a framework of democratic values, and encourage African governments to engage their militaries in constructive tasks of infrastructure building. Major emerging democracies such as South Africa and Nigeria will be key players as partners with the United States and its allies.

SIXTH, TO HELP THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TAME THE DISINTEGRATIVE FORCES SPAWNED BY AN ERA OF CHANGE.

The disruptive new forces of globaliza

tion are subjecting many governments to extraordinary pressures. In many states, what used to be governmental monopolies on the use of force, on law making, and over the supply of money are now "privatized" in various ways. Even the spread of the idea of freedom, while positive in the long run, is often accompanied by destabilization. The disruption of the political and territorial status quo in much of the world will be one of the distinctive features of international affairs over the next quarter century.

To address these spreading phenomena of weak and failed states, ethnic separatism and violence, and the crises they breed, the United States needs first to establish priorities. Not every such problem must be primarily a U.S. responsibility, particularly in a world where other powers are amassing significant wealth and human resources. There are countries whose domestic stability is, for differing reasons, of major importance to U.S. interests (such as Mexico, Colombia, Russia, and Saudi Arabia). Without prejudging the likelihood of domestic upheaval, these countries should be a priority focus of U.S. planning in a manner appropriate to the respective cases.

For cases of lesser priority, the United States should help the international community develop innovative mechanisms to manage the

bilateral basis, many more international phenomena will be increasingly regional in nature and more will be fully global. The proliferation of non-state actors will also strain the traditional categories within which American diplomacy is organized.

As this Commission emphasized in its Phase I report, the economic dimensions of statecraft are also becoming more important. Among the democracies in what is known as the "zone of democratic peace," economic issues can rival the importance of military ones. But economic issues are also of critical importance to the prospect that other emerging or developing states will succeed or fail with fundamental political and social reform. American strategy must also recognize the importance of technology as the basic underpinning of economic health and military prowess the world over.

All this means that the integrating function of U.S. policymaking processes will be challenged as never before. Traditional national security agencies (State, Defense, CIA, NSC staff) will need to work together in new ways, and economic agencies (Treasury, Commerce, U.S. Trade Representative) will need to work more closely with the traditional national security community. In addition, other players especially Justice and Transportation-will need to be integrated more fully into national security processes. Merely improving the interagency process around present structures may not suffice.

Moreover, the U.S. government must learn to build more effective partnerships with state and local governments, and government as a whole must develop new partnerships with nongovernmental organizations—though without sacrificing its ultimate responsibility and accountability for determining national policy.

Fundamental to U.S. national security strategy is the need to project U.S. power globally with forces stationed in the United States, and those stationed abroad and afloat in the forward presence role. Owing to the proliferation of new defense technologies in the hands of other states, effective power projection will become more difficult for the U.S. armed forces in the 21st century. U.S. forces must therefore possess greater flexibility to operate in a range of environments, including those in which the enemy has the capability to employ weapons of mass destruction. U.S. forces must be characterized by stealth, speed, range, accuracy, lethality, agility, sustainability, reliability and be supported by superior intelligence-in order to deal effectively with the spectrum of symmetrical and asymmetrical threats we anticipate over the next quarter century.

This Commission believes that the "two major theater wars" yardstick for sizing U.S. forces is not producing the capabilities needed for the varied and complex contingencies now occurring and likely to increase in the years ahead. These contingencies, often calling for expeditionary interventions or stability opera

tions, require forces different from those designed for major theater war. We believe these contingencies will occur in the future with sufficient regularity and simultaneity as to oblige the United States to adapt portions of its force structure to meet these needs. The overall force would then have the ability to engage effectively in contingencies ranging from humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, to peace and expeditionary combat operations, to large-scale, high-intensity conventional warfare. Finally, we recommend that the force structure designed to address these needs be developed on the basis of real-world intelligence assessments rather than illustrative scenarios.

In short, the capabilities mandated by these requirements will result in forces able to deploy rapidly, be employed immediately, and prevail decisively in expeditionary roles, prolonged stability operations, and major theater wars; a force to deter wars, to preclude crises from evolving into major conflicts, and to win wars rapidly and decisively should it become necessary.

America must also enhance the civil (that is, non-military) aspects of homeland security. These functions must be adequately funded and organized along appropriate lines of authority, responsibility, and accountability. The National Guard-successor to the militia, and acknowledged in the Second Amendment as the historic defender of the Republic-must be trained and equipped to assume, among its other responsibilities, a significant role in defending the homeland in the 21st century.

It is imperative, too, that the United States develop and fund these five kinds of capabilities consistent with the level of need created by changing political and security realities. Given the demands now placed upon this nation's military, or those anticipated in the next quarter century, it is evident that modern forces equal

to these demands cannot be sustained by current levels of spending.

To Phase III-Building for Peace

The strategy articulated here requires

that the United States lead in the construction of a world balanced between the expansion of freedom, and the maintenance of underlying stability. To do so it must concert its efforts with others and, to the extent possible, in a way consistent with the interests of others.

Having become a global power, the United States now holds a responsibility it will not abandon, both for the safeguarding of American interests and the broader interests of global peace and security. The United States is the first nation with fully global leadership responsibilities, but there are more and less effective ways to lead. Tone matters. Leadership is not the same as dominance; everyone else's business need not also be America's. Just as riches without integrity are unavailing, so power without wisdom is unworthy. As Shakespeare put it: