Partnership and Narrative in National Security Strategy

Jason Phillips

Source Link

NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY NEEDS A NEW APPROACH

The new National Security Strategy must tell a compelling, meaningful story about who the U. S. is and what the U.S. values. Hyperconnectivity is transforming how power is mobilized and the National Security Strategy must reflect this reality. John DeRosa describes narrative as the way human beings understand “how the world is, how people are, and how to respond to disruptions of that worldview.”[1] Narrative, then, is rooted in what people, cultures, and nations value. Because hyperconnectivity is transforming how power is mobilized, understanding the power of narrative can transform strategy. Sam Wilkins, in his article, “‘Why Are We in Africa?: The Dilemmas of Making American Strategy Towards the African Continent,” identifies a key strategic challenge of the U. S. Wilkins’ insight plays out on the global stage as well as what he describes in Africa. China is spending billions of dollars a year on their Belt and Road Initiative and the U. S. does not have the resources to match the infrastructure spending of China.[2] However, Wilkins also discusses the potential of leadership as a way for the U. S. to compete with adversaries. But, the question is, how? Solon Simmons, in his book entitled Root Narrative Theory Conflict and Resolution: Power, Justice and Values, provides insight into how “root narrative theory” can be a “force that can be used to change the world.”[3] The power of narrative, as strategy, can be a strategic approach for the Biden administration to draw a clear difference between aligning with the worldview of the United States and the worldviews of great power competitors. In today’s world of hyperconnectivity, can the United States utilize narrative to mobilize strategic power?

REIMAGINE STRATEGIC EQUATIONS

The strategic power of narrative is possible as a result of our current hyperconnected world. Nathan Freier writes, “the strategic significance of hyperconnectivity cannot be overstated. Currently, imagination is the only barrier to the worst possible manifestations of this increasingly complex challenge to U.S. interests and enduring defense objectives.”[4] Senior strategic leaders in the U.S. military should not relegate cyber, information warfare, disinformation efforts, and the power of narrative to supporting roles within the operational and tactical realms. Himanil Raina explains shortcomings of contemporary strategic thinkers to exclusively look at strategy through the lens of the triumvirate of Thucydides, Sun-tzu, and Clausewitz. In his article, Raina discusses these blind spots in terms of international law.[5] However, these same blind spots stymie strategic thinking about how power is mobilized and used in a hyper-connected age of infotech.

CAN THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ESTABLISH A CLEAR STRATEGIC NARRATIVE WHICH DIFFERENTIATES THE WORLDVIEWS OF THE U.S. AND THOSE OF U.S. COMPETITORS AND ADVERSARIES?

The 2018 National Defense Strategy argued that the United States was “emerging from a period of strategic atrophy”[6] and goes on to convey that “interstate-strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.”[7] Although the 2018 National Defense Strategy claims that it “articulates our strategy to compete, deter, and win in this [inter-state strategic competition] environment”[8] it focuses solely on “ends+ways+means” and, as Dr. Jeffrey W. Meiser argues, that does not equal good strategy.[9] In fact, Dr. Meiser also writes: “Far too often strategy is an exercise in means-based planning; it is inherently uncreative, noncritical, and limits new and adaptive thinking.”[10] The U. S. must take a very different approach and tone for the new National Security Strategy, which must convey a narrative, rooted in a partnership model of humanity, reinforced by tying all ends, ways, and means, back to the central strategic narrative of the U. S. It is the strategic power of narrative which can differentiate for the world the vision, goals, and worldviews of the U. S. compared to competitors and adversaries. However, narrative is most effective when it is easily understandable and when it “strikes a chord in experience.”[11] Can the Biden administration establish a clear strategic narrative which differentiates the worldviews of the U.S. and those of U.S. competitors and adversaries?

CREATE A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE U.S. NARRATIVE AND OPPOSING NARRATIVES

A NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY ROOTED IN THE POWER OF NARRATIVE CAN CREATE A CLEAR DISTINCTION, FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE AND UNDERSTAND, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALIGNING WITH AMERICA AND ALIGNING WITH A GREAT-POWER COMPETITOR LIKE CHINA.

