The American View of National Security

In his book Diplomacy, Henry Kissinger describes how the United States has had a different approach to foreign policy and national security in contrast to policies of other countries of the world. The reason for this is evident when one looks at the geographic nature of the United States. America is bordered by oceans on the east and west and by non-aggressive neighbors to the north and south. European countries, on the other hand, were ever vigilant of neighbors exerting pressure on them with power plays or military might. The problems of security that inevitably tainted Europe during 1600s and afterward, did not affect America for the greater part of its existence.
Another reason why America remained, for the most part, unaffected by European conflict and other world affairs was our lack of proximity to the goings on in Europe, our policy on intervening in European affairs and vice versa, and our democratic nature. Many of the historical European foreign policy problems occurred in an age when communication did not take place as easily as it does today. America was, in a sense, isolated from most of what went on outside its borders. The U.S. did not have to deal with or worry about European affairs directly affecting its homeland. This mindset was represented in the Monroe Doctrine, which in effect, made a moat of the Atlantic Ocean. The US would not become involved in European affairs and Europe would not become entangled in affairs of the Western Hemisphere.
The basis of America’s foreign policy and national security has remained, for the most part, unchanged in our history. We have always had a defensive stance and seldom sought interfere directly in the goings on of the world. In the 1800s, the U.S. had an extremely isolationist view of its position in the world, living by the guideline that we would not become involved in European struggles for power. As America moved away from its isolationist view with Woodrow Wilson and the First World War, the idea that peace could be fostered by spreading democracy throughout the world became the overriding theme. When the Cold War emerged, the United States moved toward a policy of containment. An article on CNN.com described this as a rapid and sustained build-up of political, economic and military strength in order to convince communists of the Western world's resolve and prevent direct military confrontations. The U.S. sustained this posture for over forty years. Toward the end of the Cold War, the U.S. took the stance of détente and peaceful coexistence. Following the Cold War, America searched for a foreign policy that aligned itself with the new world order and threats that faced the nation. One that would fit the democratic ideals of the United States, protect our interests at home and abroad, and be effective in dealing with today’s threats. Now, in the aftermath of September 11, President Bush has introduced a new “First Strike” policy, which seeks to nullify potential threats before they can strike the United States.
Reasons behind the change to a more offensive security policy are numerous. The world has seen a drastic change in national interests and relationships between countries. Many areas of the world have been affected by internal and external problems. This has caused revamping of governments, reprioritization of national interests, and changing roles of nations with respect to international structure. With these changes in governments and relations, each country must reevaluate its national security interests and policies. The United States is no different. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has had to adapt to a new world order, one that housed only one superpower instead of two. Managing Global Chaos, a collection of articles edited by Crocker, Hampson, and Aall, describes several factors make the United States susceptible to more threats than we have had to face in the past. By definition of the new world order, there are simply more threats to be concerned with. Gone are the days of countering Soviet actions one by one. We now face threats from countries and terrorist organizations all over the world. Secondly, the fact that the United States itself is now the lone superpower places us in a position of that is unique. With this leading role in world affairs, our security is likely to be attacked more often than those of other countries. Similar to a sports team that is ranked number one, all opponents will be working towards that number one position. The U.S. is currently at the forefront and therefore, must deal with those who are not. Finally, our position in international politics begs for varied interests all over the globe. Many groups are opposed to our interests and occupation of several parts of the world. All of these factors place an even greater importance on the already vital issue of American foreign policy and national security.
As we live through the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, we can see that the new proactive American policy is being set in motion. Troops continue to serve in the Middle East in support of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF). While OEF is a direct response to the events of September 11th, the Iraqi situation stems from an effort to prevent a future attack on the U.S. Because current threats to U.S. national security include fostering terrorism and unpredictable nuclear foes, these threats must be countered by military action to root out terrorists and destroy weapons of mass destruction before they have the chance to harm Americans. The American “view” of national security has always been to keep our borders protected. September 11, 2001 was a date where not only our borders were invaded, but also our belief in security. It showed that as times change and new threats come about, we must adapt in order to provide Americans with the same security luxuries that we have enjoyed in the past. Toward Managed Peace, a book by Eugene Rostow, makes this point as well. Simply put, the history of U.S. foreign policy can be summed up as one that has moved from isolation, to involvement, to initiation. Initiating, in this case, is marked by the First Strike policy of the United States. The magnitude of America’s change in foreign policy must not be overlooked. Not only does this decision represent a marked and distinct change in the way America will conduct operations in the future, but it also indicates just how much the world has changed and, transitively, our position in it. We can no longer afford to simply respond to actions directed toward the U.S. and its citizens. September 11th served as a costly example. The course that the American government is now taking with regards to foreign policy and national security is a novel one compared to the rest of our rich history. But although it is a new concept in U.S. foreign policy, the “First Strike” philosophy is long overdue. Too much of America’s past foreign policy has been conducted in a reactive manner and not a proactive one. In order to deal with current threats, such as terrorism, we must use forward-looking preventive measures. While it is true that we cannot over-task ourselves or our military forces, nor can we attempt to solve every problem in the world via the use of our military force, we have an obligation as a superpower to protect our interests and provide for the spread of democracy in doing so. America’s current approach to foreign policy aims at removing harmful catalysts at the root of their existence, similar to the saying that “the best defense is a good offense.” Just as important as the policy, however, is the means by which it will be carried out. The American “view” of national security has not changed, but the means of ensuring this security has.