Realism and the 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy: True Freedom or an Empire of Fear?
Executive Summary
It is hardly surprising that the Trump administration anchored its grand strategy in Political Realism. However, a critical question demands scrutiny: does this doctrine pursue a sustainable peace, or does it merely perpetuate a cycle of structural violence? Is this strategy truly in the best interest of the American populace, or has the contemporary global order outgrown this zero-sum calculus?
1. The Genesis of the NSS and the Resurgence of "Realism"
The National Security Strategy (NSS) was first institutionalized in 1950 amidst the escalating tensions of the Early Cold War—a period when the United States faced an existential threat in Soviet expansionism. Designed as the nation’s supreme "Master Plan," the mandate requires all federal agencies and security apparatuses to strictly align their operational doctrines with its overarching framework.
Upon assuming office, President Donald Trump explicitly signaled a paradigm shift, declaring that his administration would navigate international relations through the lens of Political Realism—a dominant theoretical framework that has dictated the statecraft of statesmen and scholars for millennia.
ð️ The Core Tenet of Realism
Realism posits that the international system is inherently anarchic, lacking a central governing authority to enforce order or guarantee security. Consequently, state survival becomes the paramount objective.
The optimal strategy for survival is the relentless accumulation of military power, economic leverage, and national prestige—thereby ensuring relative superiority over potential adversaries. In practice, this zero-sum pursuit of survival often implicitly justifies state aggression, preemption, and the aggressive containment of rival powers.
2. "America in Peril" — The Narrative of Fear and Strategic Victimhood
In the preamble of the 2017 NSS, personally penned by President Trump, the global landscape is depicted as an "extraordinarily dangerous world." The document portrays a United States besieged by multifaceted, asymmetric threats:
Rogue Regimes: Actively proliferating nuclear capabilities to challenge U.S. global hegemony.
Radical Islamist Terror Networks: Ideologically driven to dismantle the core of the American way of life.
Revisionist Powers: Systematically undermining U.S. interests and eroding the rules-based international order.
Asymmetric Economic Practices: Unfair trade ecosystems paired with "free-riding" allies who refuse to equitably share the burden of collective defense.
ðĄ Critical Perspective: The Hegemon as "Predator" or "Victim"?
Through a strict realist lens, no state is ever truly secure. Yet, it is deeply ironic that the United States—the world’s sole hyperpower—chooses to frame itself as a "victim" of global exploitation, rather than acknowledging its role as the primary architect of the very global system it now claims is rigged. This narrative conveniently obscures the historical legacy of U.S. interventionism and economic dominance.
This paradox was sharply criticized by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who characterized the strategy as inherently aggressive—a doctrine that masks expansionist ambitions under the euphemism of "national defense."
Ultimately, the Trump administration’s worldview was painted in starkly apocalyptic terms to cultivate domestic anxiety, convincing the electorate that only a strong state could restore order. Concurrently, it projected a contradictory vision: a desire for a world of strong, sovereign, and independent nations coexisting in peace—an ideal fundamentally at odds with the pursuit of absolute American primacy.
3. The "America First" Doctrine: Four Pillars and Five Theaters
The 2017 NSS is anchored by the political mantra of "America First," operationalized through a strategic matrix comprising four core pillars and five geopolitical theaters:
| The Four Strategic Pillars | The Five Geographic Theaters |
| Pillar 1: Protect the American People, the Homeland, and the American Way of Life | 1. Indo-Pacific |
| Pillar 2: Promote American Prosperity | 2. Europe |
| Pillar 3: Preserve Peace through Strength | 3. Middle East |
| Pillar 4: Advance American Influence | 4. South & Central Asia 5. Western Hemisphere & Africa |
The strategy's introduction asserts that the United States must secure its prosperity and liberty through overwhelming power, boldly declaring America to be one of the "greatest forces for good in history," destined to safeguard global peace.
ðĄ Critical Perspective: Benevolent Hegemon or Imperial Overreach?
The assertion that the U.S. must lead the world in every domain implies a doctrine of perpetual global interventionism—a readiness to project power into any region where U.S. interests are deemed at stake, irrespective of host-nation sovereignty.
