Abstract The paper examines how nationalsecurity analyses are conducted in the post-9/11 world. The paper maintains that it is important to note that this process primarily involves internal government debate over the use and accuracy of the information supplied by intelligence agencies and the defense establishment. The paper explains that nationalsecurity analyses are conducted in order to help resolve issues of nationalsecurity concern by providing data about foreign threats, terrorist activities and related security matters.
Abstract The paper discusses how there have been numerous changes in American nationalsecurity policies since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. The most important changes have been the Bush Administration's preemptive war policy, the passage and implementation of the USA Patriot Act and homeland security measures intended to increase airline security. The paper notes that many of these changes in nationalsecurity policies have been controversial, while changes that have not been made have convinced many security experts and citizens that the United States is more vulnerable to terrorism than it was four years ago.
Abstract This paper discusses how in terms of similarities, it is evident that the basic policies outlined in The NationalSecurity Strategy of the United States of America are in harmony with the basic policies outlined in A NationalSecurity Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement. The foundation of both strategies rests upon common foreign policy agendas based upon engaging in power projection when necessary, in order to achieve specified political, nationalsecurity, and economic goals. The paper further discusses how the short-term and long-term goal of both strategies is enlargement of influence, through direct and indirect means, depending upon the region or issue being addressed.
Abstract This paper discusses the books of Amy Zegart and John Prados and their views on nationalsecurity organizations in the United States. The joint chiefs of staff, the nationalsecurity council, and the central intelligence agency are all discussed within the paper. The general consensus of the authors is that each of these organizations was formed to be temporary forms within the government, and they have lasted since 1947 as political machines that answer to no one.
From the Paper "Flawed by design: The evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC, a book by author Amy Zegart (1999), takes a detailed look at both the structure and the historical perspective of matters that deal with the country's national interests. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency are the main topics of Zegart's book. John Prados (1992), author of Keeper of the keys: A history of the national security council from Truman to Bush, also discusses issues of national interest from the perspective of a man who has been part of the United States government for many years. Both of these authors attempt to explore those elements of our nation's government that have seen at least a decade of close scrutiny because of lapses in judgment, the protection of our country, and the impact that these organizations have had on our lives as American citizens."
Abstract In this article, the writer discusses the issue of reform for the United NationsSecurity Council. The writer looks at the world's primary instrument for maintaining international order and peace. Further, the writer discusses various proposals and argues that enlarging the structure of the Security Council would be beneficial.
From the Paper "Inside the United Nations and in both the halls of governments and the popular press, a debate has raged over various proposals to reform the Security Council, to make that organ's membership less exclusive and to improve its capacity to function in response to various crises and issues. As Marianne Hanson commented, the United Nations' Security Council U.N.S.C. remains the world's primary instrument for maintaining international peace and security. Various reform proposals have been put forward reflecting the recognition on the part of ... "
Tags: United Nations, Security Council, international relations.
Abstract This paper examines why there is general agreement around the world that the United NationsSecurity Council is in thorough need of reform, for it has failed many times to meet its responsibility to prevent regional conflicts. The paper addresses this problem by establishing that these failures have been due primarily to fundamental structural and procedural flaws in the Security Council's composition and methods of debate.
From the Paper The United Nations Security Council: Issues of Reform Part A Introduction There is general agreement around the world that the United Nations Security Council is in thorough need of reform, for it has failed many times to meet its responsibility to prevent regional conflicts. I propose to address this problem by establishing that these failures have been due primarily to fundamental structural and procedural flaws in the Security Council's composition and methods of debate. In the process, I would emphasize that the Council's lack of formal authority to enforce its decisions is another inherent flaw, which compounds its structural and procedural flaws."
An examination of the meaning and origin of "nationalsecurity," the absence of geographical limits in defining nationalsecurity, and a critical examination of the historical impact of American foreign policy during the Cold War (cites Chomsky extensivel
1,336 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 3 sources, 2001, $ 44.95
Abstract The paper argues that although the term nationalsecurity, as a Cold War construct, is new, the application of power abroad, as needed by the state, is recorded even in Biblical times. The paper looks at US foreign policy throughout the 20th century, around the time of the world wars and during the Cold War. Some of the questions looked at are: How the state defines the goals that compose its national interest, the means the state selects to pursue those goals, and the state's identification of others as friend or foe determine how the promotion of the inherently ambiguous concept of ?nationalsecurity? parlays into actual policy. The paper proves that promotion of nationalsecurity is the logical means by which the state's preferences are realized.
From the Paper "Instead, maintenance of a subservient client role for such states was sufficient; the United States would enjoy the benefits of its clients acceding to American preferences for their economic and foreign policies, without being burdened with the chore of actually administering British-style colonies. The international capitalist order, which allowed free mobility of capital, made control of large swaths of territory and people irrelevant to increasing wealth."
Tags: capitalism, chomsky, cold, foreign, government, policy, war
Comparison of two documents: The United States Commission on NationalSecurity for the 21st Century and The Bush Administration's First NationalSecurity Strategy (NSS).
