultivation and use of, the natural resources we need for… continued well-being, prosperity and economic growth in the world marketplace.”

Resting at the heart of the piece, shrouded in the rhetoric of a revived liberal internationalism, is a concern for maintenance of the imperial project.

In some sense very much the realist, “Mr.Y” notes that U.S. strength as a “world leader” was largely derived from its central role in the global economy. Assuming that the dollar will continue as the international medium of exchange, the Narrative argues that the American economy will likely remain the strongest in the world “into the foreseeable future.”

The authors pointed out, however, that “globalization,” while providing “a cultural, intellectual and social commingling,” had also increased economic interdependence and made narrowly domestic economic perspectives an “unattractive impossibility.”  Raising a vague concern about the reality of economic stagnation in the absence of growth, they pointed out that “prosperity at home” was linked to economic competition abroad and that overseas “development” would remain “one of America’s enduring national interests.”

Drawing to a close, the Narrative called for a “National Security and Prosperity Act,” a modern day equivalent of the 1947 National Security Act, which at the start of the Cold War merged the US Armed Forces into what became the Department of Defense, and created the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council

The newer act “would integrate policy across agencies and departments,” and provide for more effective “public/private partnerships” in order to “converge domestic and foreign policies toward a common purpose.” It would “provide for policy changes that foster and support the innovation and entrepreneurialism of America… essential to sustain our qualitative growth as a people and a nation.”

The country must be prepared for the Long War on all fronts.

The Campaign

In her preface to the Narrative, Anne Marie Slaughter expressed the hope that it would provide “a first step down a new path.” She optimistically suggested that all that was needed was for the “politicians, pundits, journalists, businesspeople, civic leaders, and engaged citizens across the country to read and respond.” The public relations campaign immediately got underway.

Mykleby and Porter quickly began appearing before diverse audiences ranging from the ultra-conservative Institute for World Poltics, to environmentalist conclaves, futurist gatherings, and various centrist think tanks in between. They spoke before the annual meeting of the National Rural Assembly, and appeared alongside Slaughter at a recent conference of  Pop Tech “a global community of innovators, working together to expand the edge of change.”

Numbers of articles immediately appeared in the opinion setting press, such as the New York Times and influential journals such as the Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs. Time Magazine editor, Washington Post columnist and CNN international commentator Fareed Zakaria gave it full coverage, subsequently posted on YouTube, and linked the full text on his website.

The Narrative soon had its own Facebook page as the full text or stories about it and its authors spread rapidly on a diverse range of web news and blog sites, going from the University of Southern California’s Daily Trojan and the University of Wisconsin’s popular Science is Fun page, to a number of military-oriented sites including those for the Marine Corp, the counter-insurgency focused Small Wars Journal, and the right-of-center independent Veterans Today.

Front and Center at Ft. McNair

The Narrative was the focus of a major two day conference at the National Defense University at Washington D.C.’s Fort McNair on November 8-9. “Forging an American Grand StrategySecuring a Path Through a Complex Future” brought together a number of national security state movers and shakers, military strategic planners, think tankers, and university pundits to discuss the ways to mobilize public opinion and support; on how best to win and maintain “hearts and minds” at home for the Long War.

The symposium notice clearly stated the event would not focus on actual warfare or the preparation for such. The intent, it read, was “to promote a discussion about the elements of, and prospect for a grand strategy for America.” They convened to discuss ways of implementing the National Strategic Narrative.

The call noted how the terrain for mapping out a grand strategy had changed with “the empowerment of individuals or small groups with new technologies,” post-9/11.  It also observed that, “Some would argue that in a democracy it is not possible to attain the necessary consensus to craft and implement a national strategy in the absence of an existential threat” and that, “recent political discourse lends some credence to that line of reasoning.”

Disagreeing, the conference announcement spoke of the need to forge that “necessary consensus,” and stated the belief that “an American grand strategy is not only possible, but critical to the future of the nation.” It suggested that, “A common strategic vision can do much to focus the attention and energies of the nation towards a common good.”

