Common Conviction

Blogger’s Note: This post is an experiment, drafted by AI off of a compendium of links and notes. Blogger specified the point of the post, and edited the text and inserted links, but drafting was done in 10 seconds by the LLM. Use of AI raises its own questions; usage may offer insights …

We know that National Security Strategies are primarily rhetorical battlegrounds for pundits, think tanks, and politicians. Each party, each administration, claims to offer the best way to ensure America’s security, yet much of the discourse misses an essential point: A nation’s strategy must be grounded in a fundamental purpose—something America has expressed in the very creed of the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, this deeper existential question is often lost in favor of partisan, tactical concerns.

I. Missing the Point: The Enduring Creed of America

Of course it’s entirely fair to debate the priorities of national security strategy. Policy can and should evolve in response to changing threats, shifting geopolitical realities, and evolving needs of the people. However, most commentaries and strategies fail to address the most crucial element: What is the fundamental purpose behind America’s security posture?

What exactly are we securing, and why does it matter? What is the mission of our national security strategy beyond mere defense or expediency? While partisans on both sides of the aisle might find themselves agreeing on specific tactics or even desired outcomes, there is no consensus on the existential question of what it means to be an American in a world that is rapidly changing.

At the heart of America’s foundational principles lies the Declaration of Independence, which names our existential premise, of personal rights and government that exists to secure them. This is not just a lofty idea; it is America’s creed, a mission that transcends political divisions and should anchor any discussion of strategy or security. When we treat national security as a set of tactical priorities or responses to perceived threats, we lose sight of the fundamental purpose that defines America’s place in the world.

II. Ends vs. Means: A Strategic Misstep

In reviewing recent National Security Strategy documents, including those under the Biden-Harris administration, one common flaw stands out: the focus on “ends” that are really just “means.” Many of these strategies outline desirable outcomes—such as peace, stability, and democracy around the world—but fail to consider the broader question of why these things matter for the American people. They treat security as an end in itself, not recognizing that our true ends reside in a deeper ideological purpose that reflects who we are as a nation.

America’s strategic discourse often slips into a list of desirable things, which account for bureaucratic “equities” but lack a guiding mission. A strategy that doesn’t reflect America’s existential purpose is hollow—no matter how meticulously detailed such objectives are.

To take a concrete example: this NSS’s discussion around “core, vital” American interests often miss the mark. We hear about protecting economic resources, ensuring military dominance, or even countering specific adversaries. While these may be important, they often lack an understanding of what underpins America’s unique identity and role in the world. Our national security strategy should be about protecting the values in the Declaration of Independence—values that inherently tie our security to the preservation and expansion of liberty, both at home and abroad.

III. Soft Power and the American People: Tools vs. Ends

One of the most common missteps in contemporary discussions of national security is the treatment of soft power and the “American people” as tools to achieve strategic objectives. Often, policymakers talk about soft power—cultural diplomacy, economic influence, and international goodwill — as a tool, or weapon, to prevail in international affairs.  But trying to use America’s values and virtues as tools begs the question of the ends, again. 

America’s foreign policy and security posture should be grounded in the Declaration’s creed—an ambient, principled belief in the rights of individuals, the dignity of democracy, and every person’s pursuits in life. This is the core of America’s mission, and national security strategies should work to nurture that tenet, not simply aim to “win” what amount to tactical objectives.

IV. Principles and Priorities: No Clear Mission of the Mission

While there is no shortage of “principles” and “priorities” laid out in National Security Strategies, they lack a deeper exploration of the mission of the mission. What is the endgame? What is the larger narrative of American security, beyond the contests and threats of the day?

A national security strategy that elides this question misses the big picture. For example, the current NSS treats Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan treats these countries as geopolitical chess pieces, without addressing the role that democracy plays in the American ethos. The U.S. commitment to the defense of these democratic nations is not merely about balancing power in the Pacific, it is about aligning with nations that share America’s deep ethos. This connection is fundamental to understanding America’s place in the world and why certain alliances are essential to national security.

Additionally, the character of nations like England and Ireland often gets swept into discussions about geography and historical ties—yet these discussions rarely explore the basic underpinnings of American security.  Freedom, as we know it, demands certain ethics, such as the principle of non-aggression. When America fails to focus consistently on such principles, its national security strategy becomes incoherent and vulnerable to distortion for short term political considerations.

V. A New World, A New Approach: The Need for Reevaluation

We live in a new world, one where threats to national security are not confined to traditional military confrontations. Cyberattacks, economic espionage, and the influence of social media all present new challenges that have made traditional national security strategies seem increasingly outdated. Yet, in the rush to confront these emerging threats, many analysts and policymakers have neglected to ask a more fundamental question: What does America need to protect in the first place?

In today’s world, where the line between national security and other domains (like economics, technology, and even social media) is increasingly blurred, we must return to first principles. What is the mission of the mission? The Declaration of Independence gave America a unique existential purpose that should guide all our efforts, for security and more. This mission is not just about defeating adversaries or securing borders—it is about preserving and nurturing the freedoms that define America, at home and in the world.

As such, it is crucial that we reassess how we define national security in the context of these core values. America’s true security lies in its ability to live up to its creed—not just militarily, but socially, economically, and politically.

VI. Conclusion: Reaffirming America’s Creed

As we move forward in a rapidly changing global environment, America must rethink what it is that we are ultimately securing. Are we protecting resources, strategic alliances, and geopolitical advantages? Or are we safeguarding the enduring values laid out in the Declaration of Independence—values that not only define who we are but also serve as a beacon to the world?

Without grounding our national security strategy in the deeper purpose of our existence as a creedal nation, we risk losing our own way. It’s time to refocus our national security discourse – all public discourse, to reaffirm that our mission is not simply to survive, but to keep faith with our creed of rights and free people’s self-government.