This raises a fundamental philosophical question: If Washington positions itself as the absolute arbiter of global affairs, what meaningful role remains for other nations? Will their citizens ever enjoy parity with the American populace? Conversely, would the international community not be more stable without unilateral hegemony? While Washington attempts to consolidate a Unipolar World, the global trajectory is unmistakably shifting toward a Multipolar Order, indicating that this strategy is running counter to the historical tide.
4. Military Supremacy and the Normalization of Conflict
The NSS acknowledges a sobering reality: while the U.S. military remains the most formidable on earth, its margin of overmatch is rapidly eroding. Adversaries have modernized their conventional forces and nuclear arsenals, rendering the American homeland more vulnerable than in previous decades. Consequently, the administration advocates for aggressive defense spending and the acquisition of next-generation weaponry to restore absolute dominance.
Nevertheless, the strategy paradoxically posits that great power competition need not escalate into open warfare. Instead, it champions the classic doctrine of "Peace through Strength"—the belief that overwhelming deterrence is the only guarantor of stability.
ð Deep Analysis: The Militarization of Diplomacy
In practice, this strategy normalizes a permanent state of strategic friction. It views geopolitical conflict not as an anomaly to be solved, but as an inherent feature of the international system—provided the U.S. extracts the maximum relative advantage from these tensions.
This raises a profound ethical dilemma regarding the global value of American democracy: What does it signify when a nation’s foreign policy becomes indistinguishable from Imperial Realism, aimed entirely at subordinating global populations to its "Vital National Interests"? How can such a transactional doctrine be reconciled with the rhetoric of global "freedom"?
5. Interpreting "Realism" in the Age of Globalization
It is crucial to recognize that classical realists are not inherently warmongers, particularly in a modern era where the costs of total war are prohibitively high. They view the world pragmatically as a domain where cooperation and conflict are inextricably linked. Survival strategies, however, vary wildly by state capacity:
Small States: Lacking the leverage for direct confrontation, they pursue survival through strategic hedging, bandwagoning, or forming balancing coalitions.
Great Powers: Possessing the capacity to alter the system, they aggressively pursue strategies that maximize relative gains at the expense of others.
However, in an era of globalization and digital interdependence, a rigid, textbook application of classical realism is increasingly obsolete. Geopolitical friction no longer emanates solely from state-to-state rivalries. Non-state actors, transnational networks, and cyber-adversaries now possess the asymmetric tools to strike swiftly and unpredictably, rendering traditional, state-centric deterrence models fundamentally inadequate.
6. Forecasting the Impact: Toward a Paranoid Society?
The implementation of the 2017 NSS drew severe international backlash, particularly from strategic rivals like Russia and China, who viewed the U.S. as retreating into an outdated Cold War mentality—prioritizing confrontation over multilateral cooperation. Critics argue this zero-sum approach destabilizes regional security architectures and incentivizes dangerous proxy conflicts.
Furthermore, the administration’s willingness to abruptly withdraw from multilateral frameworks (such as the Paris Climate Agreement) in pursuit of short-term, transactional gains underscores a troubling trend: the U.S. is prepared to undermine global civilizational cooperation for the sake of immediate self-preservation.
Conclusion: The Paradox of Security
A grand strategy predicated on the cultivation of conflict and the endless accumulation of hardware does not enhance actual security; it exacerbates global instability and ultimately rebounds upon the American populace. By exaggerating external threats and institutionalizing fear, the architecture of "America First" has inadvertently molded American society into a "Paranoid Society"—one that exists in a perpetual state of existential anxiety.
The final, haunting question remains: Is a society driven by collective fear and the subjugation of others truly "civilized"? And can a grand strategy built upon such radical, zero-sum realism ever foster sustainable security for either America or the world?
Chanchai Kumpunya(āļāļēāļāļัāļĒ āļุ้āļĄāļัāļāļāļē)
Latest update 7 July 2026
Editorial Note: This article is an expanded English adaptation of the author's original column published in Thai Post Newspaper.
Comments
Post a Comment