The research of Riane Eisler and The Center for Partnership Studies identifies the values and worldviews of a partnership model of humanity compared to a domination model of humanity.[12] They identify how a partnership model of humanity promotes engagements which are “mutually beneficial” whereas a domination model of humanity enacts “authoritarian structure” as well as “top down control of economic resources.”[13] A Biden administration narrative strategy could make clear how China, as one of the primary competitors of the U. S., enacts a domination model of humanity. The evidence of China’s domination worldview is on display through the work China conducted in Sri Lanka[14] and Malaysia[15] outside its borders, not to mention the treatment of the Uighur minority population inside China,[16] as exploitive in the case of the Belt and Road Initiative, and potential cultural genocide in the case of the Uighurs. Why is this strategically important? As Wilkins explains in his article, when the U. S. is not able to match the spending of a great-power competitor like China, the U.S. must find alternative ways to mobilize power. A National Security Strategy rooted in the power of narrative can create a clear distinction, for all the world to see and understand, the differences between aligning with America and aligning with a great-power competitor like China.

PARTNERSHIP NARRATIVE STRATEGY AND THE FIELD OF WOMEN, PEACE, AND SECURITY

The Center for Partnership Studies also defines the domination model of humanity as one which structures “the male half of humanity over the female half” and enforces “rigid gender stereotypes.”[17] Perhaps the most extreme case of the domination model of humanity perpetrated by a U.S. irregular warfare adversary regarding the treatment of women was ISIS enslaving Yazidi women and girls in Iraq.[18] An American narrative strategy which establishes the field of Women, Peace, and Security as instrumental to how the U.S. understands the world, who America is, and what America values can become a strategic strength. However, attacks upon women and the status of women is not restricted to ISIS. In fact, Dr. Valerie Hudson and her co-researchers, conducted decades of work which has found “a strong and significant relationship between the physical security of women and the peacefulness of states.”[19] They also write that, “We see in the current international system the rise to great power status of states in which the security of women is severely compromised.”[20] The researchers of WomanStats.org convey that the status of women is an indicator of a nation’s propensity to use violence.[21] A National Security Strategy which includes the field of Women, Peace, and Security as a pillar of a U.S. narrative strategy can create a clear distinction between U.S. values and priorities and those of its adversaries. In today’s hyperconnected world, America needs a narrative strategy compelling enough to inspire audiences, domestically and internationally, in order to continue to be a global leader of an open, innovative, democratic worldview.

WHY HIGHLIGHT NARRATIVE AS INSTRUMENTAL TO THE NEW NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY?

The new National Security Strategy must be rooted in the power of narrative. Dr. Sara Cobb writes, “Stories matter…They materialize policies, institutions, relationships, and identities that circulate locally and globally, anywhere and everywhere.”[22] A narrative strategy must be interwoven throughout the fabric of the National Security Strategy. Narratives mobilize power. Adversaries of the United States use the power of narrative to erode confidence in U.S. leadership. A 2016 article in Wired conducts an outstanding analysis of the depth and sophistication of ISIS’s use of narrative.[23] In addition to narrative attacks from irregular warfare adversaries, the U.S. also has to face the reality of current international perceptions; and, U.S. narrative strategy must actively work to regain lost narrative power. This is clear when the President of the Ukraine, an ally standing with the United States against Russia, says in an interview in light of the images of 6 January 2021, that “it would be very difficult for the world to see the United States as a symbol of democracy.”[24]

FOR THIS REASON, THE NEW NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY MUST ADDRESS GLOBAL DISILLUSIONMENT IN LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES; IF IT ONLY COVERS WAYS, ENDS, AND MEANS, IT WILL FAIL IN THIS HYPER-CONNECTED AGE OF INFOTECH WHERE GLOBAL POWER IS MOBILIZED THROUGH NARRATIVE.

Again, narrative cannot be relegated to side-projects at the operational or tactical level. Narrative is how human beings understand the world. Sara Cobb writes, “narrative dynamics, enacted in conversations, reflect the tremendous complexity of conversations at the intersection of global, local, interpersonal, and intrapersonal narratives.”[25] The interview with President Zelensky links narrative to U.S. standing and prestige on the global stage. The National Security Strategy cannot simply make broad statements about developing “A more lethal, resilient, rapidly innovating Joint Force;” although true, the National Security Strategy must also provide a vision and compelling story as to why this matters.[26]

