OP-ED: Rep. Andy Biggs: Time to define what constitutes our country's 'national interest'

After eight years of feckless foreign policy positions that placed the United States in harm's way and conveyed weakness to our enemies, our nation is transitioning. President Trump promised voters that he would put America first and reduce the international community's dependence on the U.S. So far, he has taken decisive steps to fulfill that promise, including his demands for NATO countries to comply with their treaty obligations and pay their fair share of the alliance.

With a new administration and fresh policy objectives comes a much-needed conversation about America's place and role in the future of the world. The world is a dangerous place.

Russia took advantage of former President Barack Obama's "flexibility" by stretching its muscles in the region and interfering with sovereign elections. Iran benefited from the Obama's willingness to compromise, putting Israel and other Middle Eastern countries on a perilous slope toward war. North Korea continues an unabated march towards becoming a nuclear weapons nation, which could trigger a worldwide arms race. Worse still, Islamic terrorism continues to ravage many parts of the world.

Before the next major catastrophe hits our country or one of our closest allies, we must discuss how the U.S. will respond to these world events.

First, we must define what constitutes America's "national interest." This phrase is often used in defense of U.S. intervention, but inappropriately so since the end of the Cold War era. The classic definition of the phrase should be tied to the safety and sovereignty of American territories and

immediate threats to the Americans engaged in lawful actions. Adherence to this more limited definition would reshape U.S. involvement in the world as well as restructure some promises we have made to our allies.

One of the foremost American promises over the past century has been to NATO. The alliance was formed in 1949 on the heels of World War II and in the fledgling years of the Cold War. According to the State Department, "NATO's fundamental goal is to safeguard the Allies' freedom and security by political and military means."

The central tenet to the NATO alliance is Article 5 – "an attack against one Ally is an attack against all." This sounds appealing — however, any trigger of this article must not be carried out with blind allegiance.

NATO currently consists of 29 independent member countries, which is more than double the number of nations in the founding alliance. We must take a hard look at what the U.S. gains from this alliance and safeguard against anything that is no longer in our national interest.

NATO has fundamentally changed from its Cold War-era roots. We must closely examine the basis for the promises to protect the U.S. from "entangling alliances" that President George Washington warned against in his farewell address. He was right then, and we would be wise to take heed and follow his lead.

This leads to the second point: The U.S. should not and cannot be the world's policeman. We cannot be everywhere and must not be expected to settle all disputes and conflicts. When this nation has so much to resolve domestically, it is unrealistic for us to be involved with as many places as we are now.

This is not to suggest that the U.S. should radically withdraw from the world or from regions now heavily dependent on our presence. As we most recently observed, there is a fundamental danger to withdrawing U.S. leadership from the world – both to ourselves and to other countries. We cannot afford to leave a vacuum for an unfriendly nation to fill.

However, by remaining true to a definition of "national interest" and revitalizing former President Ronald Reagan's "peace through strength" mantra, the U.S. can best manage its assets and ensure that we are only sending our brave men and women to fight for their country's national security.

Third, Congress must declare war before our troops or military assets are deployed for a prolonged time of active engagement in response to a threat to our national interest. The last time our nation formally declared war was after the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Since then, U.S. troops and assets have been sent into countless conflicts without a formal declaration from Congress. Even now, as we have been at war with al Qaeda and the Islamic State for almost two decades, we lack a formal declaration of war.

A declaration of war is not a suggestion but a constitutional requirement, and the absence of one makes us weak and has proven problematic. Congress has been unaccountable to the people for many of our wartime decisions, and thus national pride and commitment to our endeavors has seriously waned.

As the U.S. faces unsteady times due to terrorism and volatile nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea threaten our security at home and abroad, we should expect and demand a declaration of war before a prolonged military response is undertaken. This constitutional action would force Congress to have the important conversations about whether U.S. military involvement in any conflict is appropriate.

Lastly, the U.S. must devote itself to a military that is, by far, the envy of the world. The Obama administration devastated our military assets, preparedness, and troop levels. Our military should have access to the latest technology and training, our troops should receive the pay they deserve, and our veterans should be treated with respect and dignity.

National security does not stop with the military. We must have a secure border and a firm guarantee that our immigration laws will be enforced. The U.S. must also renegotiate some of its trade agreements to ensure that Americans benefit from their enactment. Lastly, we must open up our limitless energy production to avoid an unhealthy reliance on other countries for some of our basic needs.

For too long, the U.S. has either cowered at the world's feet or overreacted to rapidly changing world events without setting long-term strategic interests and goals. The stakes are too high to continue this way.

We have an obligation to our future generations to show that the U.S. has a steady and constant hand on the wheel of fate. Only through this mindset can we truly achieve peace through strength.