Overall, has US security policy in the past few decades been characterized by continuity or change? Both? Some combination of the two?
I remember a conversation I had with my friend in 7th grade, who had recently immigrated from Australia. We were discussing our (middle school) understanding of politics when he asked me what it was like to be at war my entire life. I was confused, and he clarified he meant the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan. I realized that despite following news about these conflicts, watching helmet-cam videos of soldiers fighting the Taliban across barren valleys, and listening eagerly to the speeches of my politicians, I had never felt like my country was at war. I believe this illustrates an element of security that has changed since the days of the cold war: Let me start by pointing out what has stayed the same. As discussed in the Wolfers reading, there are two ways to respond to a threat of attack, either by making intimidating the opponent by making it seem like attacks cannot succeed or "rob[ing] him of future incentives to renew his attack" (491). Essentially, you can make yourself more secure through force or reconciliation. Yes as the Krebs and Lobasz reading identifies in US rhetoric surrounding 9/11, it is possible to portray the enemy as "evil" which justifies an apocalyptic struggle against them. Moreover, evil enemies exist independent of human rationality, and they cannot be understood. I believe that this rhetoric has been employed by the US government against its enemies throughout the last few decades, and it represents a point of continuity. Certainly, the Soviets, Russians, North Koreans, Iraqis, Iranians, Chinese, and terrorists were all portrayed chiefly as wholly evil entities bent on the destruction of the US world order. Yet the means used to confront these enemies have changed. While both Soviet missiles and al-Qaeda bombs can strike at any moment, one required fallout shelters in every school, while the other required metal detectors at the airport. One was a small-scale inconvenience, the other a constant reminder that the US faced an enemy that could wipe every building in the country off the face of the earth. Both are instances of securitization by the government, but one leads a young child to conclude their country is at war, while the other disappears into the background of every day life. I am not the most knowledgeable about the cold war, but the other examples of securitization I can think of seem similar in how they differ from today. McCarthyism meant public trials and a visible government hand in Hollywood, NSA surveillance was invisible for many years. On the other hand, many examples (take secretive US action in Cambodia as compared to relatively obscure bombings the US undertakes in Libya or Somalia today, or perhaps Yemen) seem similar in terms of the government footprint security required. Perhaps it is harder to know you are at war given US security policy today, and the enemy has remained relatively the same, but the strategies the government pursues are more obscure. What do you all think?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorAmerican University Class of 2021. Interested in state-building and economic governance. Archives
December 2018
Categories |