U.S. Security Strategy
• act as a much-needed check on the executive branch's reflexive tendency to expand the global political and military role of the United States under the guise of U.S. “global leadership,” • initiate a comprehensive review of existing U.S. security commitments and jettison those that are not clearly linked to vital national security interests, • review the defense budget and make the necessary reductions to bring it in line with a security strategy that is based on the defense of vital national security interests, and • refuse to provide funding for military interventions except in the unlikely event that such an intervention is a necessary response to a national security threat.
More than a decade has elapsed since the end of the Cold War. Unfortunately, the United States has yet to formulate a viable national security posture to address the greatly changed strategic environment.
If anything, U.S. strategy over the past decade has gone from bad to worse. In the last days of the Cold War, there may have been confusion in Washington about how to deal with the challenges of the post–Cold War world, but there was also near-consensus that the end of the Cold War presented opportunities that outweighed the new hazards. Equally important, policymakers of all ideological stripes viewed the end of the Cold War as a respite for the United States. After four decades as the leader of the free world, America would be able to relinquish some of the burdens of that guardianship.
Instead of devoting tremendous national resources—blood and treasure—to defending the world against the communist threat, the United States would behave as a normal great power. Like any great power, the