Learning Strategic Lessons from a Security Breakdown

Among the points sometimes put on the backburner amid the highly-charged debate over how to handle WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (is he a traitor or hero, journalist or spy) every time he posts sensitive materials is that these data dumps afford people an inside view of the strategies and goals of the US diplomatic community.

Despite the security breaches that make this possible, not all is negative, for it is not only the scorned subjects of the communiques, voyeurs and enemies of the state who are able to sift through the tens of thousands of documents for clues. It is also the students of both history and current affairs who have the ability to analyze the data and make conclusions on the merits of particular strategies. Going a step further, it affords such commentators the unique opportunity to pose alternative approaches based on their conclusions.

One recent post on Reuters does just that, as Global Editor Chrystia Freeland (formerly of The Financial Times) notes that, among other fascinating details of the WikiLeaks saga, it has emerged as a common theme that the US retains a distinctly Cold War-era approach to foreign affairs. Ms. Freeland also points out that other thinkers, even before the disclosures of the WikiLeaks saga, have been more and more vocal about this deficiency, and have paired this idea with a solution; the US needs to follow the lead of other foreign powers in placing a greater emphasis on fiscal security. As Leslie Geld notes in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs:

Most nations today beat their foreign policy drums largely to economic rhythms, but less so the United States. Most nations define their interests largely in economic terms and deal mostly in economic power, but less so the United States. Most nations have adjusted their national security strategies to focus on economic security, but less so the United States. Washington still principally thinks of its security in traditional military terms and responds to threats with military means. The main challenge for Washington, then, is to recompose its foreign policy with an economic theme, while countering threats in new and creative ways. The goal is to redefine "security" to harmonize with twenty-first-century realities. (Emphasis added).

In addition to being meritorious, the idea is certainly possible. Though the US has put itself in a precarious position with record levels of debt, and the economy is hardly booming, it has also managed to maintain its position as the largest economy on earth. Additionally, the upside of all of the debt is has taken on is that it remains an important trading partner for nearly every nation on earth. Indeed, those nations which are not trading partners with the US can typically thank their status on the foreign policy goals of the US, lending credence to the idea that projecting economic power can be a viable solution. The bottom line is that, despite current troubles, when the US talks trade, foreign powers listen. 

Adding to the validity of emphasizing economics as the basis of foreign policy is the reality of the situation. A war-weary and economically downtrodden American public would certainly rather leaders focus on vital trade relationships with China, Russia and Middle-Eastern partners than on invasion strategies for these, or any other, nations.

Military strength and national security should and will remain cornerstones of American strategy. However, following the lead of other states in placing a new emphasis on production and trade has multiple benefits. Improved relations, reductions in government spending and the possibility for domestic growth in a global-demand marketplace are just some of the benefits that could be gleaned from a shift to a more modern and comtemporary approach. And all this without losing the ability to 'project power' when necessary. Maybe some good can come of this WikiLeaks thing after all...