The
last half century had been a period of constant anxiety and fear about national
security for the United States. The end of the Second World War led directly to
the Cold War, which pitted the Republican United States against the
Authoritarian and Communist Soviet Union. It was during this time that two
ideologically opposing superpowers were the greatest threats to one another,
and the definition of what should be protected against these threats had to be
laid down; as they were in NSC-68 in 1950. At the end of the Cold War, a rival
superpower was no longer a threat to the national security of the United
States, but radical terrorist groups. These groups, like their Soviet
predecessor, are ideologically opposed to the United States, though their goals
and the means to which they will achieve them are the differing factor. The
strategy the United States is using to combat the new threats has evolved, but
the ideology and morality of the methods remains the same on officially. The terminology
used in NSC-68 and the 2002 National Security Strategy is remarkably similar
when used to define that which is in danger.
NCS-68
describes the Soviet Union as an Authoritarian Oligarchy which enslaves its
people and whose goals are the domination of Eurasia and subjugation of its
adversaries (Section 3). The United States’ goals are defined in NSC-68 by the
preamble of the Constitution, ". . . to form a more perfect Union,
establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity." The United States is supposedly the guardian of
freedom, self-determination and peace throughout the free world (Section 2). The
core threat in the Cold War was essentially freedom against slavery. In the
2002 NSS the threat has shifted, freedom is no longer under attack by its polar
opposite, slavery, but by chaos, fear and anarchy brought on by failing states
(4). The United States government, in both reports uses the security of the
concept of freedom synonymously with that of the United States as a geopolitical
entity.
In
order to defeat ideological threats in their entirety, the United States
continues to utilize the same strategy laid down in 1950. To be a pillar of
freedom, democracy and free trade and show the world that it is the most
successful route to happiness. “We must lead in building a successfully
functioning political and economic system in the free world. It is only by
practical affirmation, abroad as well as at home, of our essential values, that
we can preserve our own integrity, in which lies the real frustration of the
Kremlin design (NSC-68 Section 4).” The United States’ methods changed in the
21st century to be more hands on, and have a direct involvement in
the spreading of freedom to other nations. Pages 7 and 8 of the NSS claim that
the United States will actively spread its ideology, promote free trade and
democratic elections in failing states. The Cold War doctrine did not wish for
direct involvement with the Soviet Union, but rather to be an example to aspire
to. In the modern era, the United States is willing to directly challenge and
interfere in the affairs of the states that threaten the security of freedom.
You say "The strategy the United States is using to combat the new threats has evolved, but the ideology and morality of the methods remains the same on officially." I was wondering if you could elaborate on this a bit. It seems like the US government has done some pretty immoral things during both the Cold War (MKultra) and during the WoT (Guantanamo).
ReplyDeleteOn another note, you might argue that similar rhetoric was used during both the Cold War and the WoT. However, I think that the former was more universally supported than the latter. Threats loomed larger, certainly. US citizens during the WoT started to become critical of the tactics employed very shortly after 9/11, and even the Vietnam war took longer to become massively unpopular. This seems to imply that politicians that had power during these respective eras might have employed different rhetoric to describe either the Soviet Union or "terrorists" in general -- think of McCarthyism vs the backlash against racial profiling, for example.
In your last paragraph, you noted that to defeat threat of ideologically, the US has been using the same strategy since 1950. Wolfer's article, however, takes place in 1952 and discusses what national security meant at that time. It fails to define anything about human security, ontological security and many other aspects of the modern day definition of national security. It seems that the United States' methods in defeating threats have evolved in many ways. A specific example would be the inclusion of cyber security in the modern definition. Overall, I disagree, here, that our strategy has remained the same.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that U.S. policymakers have used the export/spread of democracy and capitalism as a means of combating both threats. But I would question the success of this approach given that the U.S. has ended up supporting undemocratic and repressive regimes in both conflicts. South Vietnam, South Africa, and Chile in the Cold War and Egypt, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia in the current War on Terror.
ReplyDelete