The American Governments Definition of Security - Coursework Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx @2013 Q. Evaluate the definition of security employed by USA government Introduction The threat within the international system is constantly changing, and this has led to the need for a new form of thinking in relation to security in the United States. Global populations have become more interlinked through trade, communication technology and trade. Societies have therefore become more vulnerable to aspects of threat that appeared containable and distant before. The new security threats bypass borders easily and appear almost inevitable (Kugler 2011). It is therefore necessary that these forms of threats have to be included in policy agendas relating to security and further into security strategies. Strategy always needs to begin with defining the problem that it seeks to address, but according to Gray (2009), the definition of security is not sufficient in the United States. Although there is a clear statement of security strategy, there is need for a better definition of security at all levels. This paper offers an evaluation of the US government’s definition of security. The American Government’s Definition of Security Although globalization brings with it new threats and diminishes others and governments are voted in with different ideologies, having a comprehensive and relevant basic definition will ensure broadness and relevance for a longer time. Through having a better definition of security, the country also stands to gain more credibility as a world leader, away from current trends where it might possibly be viewed as a selfish nation (George & Kline 2006). Those who accuse it of such do not need to have a reasonable justification from the definition. According to Davis (2010), the US has been engaged in military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The current administration is also fast acquiring critics and Republicans and democrats have a difficult time trying to reach effective compromises on a variety of issues. Considering the gravity of the situation however, defining national security in a more cohesive and comprehensive manner is a venture that needs to be given priority. The American definition of national security has been done by the Department of Defense. According to the department, national security comprises of both foreign relations and national defense of the United States. Its objectives, in this view include having a defense position which is able to effectively resist destructive or hostile action that may arise from inside or outside. It also seeks to have a defense and military advantage over foreign nations or groups of nations and finally, have a favorable posture with respect to foreign relations structures. The definition is complete with the three objectives as different statements supporting the idea of defense at the national and foreign relations levels (Bolton 2009). Apart from the national security component, there is a general lack of clarity with regard to the definition of security at all levels of government. According to Kravets (2013), the problem of defining security has been in the United States for a while. By 2011, a decade after terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the government did not have a unified definition of what homeland security is for instance. Various mission statements and strategic documents offered varied missions that were derived from different definitions of homeland security as a concept. However, when examining seven documents from the Department of homeland Security and the White House, the Congressional Research Service noted the main theme as being terrorism. Only one of them had immigration and maritime security in it. Four had natural disasters as an issue and one used ‘other hazards’ in reference to any other threat apart from terrorism. A Critique of the Definition Within the national security strategy and its definition, global institutions are considered a way of dealing with security concerns. It is believed that the major threat to US security in the international arena arises from entities that are detached from the global community. These are the main facilitators of terrorism either through provision of safe havens, weapons or funding. Countries such as North Korea and Iran are also a source of instability as they seek to have nuclear weapons and effectively pose a threat to global resources such as oil and sea-lanes. The American security system therefore seeks to integrate the non-players into existing global institutions (DeRouen & Bellamy 2008). Within the last half a century, the world’s economic system has developed a growing dependence on digital information and therefore infrastructure. According to Johnson (2012), internet and computer technologies have been instrumental in promoting economic advantages. However, the increasing dependence has exposed the society more to digital threats. Cyber security is therefore a significant and high level policy issue, thereby becoming the source of many questions. The national security strategy acknowledges that the country’s security in a globalizing world increasing ties national interests to those of both its adversaries and allies. Pathways for trade, the need to access strategic resources and the need to ensure the promotion of democracy especially for foreign citizens might not always be possible to align. The country therefore has no choice but to seek its own strategic interests while at the same time promoting human rights and democracy elsewhere in the world peacefully. In spite of challenges that are faced, the United States remains to be the strongest nation worldwide and therefore the most capable among world powers. It therefore retains the opportunity to encourage the development of an international system which is more stable and can operate even in the face of the global system becoming more multi-polar. Policing it and taking the role of almost a security provider to the others is a heavy responsibility. It is capable of damaging the country’s legitimacy abroad and usually generates more geopolitical challenges than those which it produces. It is almost guaranteed that the American influence will face challenges, especially in strategic locations around the world. A proper definition of security becomes useful in such a setting (George & Kline 2006). According to DeRouen & Bellamy (2008), China and India are fast rising within the global power structure. This is due to the trend of economically emerging nations. The two have continued growing impressively in the face of a global financial crisis. Their large populations are fast rising from poverty and both military and technological development is clearly the trend in their countries. With this, there is the possibility that the current US relative power will diminish, although it will maintain absolute advantage in relation to critical aspects of national power. In spite of the details, the definition as it is appears inadequate and may therefore not be effectively applied in guiding the country’s national Security Strategy due to its major weaknesses. The first of these relates to its splitting of national security into three components or conditions. This makes it a collection of definitions. Considering that they are not mutually exclusive, having them as three objectives seemingly leads to the creation of an overall definition which is variable depending on the issue that is being handled at the time. There is the need to have a single and collective definition which can easily be referred to for easier interpretation. In addition, the idea of inside or outside the nation as presented is not clear. It is only for the person reading it to guess that it implies the American homeland, or more precisely, refers to American territory. The definitions appear too restrictive to make sense individually. This is because for instance, seeking to have a defense posture that will enable it to successfully resist destructive or hostile action is not enough. Giving ‘conditions’ is all about an ability to successfully avoid or preempt destructive action by means of diplomacy, foreign aid or social, economic or political policies. In addition, the condition might have been created simply to reassure the people that there is something positive