Generally speaking, the United States’ Security Policy has remained somewhat continuous over the course of the past fifty years, with the exception of minor details. In class, we analyzed the National Security Policies of 1968, 2006, 2015 and 2017; in other words, presidents Johnson, Bush, Obama and Trump’s National Security Policy.
On the one hand, the safety objectives of all four National Security Policies are targeted towards the people of the United States and the protection of their rights, meaning that the “self” factor throughout the policies has remained relatively consistent. It is however, important that we note that the NSC-68 and the 2006 policies expanded their “self” perspectives with the addition of the world security and supporters of democracy, human dignity and free trade respectively. While on the other hand, when commenting on the “others” factor throughout the policy, it is evident that the items vary in countries of origin, political and social ideologies, method of spreading and propaganda, and purpose. An example of variation in country of origin would be the “others” from China whether it be coming to the United States as immigrants (which would also be an example of purpose) or actively posing a threat from their headquarters, as Trump’s Security Policy highlights, while an example of difference in method of spreading and propaganda would be Bush’s terrorism and nuclear network concern, which is more of a propaganda issue, and Obama’s emphasis on the spread of diseases such as Ebola. Marxism and Maoism are proposed as the “others” in Bush’s security policy, creating a barrier for thinking of distinct social and political ideologies as the enemies when discussing national security. Furthermore, there is a pattern of a recurring “other” that is seen through all policies, and that is Russia, as PTJ pointed out. During the National Security Conference of ’68, the main enemy was the Soviet Union and the main concern was protection provided during the Cold War Era, and fifty years later, the Obama and Trump security policies still mention Russia as their “others” given the threat that Russia poses in regards to cyber security and nuclear weapons. Lastly, during strategic approach analyses, I concluded that the National Security Conference of ’68 and the Trump policy have similar strategic approaches, in the same manner that the Bush policy relates to the Obama policy. Johnson’s main approach was isolation and war much like Trump’s was offensive strategy and fear. Their use of military action as their presiding option highlights the world perspective on the United States and how a nation must be willing to market their forces in order to be respected and well-reputed. Moreover, both policies propose economic strengthening and free trade markets as a means to accomplish this. On the other hand, the Bush and the Obama policies’ strategic approach rely on a more liberalist approach meaning that the promotion of a democratic regime and bipartisan cooperation is the “way to go.” Modernizing and transforming the military and security networks yet reserving their power as the last resource is profoundly focused in both policies, otherwise meaning the acquisition the “stand-by” strategy. Bush, however, emphasizes more on anticipatory action in the sense of weakening Al Qaeda and the Taliban’s forces, emptying their sources of supply, defeating the nation-state allies of these groups and dismantling any possibility of safe-haven that the groups might have in allied states, rather than proposing a full on counterattack, being understood as a follow up to the modernizing and transforming of the military and security networks. Overall, I would say that the four policies present continuity in a greater aspect than they do variability. In regards to their main objective and denominated enemy, the policies were considerately defined and rigid throughout the course of the years. The main differences are presented then, in strategic approaches. Nonetheless, something I found curious was that the oldest security policy, the NSC-68, relates the most with the most recent one which would be Trump’s policy, given that this might suggest that the United States is advancing in a somewhat retrograde and weakly targeted way…? I’ll leave that there for a possible future discussion on this opinion.
2 Comments
Miranda Baumann
10/31/2018 06:55:41 pm
Anneli,
Reply
Anneli T Sánchez
12/10/2018 08:57:22 pm
Thank you for your comment! I thought it was interesting the amount of factors that actually determine the difference between what we call self and identify with versus what we call other and denominate as an immediate threat. I found the Bush and Trump policies to do this in a very explicit manner but what stood out was the inanimate other at a given point, which was Obama's disease "other". How interesting to see that you have found yourself identified with the comments; I think it is a very common thing most United States Americans are accustomed to because of the term's recurring use on a political basis. I think I could differ in the sense that I would consider myself the "other" when it comes to US Americans still, because it is as you say, a notion that people get used to due to moral values and ideologies.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Author's QuoteWell, if droids could think, there’d be none of us here, would there? Archives
December 2018
Categories |