Republican and Democratic Differences on National Security - Essay Example

Over the last few years, there has emerged a great debate between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party concerning the national security policies, which would best guarantee the security of the United States. Some believe that the policies, which have been put in place so far, have gone too far and are in fact eroding the freedoms that have been guaranteed to all the citizens and foreigners on American soil. On the other hand, others believe that what has been done so far is not enough and that more needs to be done to ensure that the nation is in a state of the highest security. The two political parties both have very different approaches to national security and each tends to attempt to block the policies that their rivals attempt to put in place simply because they do not agree with them. The Democrats’ approach to national security is based on the belief that guaranteeing the freedoms of the people is the best way to ensure their security because if they feel secure in their own country and in their government’s ability to protect them, then the security risk to them would be greatly diminished (Mehta and Smith, 2012). The Republicans believe that the best way to deal with matters concerning national security is by taking away some of the freedoms, which people enjoy so that the government can have more room to ensure that they are protected in every way. In other words, it can be considered the loss of a few freedoms for the good of everyone. The security posture of the United States before the September 11 attacks was very different from the one that came after these attacks. Before September 11, the federal government played a very restricted role in the internal security of the nation and most of the security matters were left in the hands of the state and local governments. Furthermore, most of the security agencies were not on a very high alert for any foreign attacks on the United States because such threats were considered nonexistent. Instead, security agencies concentrated on the potential from within and this was a huge flaw on their part. The American military had bases all over the world in allied countries and these had been put in place to protect American interests in these respective regions. The military had not seen much active service since the 1991 Gulf war and its presence in allied countries functioned as a deterrent to those who would wish to harm American interests. All these, however, changed after the attacks and this sparked a new debate between the Democrats and the Republicans on how to handle the issue. The war on terror which came as a result brought a large number of suspected al Qaeda members in to the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba and the matter of how to have them prosecuted raised a lot of debate (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2012). The Democrats have been in favor of having these detainees prosecuted according to the federal law of the United States within the country. The Republicans on the other hand have supported the prosecution of these detainees according to military law because prosecuting them on American soil would be a security threat to the nation. There are many policies, which were enacted immediately after the September 11 attacks and during the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq in relation antiterrorism. Most of these laws we put in place to ensure that no other attack of the scale of the September 11 attacks ever took place on American soil again. Some of the laws that were enacted by Congress and signed into law by former president Bush include the following: the President’s Surveillance Program; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 2008; Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act; and finally, the Patriot Act. Most of these legislations were controversial at the time of their passing and remain so today with both sides of the debate having a large number of supporters. The majority of the Democrats from the onset opposed these pieces of legislation stating that they went against the spirit of the American constitution, which guaranteed freedom to all (Cauley, 2006). They further stated that these laws interfered in the private lives of the American people because they gave the government the power to get information concerning their lives without a warrant. The Republican stance has been that these laws were necessary to guarantee the security of the nation and that personal interests such as the right to privacy had to be set aside for the good of the entire nation. The Republicans argue that these laws have been put in place as a strong measure to ensure the domestic security of the United States while the military defended it externally. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have very different visions concerning the future national security policy of the United States and this has been clearly stated in the ongoing presidential contest by their respective nominees (Lane, 2012). One of the most contentious points on matters of national security is the one on defense funding. The Democrats have pledged to go for a reduction of funding for the military in favor of more funding for the public service if they are reelected. They have stated that the defense budget of the United States is too large and that its reduction would not hurt the national security of the United States in any way. This is in complete contrast to the Republican point of view that the spending on the defense of the nation is very low and that it should be increased to strengthen further its security. Moreover, the Republicans are pledging that a significant part of the American GDP will be set aside for the purposes of defense because they feel that enough is not being currently done to ensure its funding (American exceptionalism, 2012). Changes to the existing national security legislation has also become a point of contention between these two parties with the Democrats opting for the removal of certain clauses from these laws to protect the privacy of Americans while the Republicans are advocating for even tougher clauses to be included in these laws as a security measure. These two parties are not always in opposite directions in matters of national security and they at times even come together for the sake of the welfare of the American people (Kaplan, 2010). These parties have repeatedly put aside their differences in ideology to protect the citizens of the United States and this was seen when decisions were being made in response to the September 11 attacks and its aftermath. Recently, there has been some agreement between Democrats and Republicans on the matter concerning the prosecution of Guantanamo Bay detainees with the President approving their prosecution under military laws because of the risk they pose it they were to be prosecuted under the federal laws. In conclusion, it can be said that these two parties have the best interests of the American people at heart, only that they have very different approaches to achieving them. The policies on national security have been a controversial issue between them but both of these parties have ideas, which could work very well for the security of the nation. A balance between the policies of the two would most likely be the best policies to adopt for the United States’ security to be guaranteed because in truth, no national security policy is always watertight. Cooperation is the key towards securing the security of the nation from forces within and without. References Cauley, L. (2006, May 10). Nsa has massive database of americans phone calls .USATODAY. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm Encyclopædia Britannica. (2012). Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1503067/Guantanamo-Bay-detention- camp/1503067yblinks/Year-in-Review-Links Kaplan, M. (2010). Us defense Politics/arsenal of Democracy/clausewitz and America/national security and core values in american history. International Journal, 65(3), 788-792. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/853000475?accountid=1331 Lane, C. (2012). The candidates and foreign policy. World Affairs, Retrieved from http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/candidates-and-foreign-policy Mehta, A., & Smith, R. J. (2012, September 6). Is the democratic platform in synch with the public on national defense?. Retrieved from http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/09/06/10806/democratic-platform-synch-public- national-defense American exceptionalism. Republican Party. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_exceptionalism/ Read More