foreseen. The fact that many security definitions exist at the national level might limit the creation of a coherent strategy for security, at least at the domestic level. However, having examined the close link between domestic and international security matters, it is a real challenge. This is because missions and definitions are significant components of strategy development. Policymakers can only make strategies through the identification of national interests, prioritizing the goals that would enable the attainment of the national security interests and outlining the instruments that are necessary for the achievement of the interests (Kravets 2013). The Need for Better Definition Arriving at a definition of security is not easy. This is because it is both subjective and political. According to Williams (2012), it has a role to play in determining the allocation of resources in world politics. It can be used for expediency hence the need to evaluate it. Security is a powerful tool that can be utilized in justifying the prioritization of some items that may be competing for the government’s attention. The place of who decides the definition of security, what items make their way into the national security agendas, the way that they are to be resolved and the steps to be taken in case different understandings of the term collide therefore becomes an important aspect. A better definition would have one that describes national security in relation to an ability to provide some stated condition rather than a condition which is a product of the ability. This is because placing a greater focus on ability tends to be more empowering psychologically. National security seeks to keep the individuals that it defines safe in both the psychological and physical understandings of the term. It is therefore important that in offering a definition, the American people should be able to have confidence in the efforts and mechanisms which are in place to ensure that they are safe (Kugler 2011). Considering this, a better definition would be an ability to safeguard American interests, including both psychological and physical through proactive and defensive actions that will effectively deal with threats, either within or outside the nation’s boundaries. According to George & Kline (2006), such a definition would be more appropriate, considering the fact that the national Security Strategy dwells on prosperity, security, international order and American values. Gray (2009) explains that the physical component of the definition relates to the military capacity and strength of the country to successfully handle any challenges posed by adversaries. This includes engaging in war if it proves necessary. It also includes a more significant role for economics, intelligence and other such non-military activities that aid in dealing with other states and the international community in general. The psychological dimension on its part is a subjective element which reflects upon the attitudes and opinions of the country’s citizens in relation to their government’s ability to maintain a secure environment in relation to the external environment. The psychological dimension has an effect on the people’s willingness to offer their government support in its efforts to pursue and deliver on its stated national security objectives. The underlying issue here is that most people possess the will and knowledge to support national security goals, only as long as there are clear policies that are acceptable to them. National security should be viewed within the context of foreign policy. According to Davis (2010), foreign policy’s purposes are multi-dimensional. In the case of the United States, the main purpose is to keep off conditions that might be harmful to the country while maintaining relations with other nations so as to boost conditions that will favor national interests of the US. Foreign policy’s instruments are mainly political and diplomatic, and consist of several economic and psychological measures. Previously, national security in the US was different from foreign policy in two ways. First, the purposes of national security were narrower and geared towards safety and security and national security sought to pursue potential and actual adversaries and their application of either covert or overt force. There was therefore a military emphasis. This has changed as national security policies are now closely linked with foreign policy, at times even making their distinction unclear. Although it is comprehensive in including current global challenges in its strategy, the definition of US national security still appears to be based on past practices as a guide to how its objectives may be achieved. Previously, a large number of Americans used to believe that it was not possible for American values to be imposed on other countries, unless it was a situation where America’s survival was at risk. However, nowadays national security is considered by many to partly include the spread of American values to other world states. The American conceptualization of national security is therefore more complex now than ever before, as it displays a strong interrelation between domestic, security and foreign policy (Gray 2009). The difficulty in determining what makes up American national interest while creating priorities for national security is made greater by the growing linkages between foreign and domestic policies. According to Kugler (2011), the domestic impact of national security policies in economic terms links domestic policies and interests to security in the international arena. This happens for instance in embargoes on export of agricultural products to adversary or potentially adversarial nations and the placement of economic sanctions. Considering the special nature of the US political system and democratic system’s characteristics, it has become increasingly complex to distinguish between domestic policy from national security matters. In spite of this, the country’s national security definition and policy includes military force. Conclusion The definition of the US national security is not clear. Although the government outlines all the challenges that are faced in a globalized world, the actual its actual definition of security at all levels is not adequate. The sort of ambiguity when looked at in terms of Williams (2012)’s perspective, is one of the factors that enables policy makers to have extensive flexibility in the way they decide to engage the world in security related matters. There is need for a new, clearer and more appropriate definition of national security. There is the need to come up with a better basic definition of both national and homeland security, and this should carry both physical and psychological elements. This is because it is the only way through which policy makers will be assisted in creating a more cohesive case and clearer justification of whatever actions they decide to implement on behalf of the people of the United States. Bibliography Bolton, K (2009), U.S. National Security and Foreign Policymaking After 9/11 : Present at the re-Creation, Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham. Davis, R (2010), U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security: Chronology and Index for the 20th Century, Praeger Security International: Santa Barbara DeRouen, K and Bellamy, P (2008), International Security and the United States: an Encyclopedia. Praeger Security International: Westport George, R and Kline, R (2006), Intelligence and the National Security Strategist: Enduring Issues and Challenges. Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham Gray, C (2009), National Security Dilemmas: Challenges & Opportunities. Potomac Books: Washington DC Johnson, T (2012), Power, National Security, and Transformational Global Events: Challenges Confronting America, China, and Iran. CRC Press: Florida Kravets, D (2013), Government Unable to Define ‘Homeland Security’, Retrieved on 20 October 2013 from http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/homeland-security-definition/ Kugler, R (2011), New Directions in U.S. National Security; Strategy, Defense Plans, and Diplomacy: A Review of Official Strategic Documents, National Defense University Press: Washington DC Williams, P. (ed). (2012). Security Studies: An Introduction, New York: Routledge Read More