Integrated strategic competition: A new approach to US national security
The twenty-first-century security environment is defined by the Global War on Terror (GWOT) and the resurgence of Great Power Competition (GPC). While the United States (US) has spent the last two decades embroiled in counter-terrorism (CT) operations, rivals like Russia, China, and Iran have been refining their strategies for integrated strategic competition. These adversaries aim to undermine US influence on the global stage through nonmilitary and asymmetric means, achieving their foreign policy objectives below the threshold of kinetic engagement. In this evolving security environment, the United States must draw from lessons of the past to inform the strategies of the future. By revisiting the principles of National Security Council Paper 68 (NSC-68), the historic Cold War blueprint that unified diplomatic, military, and economic power, the United States can create a modern framework for integrated strategic competition to counter terrorism and achieve national security goals effectively. To this end, a holistic approach is essential for addressing today’s multifaceted threats from state and non-state actors.
Unfortunately, the United States’ counter-terrorism strategy ultimately failed to produce a strategic victory throughout the GWOT. The crux of this failure lies in the absence of a cohesive, integrated whole-of-government approach. Despite significant military successes, the overall strategy fell significantly short in addressing the root causes of terrorism and preventing its spread. The lack of synchronizing diplomatic, military, economic, and intelligence efforts in Afghanistan led to a disconnect between military operations and nation-building efforts, a pretext for the disastrous exit of US military forces marked by the fall of Kabul and the resurgence of the Taliban. In Iraq, the lack of coordination between military, diplomatic, and economic instruments of power ultimately prolonged instability and gave rise to new terrorist groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).
Throughout the GWOT, the absence of clear, consistent objectives across rotating administrations and the sometimes-conflicting agendas of various government agencies hampered the effectiveness of US national strategies and obstructed the attainment of identified national security objectives. Consider the strategic incoherence in the case of competing US proxies in Syria. At one point, the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency backed different Syrian factions with divergent goals, leading to a counterproductive scenario where US-supported groups ended up fighting each other. Despite employing asymmetric tactics, these operations worked to defeat US national security objectives in Syria, as they lacked a unified strategy across the whole-of-government towards a singular goal.
SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER
In this evolving landscape, there is a pressing need for a renewed and coherent multi-agency approach that truly integrates the instruments of national power. A new strategic approach is long overdue—one that aligns all US national security objectives across the entire spectrum of strategic competition. Such an approach must synchronize diplomatic, information, military, economic, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement (DIME-FIL) efforts into a cohesive and comprehensive strategy. Thus far, the failure to do so in the context of GPC has led to disastrous consequences, with regional competitors increasingly undermining US objectives through the use of proxies and the persistence of terrorist organizations that aim to destabilize US bilateral relations. As evidenced by China’s encroachment in the South China Sea and Iran’s regional escalation across the Middle East, it is time to rethink a counter-terrorism framework fit for the twenty-first century.
Moving forward, America’s National Security Strategy (NSS) should ensure success for its allies and interests. Thankfully, the National Security Council’s historic paper NSC-68 outlined this multi-agency approach for the Cold War, providing a framework for effective integrated strategic competition and its application against the rising influence of the Soviet Union. Revisiting these proven principles to address the complexities of today’s security environment is critical and relevant for any counter-terrorism strategy.
NSC-68: A blueprint for action
The 1950 National Security Council Paper known as NSC-68, drafted in response to the perceived existential threat posed by the Soviet Union, serves as a historical cornerstone for understanding the efficacy of a cohesive and strategically nested multi-agency approach in countering national security threats. Anticipating the Soviet Union’s consolidation of international power through the spread of communism, the NSC recognized the need to move beyond direct military intervention. Instead of relying solely on conventional warfare and kinetic action, they advocated for a comprehensive plan that coordinated the United States’ political, military, and economic power to shape the national security landscape via integrated strategic competition in the gray zone.
While NSC-68 provided a comprehensive framework for combating the Soviet threat through a whole-of-government approach, in the post-Cold War era, the US has failed to apply its principles to modern counter-terrorism. The failure to fully integrate economic, diplomatic, and informational instruments of power in the fight against terrorism has led to missed opportunities to counteract extremist narratives, build resilient societies, and undermine the financial networks that sustain terrorist organizations.
The Ronald Reagan administration’s support for the Polish Solidarity movement exemplifies the use of NSC-68’s integrated competition strategies under a whole-of-government approach. Through a combined effort of intelligence, public diplomacy, economic pressure, military deterrence, and non-state organizations, the United States supported and ensured the success of a political movement that would become instrumental in the collapse of communism in Poland, crippling the Soviet Bloc. These strategies restructured the United States’ thinking on the economics of force through the development of military Keynesianism, which leveraged the US industry to outpace the Soviet Union’s military buildup, placing further military and economic pressure on Soviet leaders and undermining the Communist model. In the end, the USSR collapsed without a single US tank crossing Russia’s border.
