Editor’s note: This commentary is by Stanley R. Sloan, of Richmond, who is a visiting scholar at Middlebury College whose most recent book is “Defense of the West: Transatlantic Security from Truman to Trump.”
If Joe Biden emerges victorious from the upcoming elections, his new administration will enter office next January confronting the reality that national security policy priorities are being redefined to include both non-military and military threats. That process will, and should, exert a strong influence on new approaches to U.S. national security policy, but it will not come easily.
The problem facing a Biden national security team is that the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change are increasingly being recognized as threats on a par with many posed by adversarial nations Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. Allied nations, populations and politicians are recognizing that these non-military issues must be included in their nation’s national security policies and priorities. It is reasonable to assume that American public opinion should not be far behind.
The need to redefine national security has not been an issue for the Trump administration. Trump emphasized terrorism and immigration as two special national security challenges, while focusing on the economic and military rise of China and the potential threats from Iran and North Korea. The Russian threat was played down, as President Trump has a strange affinity for Russian President Putin. This affinity changed little despite the realities of Russian military power or its malevolent political intentions, although it raised serious questions about Putin’s influence on the U.S. president. Trump emphasized increased spending on defense and minimized the threats posed by climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic. The Trump administration did not include the two non-traditional security challenges in its policies. Trump’s reelection campaign continued to downplay environmental and health issues and gave no indication that he regards them as threats to national security.
While Trump downplays the non-traditional security challenges, the country has moved toward acknowledging them. The administration catered to the views of climate change deniers, including Trump himself, yet the Department of Defense was expanding its efforts to deal with the impacts of environmental changes. The U.S. military has for years been a bigger polluter than more than 100 countries, and this the recognition by military leaders has more to do with pragmatic considerations than guilt complexes. One of the strongest motivators, recognized fully by the U.S. Navy, is the impact of climate change on the resultant rising sea waters on naval installations and operations.
A problem, of course, is that dealing with these newly defined national security threats could require controversial reallocation of resources. This is where the Biden administration will face some issues. It will come to office welcomed by huge deficits run up by Trump’s tax cuts and further exacerbated by the Covid-19 crisis. That means there will be little financial wiggle room, requiring difficult choices.
The Biden constituency on national security policy is a broad one, ranging from some traditional supporters of military engagements to those who seek to reduce both military commitments and spending while devoting more resources to the non-military threats. This likely internal tension within the Biden constituency will be accompanied by the threat of Republican snipers waiting to attack the new administration on grounds that it is weakening national security.
Biden has said that his top foreign policy priority would be to reestablish trust and confidence in America’s allied relationships. This could be problematic in a new guns-versus-butter conflict. European nations already have a broader definition of national security, and that includes health and environmental issues, particularly now. This suggests that those allies will not be a ready source of additional military capabilities to relieve U.S. burdens. Redefining national security on a transatlantic basis will likely mean reduced resources for traditional defense on both sides of the Atlantic.
While redefining national security to increase the priority of non-military threats is valid, it clearly poses some challenges for a Biden administration. After a likely brief honeymoon period used to stabilize the United States both internally and in its external relations, a Biden team must find a balance between resources and priorities for both non-military and military threats to the nation’s security. They will not likely get help from Republicans licking their wounds.