EXPLORING POSSIBLE APPROACHES FOR A NARRATIVE STRATEGY

Is there a way to create a narrative strategy which reflects the vision and priorities of the current Biden administration? In light of the extensive efforts, over the course of years, of near-peer and irregular adversaries in the narrative domain, an effective narrative strategy is crucial to the strategic security of the United States. Dr. Yuval Noah Harari discusses how the twentieth century could be understood as a grand competition among three strategically competing narratives: fascism, communism, and liberal democracy. Dr. Harari writes how, by the end of the twentieth century, it seemed the narrative of liberal democracies had won as the global strategic narrative. However, recently a “tidal wave of disillusionment” has eroded faith in liberal democracies.[27] For this reason, the new National Security Strategy must address global disillusionment in liberal democracies; if it only covers ways, ends, and means, it will fail in this hyper-connected age of infotech where global power is mobilized through narrative. Dr. Harari writes “the simpler the story, the better.”[28] Dr. Ajit Maan writes, narratives “tell the story of who we are and why we are doing what we are doing. We need to tell our own story effectively so that we get out ahead of our adversaries and frame events to our advantage.”[29]

So, how does the current administration convey a simple narrative which tells the story of who we are and why we are doing what we are doing? During the presidential campaign, President Biden continually spoke about being in the midst of “a battle for the Soul of this nation.”[30] In light of Dr. Harari’s insights about a “tidal wave of disillusionment” with liberal democracies and reinforced by the recent comments by Ukranian President Zelensky, although President Biden’s rhetoric was geared towards domestic politics, one could see how this idea of “battling for the Soul of the Nation” translates to the strategic standing of the worldview of the U. S. Could the idea of being in “a battle for the Soul of this nation” point to a narrative strategy for the administration’s National Security Strategy?

THE SOUL OF THE NATION AS STRATEGIC NARRATIVE

What could be an effective narrative that reflects a global battle for the Soul of the Nation? Jon Meacham wrote, The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels, and, in a short interview discussing an HBO documentary of the same name, Meacham says that the word “Soul” gets thrown around a lot but through the “view in antiquity, the view in the Hebrew bible, the view in the Greek New Testament, Soul can be translated in Hebrew and Greek as ‘Breath’ or ‘Life’... It is the Essence of who we are.”[31] Although strategists may not be used to discussing the impact of the soul of the nation or narrative as a serious means of mobilizing or siphoning off the strategic power of the U.S., these are exactly the discussions which must be at the core of the National Security Strategy in an age of infotech and hyperconnectivity. Returning to the work of Nathan Freier, his team highlights how strategic-level leaders are still thinking in terms of physical security. This must change. Freier writes, “American strategists… have been less focused on the purposeful exploitation [and]... strategic manipulation of perceptions and its intendant influence on political and security outcomes.”[32] American adversaries are utilizing their own narrative power for the “strategic manipulation of perceptions” which is causing global disillusionment with liberal democracies. State and irregular warfare adversaries take advantage of this disillusionment eroding confidence in American prestige at home and abroad. The U. S. needs a simple, easily accessible narrative strategy, rooted in President Biden’s vision to continually battle on behalf of the Soul of the Nation.

A STRATEGIC NARRATIVE ROOTED IN A PARTNERSHIP MODEL OF HUMANITY

America has, during much of the twentieth and early twenty-first century, held a unique position as a model of liberal democracy compared to other strategic, state competitors. Because of the disillusionment of liberal democracies around the world, the narrative strategy of the United States, rooted in President Biden’s rhetoric regarding a battle for the Soul of the Nation, must point to a simple, easily accessible narrative touchstone. This is exactly why the decades of work and research of Dr. Riane Eisler and her Center for Partnership Studies can serve as a foundation for a Biden administration narrative strategy. Dr. Eisler provides a simple, compelling, meaningful way to understand human interactions. Dr. Eisler explains that individuals, institutions, organizations, corporations, and nations can be understood to reflect either a partnership or domination model of humanity.[33] A National Security Strategy, then, rooted in a core narrative of a partnership model of humanity is a way to easily tell the story of the U.S. as a clear alternative to other strategic competitors on the world stage. From this narrative perspective, actions and approaches become clear and easy to understand. China’s militarized islands in the South China Sea become an expression of a domination model of humanity; the U.S., embodying a partnership model of humanity, desires freedom of navigation. The ends, ways, and means of U.S. responses to China’s militarized islands may not change, significantly, to current U.S. responses, however, an understandable, compelling U.S. strategic narrative draws a clear contrast between the values of the U.S. and the values of strategic competitors. A narrative strategy rooted in a partnership model of humanity allows the America to point to Russia’s stance, for example, of jailing, poisoning, killing and/or silencing political opponents of Vladamir Putin as expressions of a domination model of humanity. Furthermore, a narrative strategy rooted in a partnership model of humanity also frames alternative narratives for the U.S. to non-state adversaries. Dr. Ajit Maan writes, “Narrative conflict will not be ‘won’ by defeating the adversary’s narrative… Dr. Maan goes on to write, “Multi-level narratives, from meta to strategic to tactical will be necessary for maximum effect.”[34]

VIOLENT EXTREMISTS OPERATE WITHIN A DOMINATION MODEL OF HUMANITY WHICH CONVEYS A WORLDVIEW THAT LIFE IS JIHAD; THEY ARE AT WAR WITH ALL WHO DO NOT ADHERE TO A STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THEIR WORLDVIEW.

