Agreeing with the sentiments of my peers, I would say that this document shows that the US are similar in not only their economic power, but military power as well. Many of their military stresses are quite similar, which shows that the US needs to be concerned with the possible overtaking of power from Chinese military, in order to protect national security. With China‘s strong cyber force, and past attempts from China on other states, the US should take this as a signal to strengthen cyber security, especially since China sees the US as its #1 threat. With China attempting to surpass the US in anyway, it is possible, as many have predicted, that the international community will sees this unipolar system become China dominated, overtaking the US.

I really enjoy the parallels in power dynamics between NATO and ASEAN. With NATO, you see the power of major players, such as the US, through the power dynamic and influence of NATO off balance. This is similar to ASEAN and the power of China. Essentially, nothing in ASEAN is done without the influence of China. This is why I believe ASEAN lacks a lot of power and accreditation that other NGOs have.

Pillar II was interesting to me because of its similarities in contradictions to Pillar I. As I mentioned in a previous comment, many statements from Pillar I were counterintuitive against one another. Similarly, while Pillar II states that supporting the American economy maintains American national security, many of the priority actions outlined in the Pillar II are contradictory to the actions of the Trump administration. For example, the Pillar II outlines education as a priority action for national security, but there have been recent cutbacks in education. Similar behaviors are shown towards other priority actions with some being shown favoritism and others impartiality, yet all are outlined equally in the same pillar.

The national security strategy is a document meant to assess immediate threats to national security and creates a plan of action to resolve/better the threats. It lays out the responsibilites of the federal government and institutions, as well as how state and local government must take action in the face of a national security threat. The strategy is an essential document because it also established America’s priority actions, lays out plans for major threats against national security, and puts identifiable threats in layman’s terms for the average American. In comparison to previous, older strategies, the 2017 version is quite interesting because of the Trump administration‘s “America First“ attitude toward national security. However, this seems to be counterintuitive because, as outlined in the strategy, American national security lies in not only the hands of the federal government, but its ability to work with foreign entities. Therefore, it is key that the American government find a stable balance between the two to protect national security. Older security strategies should also show an progressive evolution through the years of national security. Although, in practice, there is not much variation among them. Many national security issues in previous strategies remain true for the present strategy.