The notice quoted Slaughter’s definition of a narrative as “a story with a beginning, a middle and projected happy ending”needed to orient the nation and a new consensus. Agreeing with the necessity of such a “storyline” and “associated ways and means” as “the basis for an American grand strategy,” the NDU organizers explained that the goal of the conclave would be to “help illuminate that path to the future…”

The conference panels were clearly top-heavy with Department of Defense and NDU associates. The first panel session, What is Grand Strategy? (How) Can we develop it? What should it look like?,” was introduced by Nick Rostow, director of the NDU’s Center for Strategic Research and the son of the Johnson-era liberal war hawk, Eugene Rostow. Participants included not only Mykleby and Porter, but Robin Raphel, formerly the State Department's nonmilitary aid coordinator for Pakistan and a one-time lobbyist for Pakistan.

The opening keynote featured Leon Fuerth, with the NDUs Center for Technology and National Security Policy, founder and director of the Project on Forward Engagement at George Washington University and a National Security Advisor to former Vice President Al Gore. Viewed as an expert on arms control and “strategic stability” and somewhat of a futurist, Fuerth more recently has been involved with the Project on National Security Reform, the Congressionally-mandated public-private consortium whose 2008 findings called for a new National Security Act.

Michele Flournoy
Another featured speaker was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy, the highest ranking woman in the Defense Department. A major strategic thinker, counter-insurgency advocate and co-founder of the influential Committee for New American Security (CNAS), she had served in 2008 on then President-elect Obama’s foreign policy transition team, was initially rumored as a pick to become the first woman Secretary of Defense, and reputedly was a mastermind of the Presidents Afghanistan war strategy.

Most of the two day summit was filled with various panelists holding forth on the need for Slaughter’s grand strategy “storyline.” A panel on “Educating Strategists,” in addition to two reps from the NDU’s National War College, featured three Long Warriors directly tethered to the inter-university Grand Strategy Program network.

One was the associate director of Yales Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy, Minh Luong. Another was the CIA historian Richard Immerman,  a former Assistant Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and head of Temple University’s Center for Force and Diplomacy (CENFAD). Historian Mathew Connelly, Columbia University’s Hertog Global Strategy Initiative, filled out that panel.

Clearly, some of the Grand Strategy academics were successfully transitioning from their campus confines to rub elbows with the defense establishment elite.

Peter Feaver
Among them, giving another major session key note, was Long War policy wonk, Duke University political scientist, Peter Feaver. Perhaps more than any of the academic think tankers present, Feaver best personifies the semi-warrior servant of power that has come of age in the post-9/11 environment.

He heads Duke’s “Program in American Grand Strategy,” and is director of the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill strategic planning consortium, the Triangle Institute of Strategic Studies (TISS). Moving through the revolving doors that lead to the corridors of power, he twice served as a staffer to the National Security Council under George W. Bush.[6] He also is known within national security state circles as an expert on the increasingly contentious issue of the separation of civilian and military authority.

A presence at an increasing number of strategic planning and grand strategyconclaves, Feaver also has been involved with the high-level coming together of major corporate leaders and the military under the auspices of the Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellows Program, centered at the NDU. A bi-partisan long warrior, he too is affiliated with the Center for a New American Security.

David Abshire
Another main speaker was David Abshire, former advisor to President Ronald Reagan and an early 1960s co-founder of the conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). President of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, Abshire addressed the essential role of the President as “Pesuader-in-Chief,” in winning national support for a grand strategy. He told his audience that, “our mission is to draw up the blueprint for a consensus building national grand strategy, utilizing all elements that make up national power—domestic and international.”
In a language reminiscent of the early Cold War, he stated that, “We are confronted by the decline of America as the leading global power,” and that, “there is a threat as urgent to the nation as in 1861, 1941 and 1947.” The main question for Abshire was, “how to convince the mind of the Chief Executive, as well as the Congressional leadership” of that reality.

Looking ahead to “the task of restoring an America with no peer,” he argued that, “grand strategy can only be realized if it is owned and driven by the President, grounded in domestic strength, and embraced by the American people.” He called for developing a “public strategy – a public consensus around the national Grand Strategy.”

Back to the Future?

A major lesson that national warfare state planners clearly took away from Vietnam revolved around the strategic importance of “winning hearts and minds” at home. It is a lesson those currently preparing the 21st Century’s 3-D Long War have taken to heart. It remains uncertain, however, whether their Strategic Narrative storyline will manage to mobilize the kinds of broad support for their remodeled imperial project. 

