A new approach is needed

By John C. Bersia

Why is the Obama administration’s plan to revamp the U.S. approach to national security drawing criticism before it even gains momentum?

If anything, the overhaul — which National Security Adviser James Jones will supervise — is past due. The global realm continues to evolve in major and often unanticipated ways; strategies must keep pace. As Jones has correctly noted, “The world that we live in has changed so dramatically in this decade that organizations that were created to meet a certain set of criteria no longer are terribly useful.”

Clearly, it is necessary to develop 21st-century procedures and practices to deal with challenges such as climate change that were not on the national-security radar screen until recently. Beyond environmental disruption, the anticipated ramifications of climate change range from severe shortages and unprecedented migration to expanded clashes within and between nations.

Simplistic assessment

Of course, such an ambitious undertaking requires the right hand at the wheel. Some naysayers charge that Jones, a retired Marine general, is after “territory” as much as anything else. What a stereotypical and simplistic assessment. I do not know most of the critics, for they typically lurk in the shadows of Internet anonymity. However, I do know Jones, and he offers a particularly coherent perspective of the world that incorporates his military experience, to be sure, but also an advanced understanding of history, culture, diplomacy, energy and other vital matters. At the same time, especially during his tenure as a NATO supreme allied commander, Jones acquired substantial experience in traditional national-security areas, notably the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the fight against global terrorism.

In addition to Jones’ capabilities, it is essential to have those with different portfolios as participants in critical discussions on the growing number and variety of national-security threats. That is my interpretation of the Obama administration’s reasoning behind a reorganized National Security Council that stretches well past the usual topics and creates, as issues warrant, more Cabinet and departmental seats at the table.

Just the other day, I had a conversation along similar lines with retired Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, who serves as president of two organizations, The CNA Corp.’s Institute for Public Research (http://www.cna.org/about/ipr/) and the American Security Project (http://www.americansecurityproject.org/). Both have published useful reports that take a broader view of national-security questions. I would call readers’ attention to two of them. The first is a CNA report, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.” The other is an American Security Project report, “A New American arsenal,” which appropriately urges a bipartisan vision in bringing issues such as terrorism, energy dependence, climate change and nuclear proliferation into a single national-security discussion.

Gunn, similar to Jones, has an impressive, big-picture awareness of the world. He indicates that one cannot talk about the ailing economy and the stimulus package without mentioning national security. Gunn worries about the recession’s effect on defense in terms of competition for federal-government resources and the need to reconstitute U.S. forces and equipment.

On climate change, he outlines some of the implications for national security, especially as to how, where and why we fight. For example, “sea-level rise is hugely important for the Navy, as it affects the use of beaches, piers and facilities,” Gunn says.

Renewable resources

Regarding energy availability and access, Gunn sees a challenge and an opportunity. The United States has abundant renewable resources, he maintains, and developing the technology to capture those could become a real economic and national-security strength.

Finally, he brings up the question of economic disparities worldwide, and urges us to help others reach an acceptable standard of living, health and nutrition. Through that effort, without making ourselves poor, Gunn says, we could do what is right, while shoring up global stability and security.

The main point in all of this is that Americans must learn to think differently about national security. Indeed, they have no choice. They certainly can do so without compromising the United States’ ability to focus on ... traditional threats.

X John C. Bersia, who won a Pulitzer Prize in editorial writing for the Orlando Sentinel in 2000, is the special assistant to the president for global perspectives at the University of Central Florida. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.