The United States must take on a “more assertive” role on the global stage as President-elect Donald Trump and his newly appointed team devise a cohesive national security strategy to deter and counter both immediate and looming challenges, according to the Atlantic Council’s Barry Pavel, who is a former member of the National Security Council staff.
“It’s a propitious time for a more assertive US approach to a world that’s very complex and full of a lot of dangerous and unpredictable challenges,” said Pavel, vice president, Arnold Kanter Chair, and director of the Atlantic Council’s Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security. Comparing the incoming Trump administration’s commentary on global challenges with the approach of the Obama administration, he said: “We’ve been relatively withdrawn over the last several years. I don’t see too many areas where a softer approach would be useful. It’s probably a good time for the Trump administration to be more assertive.”
On January 20, Trump will become the forty-fifth president of the United States. Trump has talked about a policy of “peace through strength,” which Pavel said will serve the administration well, given the current security environment.
A long-standing term promoted by National Security Advisor-designee retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, “peace through strength” indicates the Trump administration’s intent to bolster the military so as to deter adversaries such as Russia and China. “If you’re going to deter adversaries who want to do something against your interests, you need to appear strong and you need to have a capable military that they believe will—if used—will prevent them from achieving their aggressive designs at reasonable cost and risk,” said Pavel. However, he said that the appearance of strength must be accompanied by a reasonable expectation that, if challenged, that strength will be exercised. Pavel described how the Obama administration’s unwillingness to follow through on its declaratory policy in Syria resulted in a weakening of US credibility, allowing other actors to take advantage of the situation.
Thus far, Trump’s comments and tweets have indicated an emphasis on the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which will be “probably priorities one, two, and three,” said Pavel. The president-elect has also expressed a predilection for improved relations with Russia, an antagonistic stance toward China, and a line in the sand with regard to North Korean nuclear capabilities.
However, confirmation hearings of his cabinet picks have revealed a discrepancy between the views of the president-elect and his key advisers, particularly with regard to Russia. “A certain amount of diversity of perspectives is actually important for healthy decision-making,” according to Pavel. He said a certain degree of friction within the National Security Council (NSC) could serve as a boon to the administration, providing the president with “the necessary set of opinions that would inform a very functional and optimal policy.”
While there is a plethora of immediate and pressing threats, which must be addressed in a national security strategy, the new administration also should begin to consider risks looming on the horizon. Pavel cited the growing field of biotechnology as a relatively under-appreciated threat that could play a major role in the global security landscape. “It’s unfortunately likely that we will see some major issue with biological technology or with a naturally occurring pandemic, which the experts say we’re overdue for, sometime in the next four years,” he cautioned, emphasizing the need for preparation.
Ultimately, Trump will “need a national security strategy and a set of priorities that are well understood,” said Pavel. Where rhetoric meets action, the new administration must consider how best to implement Trump’s stated priorities, and how they will play out within the geopolitical arena.
Barry Pavel spoke in an interview with the New Atlanticist’s Rachel Ansley. Here are some excerpts from our interview.
Q: Based on his comments during the campaign and since the election, what will rank among President Trump’s top national security priorities?
Pavel: It’s very clear that ISIS will be at the top of the agenda—probably priorities one, two, and three—but I think he’s also going to take a very hard run at China, already going after the central pillar of the relationship. We also have to deal with Russia, and it’s unclear what combination of cooperation and conflict we can expect from Trump’s new policies with Russia. Of course, the North Korea threat, while not urgent, by the time of the end of Trump’s term, there certainly will be a much greater set of challenges associated with North Korea because they’ll have almost certainly or at least likely have a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that can reach the United States. This is probably not a condition that any president of the United States would be willing to accept. Trump has already tweeted about it, and I would put North Korea high on the agenda. Lastly, Iran. Regardless of the nuclear agreement, which was very important as well, there is a set of activities that Iran is engaging in that are very destabilizing and very hostile to US interests, in particular in the immediate region in the Gulf. I have no doubt that Trump with [retired Gen. James] Mattis as secretary of defense will go very hard also at Iran. I think that’s the main list, but there are also surprises that might come up.
