Evolving U.S. thoughts in strategic documents

I was recently tagged to go through our recent strategic documents from 2004 forward to look art references to SFA and BPC. I know not everybody has an interest or the time to do so, but what I found interesting was the evolution of our thinking over the last few years. They are not ordered by date, but by importance (i.e. the 2006 NSS is at the top). Interestingly, the two documents which show the greatest similarities are the 2006 NSS and 2006 National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism - this shows what a difference even 2 years have made on how we view the security environment and the ends/ways means toward achieving our FP goals. Most of what you see in the doc is just a lift from the 2006 NSS (Pres Bush), the 2005 NDS (Sec Rumsfeld), the 2004 NMS (Gen Myers) and the 2006 National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terror (Gen Pace).

The piece is too big to post so I'll attach the word doc.

Here is the conclusions piece:

Quote:

---

BPC and SFA as part of an indirect component to military strategy and grand strategy (all the elements of national power) have significantly evolved as viable and sustainable ways over the last few years in concert with our understanding of the nature of the war, the operational environment and how the United States can achieve its stated ends and protect its enduring interests. It is very likely given the current course of events and a consensus by the community of strategist and policy crafters from both political parties that SFA and BPC will remain as a valid component to U.S. Strategy. Additionally the Inter-Agency is moving forward on its views of BPC and SFA, and the DoD and US Army have made considerable progress in solidifying their views on SO and Soft Power.

---

I apologize for what I'd say is skimpy analysis, but I've got more then a few things in lap. I did think the takeouts of the docs are worth reading if you have not spent time looking them over (there are a couple of "strategy articles mentioned on the SWJ OpEd roundup today). If the progression of these docs is indicative of where we're going I think we may be on the right track in terms of framing the security environment. I hope the next administration does a good review of where we've been, where we're at and where we want to go - hopefully instead of throwing everything out as a by product of "not from my camp", it will pick up on those things which are sound and move the ball forward.

Best, Rob

Please spell out SFA and BPC? They were not explained in the article, and I don't want to make an inaccurate guess like Special Forces Association and Block Power Control. Thanks. Bill

ditto for me.:confused:

Cheers

JohnT

PS I always tell my students to ask me what the heck the acronyms I use mean.

Bill, John,
Sorry - they are respectively: Security Force Assistance, and Build Partner Capacity. I talked about the first in the thread where I discussed JCISFA (the Joint Center for International Security Force Assistance), and I talked some here about BPC, where I was discussing Direct and Indirect component to a broader approach (which I think is also articulated well in the 2006 National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terror signed by then CJCS Gen. Pace).

These are both terms that seek both to be more inclusive of various activities that are being conducted currently and have been conducted in the past, and seek to capture the scope in terms of breadth and depth, but also seek to frame a strategic way to reach our political ends.

All 4 strategic documents can be Googled and brought up.

Best, Rob

I do remember seeing the terms defined on the earlier thread but so many acronyms and so little time...:confused: I really needed this today since I plan to recommend this thread to my National Security Policy class with the admonition that it is testable material. :D Makes the case that the NSS is more than just a propaganda doc.

But stupid me, I just (last year) published a book (NDU Press/Potomac Press) on BPC, Building Capacity for Peacekeeping: the Case of Haiti. Official users, if interested should be able to get copies free from NDU Press or directly from the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (which ran the research project for OSD-P).

Cheers

JohnT

John - I did not include DoD Dir 3000.05 and the QDR, but if your walking them down the road you might include those as well - I would argue you could even include SEC Gate's recent KU speech to show how policy evolves over time.

Best, Rob

But they are only undergrads who can only be expected to read so much.:wry:

That said, I should read these.

Cheers

JohnT