First off, the new story lacks the kind of “Red Menace” “existential threat;” that “scare-the-hell-out-of-‘em” fear factor that proved so crucial in winning elite backing, public support, and Congressional appropriations throughout the Cold War.

Filled with an optimism and faith in the country’s “core values” and the ability of an almost mythic “entrepreneurial spirit” to overcome new sets of global challenges, the Narrative also avoided any mention of harsh realities, the specific not so long range challenges facing the empire.

Such factors as the approaching end of the dollar’s global hegemony, protracted economic stagnation, competing “national interests” and ascendant  power bloc competition in Asia and elsewhere, were barely referenced, if at all. Nor was the increasing inequality between the global “haves” and “have nots” and related instability.

The global scramble for vital resources - especially for water, oil and gas - and the ever worsening ecological crisis received no attention beyond some vague talk of “sustainable development.” Nowhere did “Mr. Y” raise the obvious -- the actual unsustainability of a system propelled by market-driven “growth and prosperity.”

At the same time, the staying power and strength of the national security corporate state, the might of its military and a media system with its ability to manufacture consent, and the overall imperial consensus of its elites remain firmly in place, unchallenged.

The U.S. actually had a grand strategy long before the Cold War, dating to the turn of the 20th century. At that time a late entrant in the quest for empire, the U.S. was locked out of a China market already partitioned by the major imperial powers. The period’s statesmen and military promoters, believers in the invincibility of Yankee know-how, entrepreneurial spirit and inventiveness, steeped in an earlier American mission storyline, called for “Open Door” access. Up and coming contenders in a divvied-up world, they too argued for open competition, free trade and the right to self-defense. 

Rhetorically combining an American mission idealism and a strategic realism, the Persuader-in-Chief’s Pentagon announcement suggested the influence of the National Strategic Narrative storyline. Facing west with a reconfigured Pacific vision, Obama launched a back-to-the-future new beginning. Bets are that the “happy ending” currently being projected is highly unlikely.


 * Allen Ruff is a U.S. historian and independent writer on foreign policy issues. 
Steve Horn is a Research Fellow at DeSmogBlog, as well as a freelance investigative journalist.
Both live in Madison, Wisconsin
Not to be quoted or reproduced without the permission of the authors

[1] A post-Iraq move away from large scale ground war strategies still lingering from the Cold War and a return to an emphasis on sea and air power, Obama’s “Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense" highlighted a revived “national interest” in the Pacific. The Pentagon declaration actually marked a “pivot” back toward a century-long strategic emphasis on an “Open Door” access to Asia, and a staking out of surf and turf against an ascendant China rival.  ( )
[2] Obama’s Pentagon appearance followed a number of advance statements. The President and Secretary of State Clinton both made several recent forays into the Pacific. A major article by Clinton on “America’s Pacific Century” appeared in November’s Foreign Policy. In addition, major national security strategy statements from the White House and the DoD have laid out long-term projections for US global reach.
[3] “Mr. Y,”  A National Security Narrative (Washington, D.C.: 2011)

[4] The National Conversation at the Woodrow Wilson Center: In Search of a National Security Narrative for the 21st Century. April 11, 2011

[5] Like the concept “3-D,” the phrase “whole of nation effort” appeared in various Pentagon-related documents prior to and after the appearance of the National Strategic Narrative.  For example, see not only the site linked here, but the text of a speech the March 3, 2010 Kansas Sate University by Admiral Mike Mullen, head of the JCS when the Narrative was generated.:  and
[6]  Feaver served on President Clinton's National Security Council staff in 1993 and 1994. He joined George Bush’s N.S.C. staff as a special adviser in June ‘05 and  played a direct role in preparing a document titled, "Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq,” that accomapnied the President’s December, 2005 Naval Academy “Plan for Victory” address
Feaver was recruited after he and Duke colleagues presented the administration with an analysis of public opinion polls on the Iraq war that concluded Americans would support a war with mounting casualties if they believed it would ultimately succeed. 
Feaver's Duke colleague and co-author of the work on public tolerance of casualties noted that Bush’s speech and the related document clearly were aimed at American public opinion.  (“Bush's Speech on Iraq War Echoes Voice of an Analyst” )