Abstract Countries have become unsure of their security and about their relationships with the countries that surround them. Since September 11th, a large number of scholars, scientists and political thinkers have started to analyze and provide their own theories on the U.S. and Iraqi war and state relations. One of these groups of political thinkers is the U.S. Commission on NationalSecurity of the 21st Century. This Commission discusses and analyzes the problems in the world, specifically concerning the United States and the concerns of the changing world. The Commission has strove to provide critical theories and interpretations of what the United States should do in response to the changing world security environment. This essay addresses the Commission's response, as well as the response provided by President George W. Bush's administration of nationalsecurity strategy by comparing both documents and noting the merits and criticisms of them. A final wrap-up summary is also provided.
From the Paper "The three primary concerns of the introduction are: defence against enemies, cooperation with other nations in curtailing others from gaining dangerous technologies, and lastly, the encouragement of democracy and economic openness in all nations. It concludes by insisting that other nations should respond to terrorism and threats in the same offensive manner as the United States, calling for collective responsibility and "accountability." On the other hand, the CNS's introduction for Phase I suggests the same problems are facing the United States and the world, and calls for a similar approach as the NSS, emphasising "economic growth, regional integration, and global political cooperation." A key line for distinguishing the languages in each document is the CNS's suggestion that "active American engagement cannot prevent all problems," while the NSS is much more optimistic with regard to that idea."
Abstract In this article, the writer points out that the NationalSecurity Council or NSC was created and established by the NationalSecurity Act of 1947. The writer notes that the NSC is the US President's principal forum for matters concerning nationalsecurity and foreign policy. Further, the writer discusses that the establishment of the NSC has been the response to the need of each administration to develop and perfect a reliable set of executive institutions for managing nationalsecurity policy. The writer notes that each President was guided by the deficiencies of his predecessors and wanted to set up a system that would reflect his individual or preferred management style. The writer relates that the NSC has, thus, been modified to suit the needs and preferences of each administration.
From the Paper "The establishment of the NSC has been the response to the need of each administration to develop and perfect a reliable set of executive institutions, which would manage its national security policy. Each President was guided by the deficiencies of his predecessors and wanted to set up a system, which would reflect his individual or preferred management style. The NSC has, thus, been modified to suit the needs and preferences of each administration. The National Security Act of July 26, 1947 created the NSC with the President as Chairman and the Secretaries of State and Defense as its key members. Its principal function is to coordinate foreign policy and defense policy and incorporate diplomatic and military requirements. It also provided for a Secretary of Defense, a National Military Establishment, a Central Intelligence Agency and a National Security Resources Board. Because the NSC was several times modified to adapt to the preferences of each President, it came to be viewed as subservient to him alone. And because its role is to establish collegiality among the departments, it also came to be viewed as a means to controlling and managing opposed departments."
Abstract This paper focuses on analyzing a particular aspect of the NationalSecurity Strategy, that is, NSS-2002. It uses the NationalSecurity Council Report 68 (NSC-68) as a reference point to understand the difference in the perceptions of threat facing the United States and the difference between the two policies. The connection between the two policies highlights some political, economic, and cultural realms that have been affected by the dimensions of the policy. Overall, it is clear that US foreign policy is reactive rather than preventative, since both NSS-2002 and NSC-68 were devised to counter, rather than to prohibit actions that were seen as harmful to the United States. The paper concludes that even domestic policies necessarily affect global economy, due to the integration of societies, thus careful consideration of foreign policy on use of power is imperative.
Outline:
Introduction
NationalSecurity Strategy (NSS-2002) and NSC-68: A Critical Review
Conclusion
From the Paper "What are the similarities and differences between the NSS-2002 and the NSC-68? There is the common misconception that the NSS-2002 is simple about combating terrorism. As can be clearly seen from the eight principles outlines, the NSS-2002 surpasses combating terrorism, but has an overarching aim of promoting free trade and combating all aspects of terrorism. It is necessary to distinguish between state-sponsored and non-state sponsored terrorism, so as to understand how the NSS-2002 integrates all aspects of threats irrespective or origin and devises mechanisms to combat these issues."
Tags: foreign, policy, economy, terrorism, military, force
Abstract This paper examines one of the ways in which the Chilean armed forces have continued to exert power and influence in post-dictatorship Chile -through the NationalSecurity Council, a quasi-governmental institution given the role of convening to discuss threats to nationalsecurity. This paper shows how, due to the failures of the council to engage in legitimate nationalsecurity discourse as well as the symbolic nature of this tool of military intervention, it is in actuality a body that is not conducive to the furthering of unity, stability, and democracy within Chile.
