Overall, has US security policy in the past few decades been characterized by continuity or change? Both? Some combination of the two?
Obviously as the world changes, our security and priorities must adapt to fit the current times. Historically, through these documents, we see that they do, but they don't stray far from the same themes. Starting with NSC-68 and ending with NSS 2017, I believe that the US’s security policy has followed the same themes of putting American safety first with regards to terrorism, securing our leading place in the global economy, and protecting and advancing the notion of democracy abroad while also shifting, depending on the administration and the current environment of international relations. To start with, there are overarching similarities between NSC-68 and NSS 2017 despite their rather separate time frames. Both documents use foreign fear as a means for controlling and persuading Americans to be anti-communism, anti-Russia/USSR, etc. This kind of ‘fear mongering’ strategy, as written by Sophia, is a constant political tactic to further the goals of whatever administration is in charge. Right now, the Trump administration demonizes Mexican immigrants, Middle Eastern refugees, and every other minority for being "very bad people" and "terrorists". As Arnold Wolfers writes, the foreign policy that is implemented is a reflection of national interest. He mentions that national security is an ambiguous symbol of the reflection of the people. In this current environment, I beg to differ. Basically, he writes, we are products of our environment which, regarding international security, changes constantly. I find that I cannot read about international relations without seeing the world ambiguity at least once. While we like to believe that our administration has our interest in mind considering we voted for them, Trump seems to further his views of social security regardless of majority opinion. This creates a social security that goes beyond closed borders and airport securitization. It isolates American people, which is always the object of the documents as indicated by our-"self", from the rest of the world in the respect that everyone that is not American is not safe and should not be in the country. So now, 'others', are limited to, or rather broadened to, literally the rest of the world. You can see why this is problematic. This started with the fact that Americans almost always associate Muslims with terrorism because of the 9/11 attacks. While a tragic event, America has recently seen that most terrorists are domestic (school shootings, package bombs, etc.). Also, while the Obama administration acknowledged that seeking answers to the root of terrorism with a smaller military presence abroad is a great leap towards advancing the notion of counterterrorism, the current administration has emphasized a more aggressive military existence and approach, which is very similar to Bush-era efforts of counter-terrorism due to the time of American opinion of security. It all depends on American perspective on our international relations. Right after 9/11, Americans were more in favor of closed favors and a larger military because we just witnessed the largest terrorist attack on domestic soil. This concept leads to tactics that exist in similar administrations. The tactics almost always support our lead role in the global economy, a larger military, the spread of democracy and free trade agreements, to shape a larger American leadership role on a global scale. So, to summarize, the American concept of security has changed over time, in part because of 9/11, the Cold War and development of nuclear weapons, and the growing threat to democracy abroad.
1 Comment
Jeremy Anderson
12/9/2018 08:58:58 pm
Hi Hannah,
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI'm Hannah Andress from Atlanta, GA! I am an SIS major and I am on the Women's Swim Team. I am interested in national security, policy making, and the Middle East as my country of interest! Archives
December 2018
Categories |