Obama Charts New Direction in National Security

This week, U.S. President Barack Obama chose James R. Clapper Jr., a retired air force lieutenant general and intelligence wonk, as his new director of national intelligence (DNI).  The DNI was created in 2004 to oversee the 16 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA). 

Clapper is currently undersecretary of defence for intelligence – considered to be the highest intelligence post at the Pentagon – as well as the director of defence intelligence, reporting directly to the DNI.  If confirmed by the senate, Clapper will replace Admiral Dennis Blair, who “stepped down” from the post last month following a series of behind- and not-so-behind-the-scenes power struggles and disputes with CIA Director Leon Panetta, largely concerning CIA overseas and covert actions. 

While politicians from both parties have called Clapper “combative,” apparently he got the job by writing a memo that stressed the DNI’s role as one of coordination.  He is also tight with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

This development follows the release of Obama’s first formal national security strategy at the end of May.  Going beyond the counterterrorism that has been a George W. Bush-based focus for the last decade or so, Obama invoked President Dwight Eisenhower’s linking of national security with curbing the nation’s budget deficit, along with addressing issues such as cyberthreats, climate change, and dependence on fossil fuels.

Some analysts see this change in direction as a precursor to a reduction in defense spending, referencing earlier comments that Obama made at West Point in December when he spoke of the need to balance an Afghan strategy with maintaining national programs.  This perspective has merit, given that the 52-page document justifies its new direction by describing a country “hardened by war” and “disciplined by a devastating economic crisis,” contending that that the United States cannot sustain extended wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan while fulfilling these other, necessary commitments.

Nonetheless, while the new strategy clearly moves away from Bush’s focus on “pre-emptive strikes” to one that emphasizes international cooperation, it retains the right to consider war once other options have been exhausted.  This element of continuity has particular resonance for American concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

Finally, and not surprisingly, opponents to Obama’s new strategy criticize its lack of attention to an ideology of evil – “Islamic radicalism,” “Islamo-fascism,” or “militant jihadism” – and continue to support a long-held tradition of fixating on events occurring on the other side of the world.  This leads me to wonder: does Hillary Clinton’s recent outreach to Latin American leaders signal a refocusing on America’s “near abroad” – specifically, Mexico City and Caracas – instead of Kandahar?