Q: Do these concerns match the current security environment?
Pavel: Yes, I think they do. It depends on how the policies come out. You want to make sure that the counter-ISIS operation, but also the counter-ISIS policy and strategy that the military operation might be part of, are productive and don’t lead to ISIS gaining more recruits. Depending on how you frame the ideological questions associated with countering extremists like ISIS, you can either make the problem worse or you can make the problem better for yourself. Also, the relative balance between conflict and cooperation with Russia is a major question.
Q: What are the issues which have not been discussed, but may become pressing security concerns over the next four years? How can the new administration begin to consider and plan for these distant threats?
Pavel: Biological threats, because biotechnology is exploding in the private sector including among a lot of people who are “hacking” biological organisms—all with very good intent—but this means that the chances for bioterror or bio-error are going to increase very significantly. I think it’s unfortunately likely that we will see some major issue with biological technology or with a naturally occurring pandemic, which the experts say we’re overdue for, sometime in the next four years. This is a very grand challenge that will take a lot of work, a lot of preparation, and hopefully not a lot of recovery time before we can get a handle on it.
Q: There has been some discrepancy between what Trump and his cabinet picks have said. How will this affect the function of the NSC?
Pavel: A certain amount of diversity of perspectives is actually important for healthy decision-making. If I were the decision-maker, if I were the president, I wouldn’t want everyone agreeing; it would make me nervous and suspicious that I’m not getting the necessary set of opinions that would inform a very functional and optimal policy, that’s number one. Number two, if they don’t agree on the most basic aspects of the overall world view and the view of America’s role in the world at the highest strategy level, that’s a problem that will lead to frictions and disunity, and potentially suboptimal policy and strategy. The best way to get around that is twofold, one to develop some sense of national security strategy, even if it’s not published, even if it’s internal, so that all of the leadership in the new governments knows what these priorities are regarding national security. Second, you need an interagency process that will bring all of those views, synthesize and integrate all the views of the different leadership in the different departments together. If you don’t have that process you could have ineffective policies and strategies because you’re not bringing the different viewpoints of the players into the main arena. You need a national security strategy and a set of priorities that are well understood, and you need a very functional interagency process that brings the different perspectives of the different departments and leadership together to inform a good policy.
Q: How might the concept of “peace through strength” be applied to US policy with regard to various national security concerns?
Pavel: If you’re going to deter adversaries who want to do something against your interests, you need to appear strong and you need to have a capable military that they believe will—if used— prevent them from achieving their aggressive designs at reasonable cost and risk. A part of that also is the question of will to use US military capabilities and, I think, the perception of many potential adversaries—I would include China and Russia on that list—over the last three years of US will to use military capabilities to thwart them has been very low because they saw Obama’s red line violated in Syria with no US response. Because he pulled back from that, it contributed to their appetite to take aggressive actions:
In Russia’s case, across the broad expanse of Europe; in China’s case, in the South China Sea building the artificial islands and pressing in other ways. Peace through strength is great, but it has to include both components: a perception of will to use military capabilities, and a perception of very strong and agile military capabilities. This is the essence of deterrence. If this works, you deter aggression and there’s relative peace, and if this doesn’t work you have disorder and relative chaos, which I think we’ve begun to experience over the last few years.
Q: Do you see a softening on issues where the new administration should maintain strength, and by contrast, are there areas where the United States should take a less aggressive stance?
Pavel: We’ve been relatively withdrawn over the last several years. I don’t see too many areas where a softer approach would be useful. It’s probably a good time for the Trump administration to be more assertive, which I think was core to the testimony of the new secretary of state nominee Mr. [Rex] Tillerson. It’s a propitious time for a more assertive US approach to a world that’s very complex and full of a lot of dangerous and unpredictable challenges.
Rachel Ansley is an editorial assistant at the Atlantic Council.
Image: US President-elect Donald Trump and his wife, Melania, arrived aboard a US Air Force jet at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on January 19. (Reuters/Jonathan Ernst)