To decide where the boundaries to security are one first has to define it. In the process of defining something one is always forced to omit several details that are not useful for the definition. The same is true of security. It would be easy to include almost every component of society as contributing to its security, but if one did that one would have to ask if “security,” was still a useful term.
In NSC-68 security is defined primarily in terms of foreign nations, specifically the Soviet Union. As such, real power capabilities compose their concept of security. More broadly, in the document it is seen in terms of ideologies; as a battle between our values and theirs. IN Arnold Wolfers’ article he outlines Walter Lippmann view that, “a nation is secure to the extent to which it is not in danger of having to sacrifice core values, if it wishes to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by victory in such a war” (Wolfers, 488). NSC-68 fits in quite well with this definition. The authors seek to protect America’s core values from external corruption through espionage and propaganda while protecting America (and therefore its values) safe from Soviet conquest.
The 2010 National Security Strategy defines security more broadly. It sees economic issue in the mix. It would be hard to deny that the strength of our economy plays a large role in our overall security. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff, recently came out saying that the biggest threat to our national security is our national debt. Whether this claim is true not doesn’t matter particularly, what matter is that it highlights the economies impact on security.
The Nation Security Strategy goes further however. It incorporates technology, education, and immigration into its assessment of our national security. Furthermore, a group of retired generals have claimed that obesity is a national security threat. What can be seen from this document and these claims is that security is an extremely extensive issue. However, the question remains: does this expansive definition help our understanding?
I believe it does. Security must be understood in a comprehensive way that allows for a holistic approach to the subject. Looking at security simply in terms of power limits a country’s understanding and may blind them from the greater issues at stake. National safety would be a better term for this more narrow definition. Anything that would force a nation to “sacrifice core values” or cause it to lose at war should be included in its security policy.
I like how you've taken note that many things can directly and indirectly affect security. Even something like obesity or immigration. However, I'm curious about your idea for the narrower definition of "national safety" as being defined in terms of power. Wouldn't technology increase our power? Wouldn't education make us more powerful through knowledge? Less obesity would make our armies fitter and more powerful too. So where and how would be draw the line between power and other issues that affect security?
ReplyDeleteI agree that security nowadays is really broadly defined, and that maybe "national safety" would be a better way to describe it. But I think some things do not need to be and shouldn't be included in the definition of security/safety. Obesity, for example. I honestly don't really understand how obesity would affect our nation's security, unless security includes "health," and at that point, we might as well include everything and anything we want to. Less obesity would in no way make our armies fitter and more powerful, because it's not like the military lets in people who aren't fit. They all have to pass pretty tough fitness and weight regulations. Also, we don't have so many obese people that there's a lack of fit people for our military. So I don't see how obesity affects our security. But maybe I'm just looking at security from a narrower point of view than other people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment of the situation. I also agree with your opinion that,"Security must be understood in a comprehensive way that allows for a holistic approach to the subject. Looking at security simply in terms of power limits a country’s understanding and may blind them from the greater issues at stake." In the 2010 Security Stragety, it is mentioned that America is in a state of decline as far as tecnology, education, competivness etc. Do you think it is a result of the previous definition of security and the neglect of other leader to stress these issues as a security concern?
ReplyDeleteThis is awhile later but I only just saw these comments:
ReplyDeleteAngelica - All I'm saying is that we need a term to refer to the narrower definition of security in order to avoid miscommunication.
Chicago - The army has had to reduce its physical fitness requirements to fit the new American, the fat American. The military is being far less selective in who it accepts and as a result many more out of shape individuals are being allowed to join. As a result, the overall standards of the military have been lowered. Also, if some really dire situation forms in the world and the US has to impose a draft just think how much harder it will be to mobilize and make an obese population battle ready.
Navidad - I think that people's ideas of restrictive fields are getting broken down. People are realizing that in order to fully engage with a issue, one has to use a holistic approach. Also, I feel that globalization has contributed the need for comprehensive approaches because of our DIRECTLY interconnected everything is becoming.