The comparison of both strategic documents shows that the analysis of the new threats of terrorism and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction is similar, as well as the stated strategic goals/ ends. The great difference can be found in the ways/ concepts, how the United States on the one hand and the European Union on the other hand intend to counter these threats and to achieve the respective strategic goals/ends. The analyzed key differences are: Unilateralism versus multilateralism, preemption versus prevention and legitimacy of the use of force to achieve strategic objectives. The NSS tends to stress "hard power" and military solutions with the option of preemption and a unilateralist "go it alone approach," but is downplaying the role of the United Nations, the role of Islam, and possible options of civilian conflict prevention. While the ESS sees more the merit in effective multilateralism and "soft power" that combines economic, diplomatic as well as military assets. This approach will allow the European Union acting as "robust civilian power." But the EU credibility as a foreign policy actor will depend on translating its strategy into plans and operations. Despite all disagreements in the transatlantic relationship there is an urgent need, but also a common basis for cooperation in combating global terrorism. Complementarity, not conflict should be the new transatlantic watchword.

ADA437450 Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)