Biden’s National Security Strategy Aims To Take The Leftist Culture War Global

https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/10/bidens-national-security-strategy-aims-to-take-the-leftist-culture-war-global

By: Matthew R.J. Brodsky, Senior Fellow

The Biden administration released its “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance” last week in a 24-page blueprint for reordering American society according to leftist dogmas that will also be applied as policy abroad.

A central theme of the text is “democracy,” a word mentioned 24 times. According to the “Guidance,” democracy is the solution at home and abroad, it is under assault, and it must be “revitalized.” One must dig a little deeper and connect the loose threads to understand how the Biden administration imbues the word “democracy” with meaning that goes far beyond what most people would assume.

While lamenting the global rise of authoritarianism, the document argues that our democracy and national strategy were “reinforced by the 12 initial executive actions issued by President Biden in his first two days in office,” which the administration argues “centers on restoring trust with the American people.” In the administration’s version of “democracy,” then, presidential authority that bypasses Congress is considered more democratic.

The national strategy says “a vibrant democracy rejects politically motivated violence in all of its forms,” which most Americans could agree on. It also states, however, that “millions of Americans have braved COVID-19 to demand racial justice.” So not only has history been re-written to remove the most obvious features of reality — such as the violence, burning, and looting that raged across the country during 2020 — but all those who participated are considered brave for having done so while violating local lockdown orders and curfews.

The “Guidance” sees democracies across the world — including our own — as under siege but not from the aforementioned “brave” protestors, which is why U.S. cities from Washington, D.C., to Minneapolis to Seattle remain boarded up. Instead, it identifies the chief causes of this siege as “nationalist and nativist trends,” which is to say that America’s new version of democracy rejects the very concept of a nation-state that pursues national interests while prioritizing the welfare of its citizens.

Another theme repeated throughout is that the United States “will lead with diplomacy” while “renewing our commitment to global development and international cooperation.” In practice, global development means that nation-building projects are back on the list of priorities. For example, it pledges “to provide Central America with $4 billion in assistance over four years,” which is designed, among other expectations, “to address the root causes of … irregular migration.”

Even as we make Central America Great Again, the strategy seeks to keep the red carpet unfurled to its citizens: “We must renew our promise as a place of refuge, and our obligation to protect those who seek shelter on our shores.”

While the document repeatedly references threats that don’t respect national borders, the White House can’t admit that illegal immigration is one of them, much less suggest that it is best addressed by strengthening our border, as that would be a nationalist solution. The answer they offer is to keep America’s borders open while investing in failing countries to make them a better place to live, which would presumably cause fewer people to want to immigrate to the United States.

At least the Guidance admits, “We will not be able to solve all of the challenges we face at the southern border overnight,” because this approach will exacerbate the problem. Likewise, the thematic focus on international cooperation in the context of “principled diplomacy” also reflects a new Democratic Party norm where we don’t have a genuine foreign policy as much as a domestic wish list on how to remake our own country, which we then preach abroad.

If one is unconvinced, the report spells it out clearly:

Because traditional distinctions between foreign and domestic policy — and among national security, economic security, health security, and environmental security — are less meaningful than ever before, we will reform and rethink our agencies, departments, interagency processes, and White House organization to reflect this new reality.

To be clear, nothing has changed the distinction between foreign and domestic policy. What changed is how this administration chooses to see them. One must utterly redefine “national security” to justify the Biden administration’s priorities. For example, one of the few enemies we will aggressively combat is “systemic racism”:

Combatting systemic racism requires aggressive action to address structures, policies, and practices that contribute to the wealth gap, to health disparities, and to inequalities in educational access, outcomes, and beyond.

The Biden administration believes another clear threat facing the United States is climate change. In the 24-page document, the word “climate” appears 27 times (the word “military,” by comparison, only appears 19 times).

You’d also be forgiven for thinking the document was issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Labor Department, since the word “diversity” appears seven times — the same count as the word “nuclear.” Stunningly, the Biden administration pledges that it “will prioritize defense investments in climate resiliency and clean energy.”

While some national security experts may believe too many cooks in the kitchen can spoil the broth, Biden’s approach is to not only include all the cooks but the bartenders as well. The strategy pledges to “develop new processes and partnerships to ensure that state, municipal, tribal, civil society, non-profit, diaspora, faith-based, and private sector actors are better integrated into policy deliberations.”

President Biden’s Strategic Guidance promotes and redefines a leftist wish list as not only a vital American interest but as a vital global interest. In doing so, it completely erases the line between domestic and foreign policy, replacing it with new dividing lines that pit Americans against one another.

America’s genuine adversaries will likely view this document with a mixture of relief, laughter, and incredulity. Americans who read it carefully will realize it’s a national security document that will not make them one bit safer.

Exclusive: Gold Institute Founder Says Biden’s Foreign Policy Rejects Trump’s Successful Style, Substance

By: Neil W. McCabe, Media Fellow

The founder and president of the Washington-based Gold Institute for International Strategies told the Star News Network that President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s foreign policy is doomed to fail, because unlike President Donald J. Trump, Biden treats the world as an extension of Washington’s Swamp.

“What President Trump realized is that Washington and the way Washington works is really only acceptable – I didn’t say good – I said it is acceptable – is on domestic matters,” said Eli Gold, who worked for worked in Washington’s think tank world for more than 10 years, before launching the Gold Institute May 2019.

“Trump realized that when you leave our shores and our borders, the rest of the world does not work in the same way Washington works,” Gold said. “By the way, Washington is broken domestically, too, but we can try to figure that out on our own because it doesn’t involve other people. We can decide if we can have Medicare-for-All or private insurance, that doesn’t impact, say Israel, but what Trump realized is that when it comes to foreign policy, you can’t work in a Washingtonian fashion.”

Biden’s foreign policy and methods are a throwback to failure

In this way, Biden differs from Trump in terms of both style and substance, he said.

“President Biden is reverting back to that Washingtonian method,” Gold said.

Before Trump, U.S. foreign policy objectives were stalled and failing because the American foreign policy establishment treats other countries like they are politicians negotiating legislation on Capitol Hill, he said.

“In addition, Biden is bringing back the leftwing policies, such as the ones that established or normalized relations with Iran, rather than holding people accountable and government accountable – a government who calls for ‘Death to America,’ – he would rather normalizing relations with them.”

It is a cliché to say that Biden’s foreign policy is Obama redux, but there is a similar dynamic at play in regards of Biden’s reconnecting with Iran – while paying for it by weakening America’s connection with Saudi Arabia and Israel, the Baltimore native said.

“Biden understands that he cannot normalize relations with Iran and hold Saudi Arabia and Israel in equally high esteem – it would negatively impact his ability to negotiate with Iran,” he said.

“Joe Biden’s policies in regard to the Israelis and the Saudis are going to be interesting at best, strained at worst,” he said.

Trump’s succeeded at foreign policy with a personal approach

Gold said Trump evolved into his own very personal way of working with people and institutions as a New York City developer outside of politics. “He, therefore, had a one-on-one foreign policy, which really offended and ticked off what we will call the establishment.”

The other reason Trump upset the establishment is he reclaimed presidential authority to run foreign policy, he said.

“What people fail to realize is the role of the president, and the role of the president is to run the country,” he said.

“He is our senior foreign policy guy and in my opinion in 2021, you do not even need a U.S. Secretary of State,” he said. “Why do we have a U.S. Secretary of State? Because when we founded this country, it would take you two months to have a conversation with the French.”

Trump spoke to his secretaries of defense and state, but he took personal responsibility for his policy, Gold said.

“This was the key to his running a one-on-one foreign policy,” he said. “Somehow between 1789 and 2016, the lines got blurred and it became the norm that the president must work by committee, run the country by committee, well, Iran doesn’t run its country by a committee – and this is what Washington fails to realize.”

Trump knew he had to engage other leaders, but there were lines he could not cross, he said.

