How Secure? (a reflection)

This week definitely broadened my understanding on the concept of security.  More than military objectives, security can be surprisingly subjective, as evidenced by the laundry list of goals of the 2010 National Security Strategy.  Though it seemed less one track-minded than the NSC-68, which had a realist slant of outlining and comparing the USSR's and the U.S.'s strengths and capabilities (i.e. power, nuclear weapons), at the same time, both were created to direct opinion.  The plans, whether reasonable or illogical, became credible by appealing to emotion.  It was no accident that the U.S. was personified as the "good" superhero at war with an "evil" power.  Nationalism is a powerful tool.  Its influence can best be demonstrated by the "Duck and Cover" campaign, which my World Politics group jokingly loved to reference during last Tuesday's class.  As one ardent blogger/fervent history buff noted, "Duck and Cover become universal shorthand for the paranoid excesses of the Cold War and for every geo-political panic attack since."  The private sector was utilized to widely spread a pacifying message.¹  Though the plan was ridiculous, anything goes with public morale. If society generally feels secure, is that enough of a security policy?

Anything to calm the youth of tomorrow...²

No.  Beyond the random bouts of public catharsis, there remains the question of what security currently is and what is should be.  How much is the U.S. overextending its security policy?  How much is the "War on Terror" impractical?  Can anything (anything, even fashion for instance, since it shapes morals, cultural perception, and formality of dress/negotiations) be a form of security policy?  A better perspective on U.S. security policy may be analyzed by looking at the perspecitives of other nations.  Countires such as New Zealand and the UK actually have plans to scale down airport security measures.³ This is not to say that the U.S. should not put up a strong front regarding travel security, but its emphasis may be overrated.

It was perfect timing for this week's lab to be at Christ House.  Although it was meant to frame upcoming discussions on insecurity, prosperity, etcetera, it really represents the dust hidden in the corner of the American security debate.  Though the U.S. has a hegemonic obligation to protect internationally, it must not forget its domestic underpinnings.  If enough of Americans fall below the poverty line, precautions against external threats are not going to supply food, healthcare, and a newfound sense of trust in the government.

Sources
¹ http://www.conelrad.com/duckandcover/cover.php?turtle=01
² http://www.mcalcio.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/duck_and_cover_fallout.gif
³ http://tvnz.co.nz/travel-news/airlines-question-flight-security-measures-3861072