A perfect example of how the Biden administration could look to outstanding models of a partnership model of humanity which exemplifies American values and provides an alternative to the efforts of violent extremists is the work of Jake Harriman and Nuru International. Nuru International identifies local leaders on the ground, trains, educates, and empowers those leaders to create sustainable entrepreneurship projects in locations of extreme poverty.[35] These are locations which are at risk of falling to the influence of violent extremist groups like ISIS, Al Shabaab, or Boko Haram. Violent extremists operate within a domination model of humanity which conveys a worldview that life is jihad; they are at war with all who do not adhere to a strict interpretation of their worldview. A narrative strategy rooted in a partnership model of humanity could provide an alternative narrative of life as a hajj, which not only reflects the identities of Muslim partners but also promotes an asset-based approach to partnership, exactly the type of work being conducted by Nuru International.

RETHINKING POWER AND STRATEGY

Returning to the work of Meiser, American strategists already understand how to think in terms of ends, ways, and means. The problem is, that is too often the only way American strategists think. Meiser brilliantly defines strategy as a “theory of success.”[36] American strategists have not proposed theories of success for decades; there have been goals, established and achieved, but theories of success have been lacking. For this reason, much of what the U.S. has been doing has been reactive. Meiser writes the “benefit of defining strategy as a theory of success encourages us to think more effectively about power. A key principle of the Lykke model is to work with resources or power that you currently have; however, more nuanced thinking about power suggests power is not a set value and instead is determined by the strategy”[37] and, Meiser references the work of Richard P. Rumelt’s book Good Strategy, Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters, as well as Lawrence Freedman’s book Strategy: A History when he goes on to explain that good strategy generates unforeseen sources of power to achieve strategists’ theory of success. [38] This is why the new National Security Strategy must be a narrative strategy rooted in a partnership model of humanity.

CONCLUSION

A narrative strategy which defines security in terms of promoting a partnership model of humanity is a theory of success which can inspire partners to creatively support this strategic worldview. This narrative strategy becomes proactive and generative instead of reactive. All key strategic security challenges, in addition to the field of Women, Peace, and Security mentioned above, including “enduring alliances,” “climate change,” “great power competition,” “counterterrorism,” “the dynamics of space and cyberspace,” “peacekeeping and peacemaking,” “education,”[39] among myriad other vital priorities and initiatives, can be understood in creative ways within a narrative strategy rooted in a partnership model of humanity as the theory of success. In order to track progress, the National Security Strategy should either partner with, or follow the model of, the tremendous work of Simon Anholt who developed the “Good Country Index.”[40] Additionally, as mentioned above, Solon Simmons provides specific guidance on how to analyze root narratives. [41] It is not enough to discuss the soul of the nation, or narrative strategy, without clear, measurable criteria of what that means and the progress achieved.

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO DISCUSS THE SOUL OF THE NATION, OR NARRATIVE STRATEGY, WITHOUT CLEAR, MEASURABLE CRITERIA OF WHAT THAT MEANS AND THE PROGRESS ACHIEVED.

An approach similar to Simon Anholt, combined with the research of Solon Simmons, could allow the Biden Administration to track the success of a National Security Strategy rooted in the power of narrative. Criteria could include the degree to which their work is achieving a theory of success in terms of all of the priorities and challenges identified by The Strategy Bridge. Furthermore, the progress of a narrative strategy rooted in a partnership model of humanity cannot mobilize unforeseen sources of power unless people know about the work being accomplished. For this reason, it is necessary for the National Security Strategy to create ways for stakeholders promoting a narrative of a partnership model of humanity to communicate, network, and showcase narrative strategy successes. It is not enough to conduct strategy as usual. Very different approaches are necessary to rise to the challenges of the intense strategic competition America currently faces. The U.S. must create a theory of success which is simple, inspires, and has the potential to mobilize unforeseen sources of power.