Practically speaking, an American “national interest” is whatever the occupant of the White House says it is. When I was a grad student at the Joint Military Intelligence College over 20 years ago, I took a course that was about strategic decision-making. Our textbook was written by a guy named Donald Nuechterlein. He’s a political scientist who developed a National Interest Matrix in 1979 that identifies four basic interests that could apply to any state:
1. Defense of homeland [the physical protection of sovereign territory];
2. Economic well-being [efforts to create favorable economic circumstance for a state];
3. Favorable world order [efforts by a state to establish abroad a world order favorable to its interests];
4. Promotion of values [the extension of national ideology into international politics as far as possible].
He further broke out the intensity of a nation’s interests:
1. Survival [Critical];
2. Vital [Dangerous];
3. Major [Serious];
4. Peripheral [Bothersome].
Last week the Obama Administration released its National Security Strategy for 2015. This strategy lists the following as our top national interests for the coming year:
1. The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners;
2. A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity;
3. Respect for universal values at home and around the world; and
4. A rules-based international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.
Since I left DC in 1992, I hadn’t given Nuechterlein much thought. But when I heard that President Obama wants the US Congress to authorize the use of military force against ISIS, I wondered where, given the president’s priorities above, does the fight against ISIS fall on Nuechterlein’s matrix of national interests.
Basic Interest
|
Survival
[Critical]
|
Vital
[Dangerous]
|
Major
[Serious]
|
Peripheral
[Bothersome]
|
Defense of the homeland
| ||||
Economic well-being
| ||||
Favorable world order
| ||||
Promotion of values
|
By asking Nuechterlein’s questions, here’s what I came up with:
1. Does survival of our homeland depend on whether we fight ISIS? No. ISIS is not an existential threat to us. It may be to Iraq, and probably is to those who aren’t Sunni Muslims, but not to our country.
2. Does ISIS threaten our economic well-being? In my view, no. Thanks to fracking, the US has become the world’s biggest oil producer. While we still import oil from Saudi Arabia, we don’t import as much as we once did. But we aren’t totally rid of Saudi oil. Our oil supply isn’t in danger – yet. ISIS doesn’t like Saudi Arabia. If ISIS threatens Saudi Arabia, the answer to this question could turn into a “yes.”
3. Is ISIS a threat to a world order favorable to us? Yes. One of the current administration’s priorities is to “seek stability and peace in the Middle East and North Africa.” Having an organization such as ISIS running amok in the Middle East is quite detrimental to stability. We tend to see “Middle East peace” through the prism of “Israel vs. the Arab World,” but oddly enough, Israel isn’t part of the calculus as far as ISIS is concerned. Sure, they want to get rid of the Israelis, but that isn’t their focus now. The way I see it, this is more of a product of the Sunni-Shi’ite schism in Islam. They’re fighting other Muslims who don’t agree with them, and if Christians get in the way [like the Yezidis], killing or converting them to Islam is a bonus. Perhaps this isn’t “ethnic cleansing” as we saw in the former Yugoslavia, but it is “religious cleansing.” To some this would be a distinction without a difference. You be the judge.
4. Does ISIS violate our sense of fairness, do they treat people who disagree with them disrespectfully? Yes. They are using Mao’s maxim that political power comes from the barrel of a gun, or in their case the point of a sword. And let’s face it, ISIS are probably the only guys who get off on images of decapitations and burning people alive. Such images offend Western sensibilities, but not these guys.
So in using Nuechterlein’s matrix, the interests at stake here fall into the “Major” and “Peripheral” category. Where does Nuechterlein draw the line over the question of whether to commit US forces to defeat these or any other bad guys? I don't know.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr. is an esteemed political scientist who used to be the Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. He often writes articles for Foreign Affairs, and currently serves on the Foreign Affairs Policy Board. His pet rock is “soft power,” which in his own words is “the ability to attract through cultural and ideological appeal.” As such, he advocates we should only use “hard power” [the military and economic ability to buy and coerce] when “our humanitarian interests are reinforced by the existence of other strong national interests.” In Nye’s eyes, is the ISIS problem more than just a “Major” or “peripheral” interest? Is the humanitarian interest reinforced by the interest to defend the homeland and/or the interest of our economic well-being? I would argue the answer to that question is “no.”
Is the ISIS problem a case for the use of “hard power” or “soft power?” The Obama Administration has “split the baby” in advocating the use of some “hard power” [military air power, supplying of small lethal arms to ISIS opponents] while leaving other “hard power” [namely ground troops] on the sidelines. I haven't seen any attempt to use any "soft power." But in fairness, is "soft power" useful against guys who burn people alive?
Tony’s take: I don't see this as an American problem to solve. This is a Middle East problem best solved by those who live there. Leave us out of it. Others may disagree, and they probably will.
