The Biden Administration has released its 2022 National Security Strategy – the document setting forth the international goals of this presidency and the path to achieving them. The overarching goal is, “…a free, open, prosperous, and secure international order.” That’s a little…open-ended. And an open-ended strategy means it can be twisted to cover whatever a particular legislator, administration official, or pundit wants to justify.

The Administration goes on to identify three specific lines of effort:

1. “Invest in the underlying sources and tools of American power and influence,
2. “Build the strongest possible coalition of nations to enhance our collective influence to shape the global strategic environment and to solve shared challenges, and
3. “Modernize and strengthen our military so it is equipped for the era of strategic competition with major powers, while maintaining the capability to disrupt the terrorist threat to the homeland.”

Numbers 1 and 2 tilt heavily to diplomacy and other so-called “soft power” activities. For a budget watchdog like Taxpayers for Common Sense, that’s a good sign. Diplomacy (as opposed to military action) is the bargain basement tool the United States employs in the international arena. In the roughest possible terms, we need only to point out the size of the Fiscal Year 2022 budget request for the State Department ($33.8 billion), versus the same figure for the Pentagon ($773 billion) and the entire national security apparatus ($827 billion) to show where our fiscal emphasis lies.

But #3, well, that’s the budgetary wildcard.

The National Security Strategy emphasizes domestic investments to “outcompete our rivals and tackle shared challenges”. The discrete goals in this section focus on industrial policy, innovation, critical infrastructure, supply chains, pandemics and biodefense, etc. These are all things largely outside the purview of the Department of Defense and its budget.

There is also significant emphasis placed on climate and energy security issues. As the strategy points out, that’s vitally important to reduce risks to, “food and water supplies, public health, and infrastructure and our national security.” At Taxpayers for Common Sense, we’re still advocating for Request for Proposals (RFPs) for future government contracts to place emphasis on bidders who take corporate action to reduce the climate impact of their companies. That common sense idea doesn’t appear in this document but is taking hold in the Biden Administration.

There is specific reliance on the use of diplomacy to build multi-national coalitions of like-minded countries who wish to, “advance and defend a world that is free, open, prosperous, and secure.” This should largely be an exercise in diplomacy, but historically many of our most enduring coalitions were built in response to military or territorial aggression by the bad actors of the world. Think of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations. Then there is our interaction with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which we are not a member, but that helps inform our actions in the Indo-Pacific region. Membership or partnership of the United States is sought by these groups due to our leadership in the world of free nations and, let’s face it, to our pre-eminent military capabilities.

When the National Security Strategy gets to Part IV, “Our Strategy by Region”, we start to see the potential for the words to influence the Pentagon budget – always in an upward direction. In the Indo-Pacific, for instance, we pledge to work with regional countries, “to keep the Indo-Pacific open and accessible and ensure that nations are free to make their own choices, consistent with obligations under international law.” Well, hello China, its current posture vis-à-vis Taiwan, and actions in the South China Sea. Keeping the peace in that part of the world may be our largest, most complex, and most expensive goal.

“Deepening our Alliance with Europe”, likewise, is complicated and we have empirical proof of how expensive our support for Ukraine has been. The latest White House request for emergency aid for Ukraine tops out at $38 billion. This is just the latest tranche, on top of at least $53 billion in unclassified funding appropriated in three different bills  to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Events earlier this week underscored how NATO can be drawn into conflict with Russia if things escalate. A missile strike in Poland (a NATO member) killed two Polish citizens. Initially it was unclear if it was a Russian or Ukrainian missile. Poland and NATO officials have indicated it was part of a Ukrainian air defense system employed against Russia but that Ukraine was not at fault. Phew. The cost – in lives and dollars – of an air and land war in Europe would be astronomical.

The National Security Strategy goes on to name fostering democracy in the Western Hemisphere, building partnerships in Africa, and maintaining a peaceful Arctic, all of which are better suited to diplomatic actions.

The cost in American lives and dollars of conflict in the Middle East is a very recent memory. That and protecting “Sea, Air, and Space” are largely military pursuits, although all have an element of diplomacy.

While this new security strategy emphasizes the importance of diplomacy, don’t bet against the Pentagon and its boosters finding plenty of prose in this document to justify increases to the topline.