From the Paper "Although the power and influence of the military has been diminished since the end of the Pinochet dictatorship in 1990, the Chilean armed forces nonetheless have managed to maintain a substantial political and civilian role in Chilean society after the transition back to democracy. One of the most important manifestations of this lingering power and influence has been the National Security Council, a near-perfect representation not only of the Chilean military's perpetual political ambitions but also of its fixation upon the notion of ?national security.? The symbolism of this institution has consequently cast the very existence of the National Security Council in the national spotlight, and it has been one of the most debated and controversial issues of contemporary Chilean politics, especially in the current administration of Socialist Ricardo Lagos. The negative consequences of a sustained opportunity for military involvement in civilian and political affairs, even on a seemingly small scale, such as exists with the National Security Council in its present form is not conducive to further democratic growth and unity in Chilean society. What this paper aims to do is identify the importance of the National Security Council in its implications on civilian-military relations, national unity, stability, and democracy, and to explain how it is an obstacle to these principles."
An argument that the Bush Administration's War on Terror is wasting trillions of dollars on security measures that are not protecting the United States.
Abstract The paper argues that the lead domestic counter-terrorism agency is not properly structured for its role, the conduct of the war in Iraq undermined any hope of success in the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, there is no focus on the real risk of nuclear terrorism while the current efforts directed at securing commercial aviation represent a misallocation of resources and have not substantially eliminated the risks of terrorist threats against commercial aviation. The paper contends that much of the approach to nationalsecurity and the so-called "War on Terror" lead by President George W. Bush is far better designed to fight America's last war than the most likely scenario of the nation's next war.
Outline:
Introduction
Fighting Past Wars Instead of Future Wars
Fundamental Conceptual Flaws in the Current Approach to American Security Misallocation of Authority, Insufficient Interagency Coordination, and Politics
Conclusion
From the Paper "The historic and tragic attacks of September 11, 2001 changed the course of American history for the foreseeable future. One of the most comprehensive changes was the immediate elevation of national security to the primary government concern at every level. It directly inspired the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the appointment of a cabinet-level director at its head, along with the complete reconfiguration of more than a dozen federal agencies and the establishment of joint terrorism task forces between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies nationwide. Unfortunately, despite the intense focus on homeland security, the role of lead in that effort was assigned to a domestic agency never designed, and therefore, largely unsuitable for that role in the first place (Larsen, 2007)."
Abstract This paper explains that in this post-9/11 world, the President of the United States has more concerns than ever regarding nationalsecurity. Not only are the war with terrorists, but recent events have shown this to be a much more dangerous world than was previously thought. In this paper the writer addresses the two major nationalsecurity issues on which the President should be focused - terrorism and homeland security and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
From the Paper "The other major national security issue facing the US today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), particularly nuclear weapons. A nuclear club that once consisted of only several nations now seems to be increasing daily. Many of the nations now known to possess WMD are those with interests contrary to those of ours. Iran and North Korea are the two newest members of the club, and we must have a clear and consistent policy of how to deal with them. Some have suggested that we should engage these countries by giving them part of what they need, such as Iran's public desire for a civilian nuclear program. "The interests of every nation will be served by an arrangement that gives Iran the civilian nuclear program it says it wants and the international community the insurance it needs." Efforts in the past have focused on controlling the specialized material needed to build the weapons. Some have argued that we should take a more proactive approach to dealing with this problem. "The best idea so far is the proliferation security initiative (PSI), in which America and other countries are trying to plug the loopholes through which much nuclear material seems to have passed. The PSI includes the interception of suspect shipments.""
Abstract The paper looks at the 2006 NationalSecurity Strategy (NSS) of the United States and reveals that it brought in mixed reviews. The paper explains that if one is supportive of the Bush Administration, then the NSS is a clear and concise document that conveys concrete and doable actions to promote strategic security, not only in the United States but globally as well. On the other side of the coin, the paper shows how a critic of the Bush Administration may see the NSS as full of rhetoric but lacking in substance. The paper relates that there may even be insinuations that the 2006 NSS is a total rehash of the 2002 NationalSecurity Strategy, since the section breakdowns alone are exactly the same.
From the Paper "Despite all the designs in the 2006 NSS, one basic consideration that went amiss is the status of the national budget. The security of a nation cannot be regarded as "truly secure" if there is no money to pay for security! The NSS did not mention how to pay for all the action items and the observation of Bacevich (2006) stands notice, "Although balancing the federal budget once ranked as a core Republican value - remember Ike's promise of "security with solvency"? - the Bush team does not trouble itself with such irksome details. The National Security Strategy is silent on the size of the federal deficit, which last year came in at a whopping $427 billion.""
Abstract The writer proposes that there is an erroneous assumption that the transformation of free societies into police states will ensure security from external and internal threats. The paper examines how the recent revelation, that President Bush told the NSA to start monitoring all international communications of people with terrorist links, is just one of the latest battles in the effort to balance security and privacy. The paper concludes that any proposal that is made in the name of nationalsecurity should be carefully evaluated in terms of its actual, net effects.
From the Paper "This ruling has not stopped the executive branch via the intelligence community to continue to attempt to use national security as an excuse to undermine privacy rights. For instance, on December 13, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Intelligence Authorization Act, which grants unprecedented power to the FBI to access private records without a court order (Swartz, 2004). This expansion of power has proceeded despite the fact that similar measures were struck down as part of the revised Patriot Act. The American people seem willing to accept greater and greater intrusions into their privacy."
