The United States is strategically lost twixt the gilded memory of a global Pax Americana benevolently presided over by the world’s erstwhile sole superpower, and the uncertainties of an emerging multipolar, neo-mercantilist world that is a work in progress and whose end state is unknown. In this transition period while America tries to find its bearings, Washington’s disoriented decision-makers are squandering U.S. power without purpose to safeguard nebulous vital national interests that cannot be clearly articulated against imaginary threats that are inflated by incendiary rhetoric.
It’s time to press the reset button and rediscover and reimagine America’s vital national interests to serve as a compass to exit the strategic cul-de-sac of the present and navigate the challenges of the future.
The essential first step is to look to the Founding Fathers of the republic for guidance. Alexander Hamilton, writing as “Pacificus,” certainly had the most succinct answer: “Self-preservation is the first duty of a Nation.” Hamilton’s preoccupation was on actual and imminent foreign threats.
To his credit, President Donald Trump in his national security strategy echoes Hamilton’s formulation: “First and foremost, we want the continued survival and safety of the United States as an independent, sovereign republic whose government secures the God-given natural rights of its citizens and prioritizes their well-being and interests.” Unfortunately, in its actions (such as launching the war against Iran, supporting a proxy war against Russia, and engaging in a trade war against China), the Trump administration seems to have lost sight of Hamilton’s North Star in a hubristic quest for global hegemony.
So, as America celebrates its semiquincentennial anniversary, it’s appropriate to clearly articulate our understanding of the vital national interests of the U.S. that must be safeguarded against actual or imminent foreign threats (as distinct from amorphous, potential external threats).
There are five irreducible, indivisible, and inextricably intertwined vital national interests. First, territorial integrity and inviolability. Second, political independence and sovereignty of the state. Third, the physical and economic security of the state’s citizens. Fourth, preservation of the citizens’ national identity. Fifth, recognition of an exclusive sphere of influence to serve as a cordon sanitaire to safeguard the U.S.
If any of these five vital national threats is threatened, the continued, sustainable existence of the U.S. as a viable political entity is jeopardized. It is for this reason that a threat to such vital national interests is considered to be existential, and, therefore, would be countered by using all of the available means of U.S. power, including a war using tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.
Quite bluntly, mutual assured destruction in defense of the nation’s vital national interests would be acceptable. The stark reality of Patrick Henry’s declaration, “Give me liberty or give me death,” continues to resonate as loudly today as it did in 1775. So, clarity with respect to the nature of the five vital national interests of the U.S. is essential to avoid any misunderstanding.
Manifestly, ambiguity with respect to vital national interests (including conflating desires with needs, a temptation which both George Washington and John Quincy Adams thought best to avoid), however well intentioned, can be injurious and dangerous. For a threat to be existential, it must be actual or at least imminent if mutual annihilation could be the ultimate consequence.
What is the geographic scope of the territorial boundaries of the U.S.? Surprisingly, the answer is not self-evident. The Department of the Interior (U.S. Geological Survey), the Department of War (Air Force), and the Immigration and Nationality Act, each have different descriptions of the U.S.
For avoidance of doubt, the U.S. has four geographic components: (1) the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia; (2) the two noncontiguous states, Alaska and Hawaii; (3) the five inhabited island territories: Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Marianas Islands, and Guam; and (4) the nine virtually uninhabited U.S. Minor Outlying Islands: Midway Islands, Wake Island, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef, and Navassa Island.
The land, airspace, waters (including a 12-mile maritime boundary per customary international law and, via a 1983 presidential proclamation, a 200-mile exclusive economic zone beyond the customary maritime boundary), and everything on, above, and below such features (including electromagnetic spectrums) constitute the scope of American territory. The Commerce Department has highlighted the strategic value of America’s maritime domain: “With more [than] 3.4 million square nautical miles (4 million square miles) of ocean, the U.S. EEZ is larger than the land area of all 50 states combined. … It contains a vast array of natural resources, such as seafood, critical minerals, medicines, and areas of significant ecological and conservation value.”
Obviously, defense of the homeland must be the supreme vital national interest as it distills the concept of self-preservation to its very essence.
In order to provide a buffer or security envelope for the defense of the homeland, the U.S. needs to unilaterally establish a permanent, exclusive sphere of influence or cordon sanitaire. All countries or territories within the sphere of influence would be de jure or de facto protectorates of the U.S. Accordingly, they would subordinate their respective vital national interests to U.S. vital national interests, and no foreign power could have any relationship with any state or non-state actor within the cordon sanitaire without at least the implicit acquiescence of the U.S.
James Monroe, in his 1823 message to Congress, carved out the Americas (or Western Hemisphere) as the U.S. sphere of influence: “We should consider any attempt on their part [European powers] to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.” Since then, the other countries of the Americas, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the Arctic to the Antarctic, have constituted the permanent core of the U.S. sphere of influence.
After World War II, the U.S. sphere of influence expanded across the Atlantic to Western Europe (via the NATO treaty) and across the Pacific to Japan, South Korea, and Australia (via bilateral treaties). Large swathes of the Middle East and Southeast Asia ultimately fell under the sway of the U.S. Following the end of the Cold War, the U.S. sphere of influence expanded further to fill the void left by the demise of the Soviet Union.
TRUMP HAS BEEN THE ULTIMATE CHRISTIAN DEFENDER — EXCEPT ON ONE CRITICAL ISSUE
By the time of the al Qaeda attack on the American homeland on Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. sphere of influence had reached its zenith, and America was the de facto global hegemon. Since then, Russia has reemerged as a Eurasian power, and China, with a manufacturing sector that dwarfs the U.S. manufacturing sector, has emerged as an Asian power. A brave new multipolar, neo-mercantilist world is now evolving rapidly.
Washington’s decision-makers must ditch the obsolete U.S. sphere of influence (burdened by legacy security commitments) and design a new one fit for the next 250 years and beyond. To do so, Washington must go back to America’s roots and embrace the pragmatic realism of the Founding Fathers. In fact, the solution is hiding in plain sight: defense of the homeland and the rest of the Americas as the exclusive sphere of influence buffered by a maritime (and airspace) security corridor in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans in an arc from Greenland to Argentina and Chile to the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau.
Samir Tata is the founder and president of International Political Risk Analytics, an advisory firm based in Reston, Virginia, and author of the book Reflections on Grand Strategy: The Great Powers in the Twenty-first Century.