While NSC-68 successfully guided US foreign policy through the Cold War, today’s near-pear adversaries like Russia and China and regional powers such as Iran are operating in the grey zone of international relations, employing strategies that often fall below the threshold of conventional warfare. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 exemplifies this approach. By utilizing “little green men“—masked soldiers without identifiable insignia—Russia achieved its objective through a calculated blend of deniable military force, economic leverage, and influence operations, effectively circumventing a swift international response. Similarly, China has mastered using economic coercion and maritime militia forces to assert its dominance in the South China Sea, carefully avoiding open conflict with its neighbors, which include US allies. Further, increased attacks by Iran-backed militias throughout the Middle East, as well as posturing by organizations like ISIS, have proven that the Middle East remains a tumultuous region despite the absence of conventional war.
These adversarial actions highlight the limitations of conventional military-centric approaches to national security in the face of integrated strategic competition. Furthermore, the ongoing and accelerated advances of these near-peer competitors demonstrate the unified integration of their instruments of national power while, in stark contrast, highlighting the United States’ need to embrace a whole-of-government approach that revisits NSC-68-style strategies to mobilize all instruments of national power in a coordinated and comprehensive manner.
A modern approach to integrated strategic competition
Drawing lessons from both the successes of NSC-68 and the shortcomings of Global War on Terror strategies, a modern whole-of-government approach to integrated strategic competition requires a multi-pronged strategy:
- Centralized strategy formulation: An updated national security doctrine, similar in scope and vision to NSC-68, is essential to guide US foreign policy in the twenty-first century. This strategy should clearly define national interests, identify key challenges and opportunities, and provide a framework for interagency coordination across all DIME-FIL instruments of national power.
- Recognizing the evolving nature of power: A modern approach and implementation in the spirit of NSC-68 must recognize the shifting balance of power in the international system. The economic might of China, the cyber capabilities of Russia, and the intricate proxy networks of Iran require a nuanced understanding of how actors leverage unconventional means to achieve their objectives and further identify counter-strategies that coordinate and integrate the capabilities of the United States’ various institutions of national power, to include its allies.
- Adapting instruments of national power: Existing national security institutions, primarily designed for Cold War realities, must adjust to the contemporary complexities of integrated strategic competition. A whole-of-government approach must strengthen diplomatic tools to counter economic coercion, enhance cybersecurity infrastructure, and develop more sophisticated information operations capabilities to counter disinformation campaigns and propaganda.
- Building resilience at home: A successful strategy must extend beyond foreign policy alone, requiring a resilient society that can withstand external pressures and attempts at interference. A modern approach must also focus efforts domestically towards strengthening critical infrastructure against cyberattacks, mitigating the spread of disinformation through media literacy initiatives, and fostering social cohesion to prevent the exploitation of societal divisions.
The United States faces a complex and evolving security environment in which adversaries increasingly employ all aspects of integrated strategic competition with coordinated precision to undermine its interests. A return to the principles of NSC-68 adapted for the twenty-first century offers a path forward. By embracing a multi-agency, integrating all instruments of national power, and developing a deep understanding of the evolving nature of power, the United States can effectively counter these challenges and secure its national interests in the coming decades.
Daniel Elkins is the founder and president of the Special Operations Association of America. A former Green Beret and Special Operations combat veteran, he is also an Atlantic Council Counter-Terrorism Project member.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the positions of the United States government or the Department of Defense.
Further reading
Thu, Nov 7, 2024
Managing counterterrorism foreign liaison relationships in an increasingly competitive world
MENASource By
Robust investment in foreign liaison relationships enables the fundamental conditions required for an effective global counterterrorism strategy, and not just within the countries where these partnerships are enabled.
Wed, Oct 23, 2024
Balancing a culture of secrecy and collaboration: Information sharing with hostage families
MENASource By
US policies enshrine a requirement for intelligence sharing between the US government and hostage families.
Tue, Sep 10, 2024
In the age of great power competition, the threat of another 9/11 still looms large
MENASource By
Unlike the early years of the Global War on Terror, threats today are more amorphous and more deeply embedded within local conflicts.
Image: US President Joe Biden meets with members of the National Security Council regarding the unfolding missile attacks on Israel in the Situation Room of the White House in Washington, DC, USA 13 April 2024. President Biden has returned to Washington a day early to consult with his national security team after both Iran and Israel announced that Iran had launched drones and rockets towards Israel. via Reuters