“For example, he began negotiating and potentially normalizing with North Korea,” he said. “That all ended, when it was understood those lines that could not be crossed would have had to be crossed in order to pursue it – and it was the same thing with China, as well, in particular in the last year of his presidency because of COVID.”

It was fortunate that Trump got personally involved in the process and that led to the Abraham Accords, he said.

The Abraham Accords is a collection of agreements between Israel and Islamic countries, brokered by the United States, that plays on the fact that Christianity, Judaism and Islam all trace their beginnings to the Bible’s Abraham. Before the end of Trump’s first term, he facilitated a normalization of relations between Israel and Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Bahrain.

Of the four, Bahrain is the most significant geopolitically, because the archipelago kingdom is a client-state of Saudi Arabia, which led to speculation that the Saudis would be next up if Trump remained in office for a second consecutive term.

“I don’t know if it was as easy as just signing a paper for the Saudis to join the Abraham Accords,” he said. “Saudi is the ultimate prize. In my estimation, in order for the Saudis to formally normalize relations with Israel, there would have to be certain goals and certain metrics met. It would also depend on what happens with Qatar and what happens with the Houthis in Yemen.”

The Saudis back the Yemeni government against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels.

Gold Institute fellows discuss ‘Iran and Their Proxies: The Current Situation’

Gold Institute senior fellows held a February 28 online seminar “Iran and Its Allies” that dealt with how following Trump’s loss in the 2020 election, Iran and its proxies have taken an aggressive approach within the region and U.S. interests, Gold said.

“Most recently setting a hard line with their commitment to restart or continue their unfettered nuclear program, and missile attacks against U.S. interests in Erbil, Kurdistan and in Baghdad,” he said.

Joining Gold, who moderated the seminar, were retired Army Brig. Gen. Ernie Audino, who is now a senior advisor to the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria, and Matthew R.J. Brodsky, who is a Middle East expert, geopolitical analyst.

Gold Institute fellows are practitioners

Gold said he started his institute to bridge what he saw as a gap between policy and action that he witnessed in the meandering that took place before Trump intervened in the discussions that led to the Abraham Accords.

“What I noticed was that Washington think tanks often create policy, but lacked the ability to put forward a blueprint to implement that said policy,” he said.

Gold said a typical example of how Washington handles foreign affairs is the way the State Department tried to line up Middle East countries into an American-led alliance.

“I was talking to an ambassador from a Middle Eastern country – it was actually at a Washington hotel – and we talking about MESA, what President Trump was trying to set up as an Arab NATO,” Gold said.

“It started out at the Riyadh Summit and MESA, which is the Middle East Strategic Alliance, later became the Abraham Accords, but at the time I asked the ambassador to tell me: ‘Where does this stand?’ it was about two years ago, and he said they had yet to give him a blueprint for the proposed MESA.”

The ambassador told him that as a meeting at the State Department, he was pressured to sign up his country for MESA and the State official said: “Afterwards, we’ll sit down and figure it out,” he said. “It was just like Nancy Pelosi saying we have to pass Obamacare in order to find out what is in Obamacare – and the ambassador and his government said: ‘No, we are out, unless you can tell us what you want from us and what our role is, we’re done.’”

MESA was a great idea, but until Trump got hands-on and recognized the opportunity was achieve what became the Abraham Accords, nobody knew how to make it a reality, he said.

Gold said he sought the advice of colleagues and other thought-leaders, such as retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, and these conversations convinced him that there was no pro-Western think tank in Washington that had the practical know-how to convert concepts into action.

“We have 25 fellows and each one represents a different area of expertise,” he said.

“The institute is not an ‘American’ think tank,” Gold said. “It is a Western think tank – I am not a globalist by any stretch of the imagination or any definition of the word – we focus on Western civilization and Western values, so three of our distinguished fellows are sitting members of the European Parliament and a former British member of the European Parliament, who is a Commander of the British Empire.”

Other fellows live in Israel, the Kurdish region of Iraq, he said. “We have former members of Congress and former members of the National Security Council.”