United States foreign and domestic policy is entangled with an ever-evolving concept of national security, which considers the topmost priority of political parties such as Republicans and Democrats. National Security is mostly understood as devising of policies and strategies with the objective to keep the country safe against threats of various natures, such as terrorism, war, or espionage. After the Cold War, the threat of a conventional war, against the United States, has diminished greatly. However, the threat of terror attacks has grown, which is partly because of the expansionary policy of the United States, which has been devised to protect strategic and financial interests of the United States. As the policy has grown more blunt and aggressive (in pursuit of interests), the chances of retaliation, in the form of a terror attack, have also augmented. Therefore, national-security precepts and policies have changed to meet the challenges.
After 9/11 attacks, the United States have adopted the policy of preemptive measures, according to which the United States will not give its adversaries any time and space to plot attacks against the United States. The United States believes that it has the military capacity to take measures of preemptive nature on foreign soil. Also, the domestic policy, about national security, has also changed dramatically to counter the contemporary threats. It includes more monitoring of United States’ citizens, compromise on privacy (NSA’s program PRISM) and more scrutiny of visa applicants. Furthermore, national security has also influenced immigration policy, which is impacting social, political, and economic realities of the United States (Welch, 2011).
There are two prevailing concepts regarding national security. One of the notions/precepts/concepts is a dominant one, and a large number of politicians from both parties support this concept. This idea of national security is embedded with the concept of preemptive measures, which all state institutions to take extraordinary measures that could also be in contradiction with the constitution. For instance, National Security Agency was allowed to run spy program, which was highly controversial and it yielded national and international challenges when it got exposed by Edward Snowden. The United States invaded Iraq, on the pretext of national security, which gave birth to all kinds of challenges not only in the United States, but also in the region and the rest of the world (Miller, 2017).
The other national security doctrine is based on improving domestic security apparatus and appropriating foreign policy. Politicians, such as Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, and some national security experts believe that because of the aggressive foreign policy of the United States and by meddling in the most sensitive parts of the world, the United States has increased threats to its national security. The US should focus inwards and improve its domestic policies and security apparatus to meet these robust challenges (Carney, 2016).
It is quite apparent that the less popular National Security concept is more rational as it can produce far better results. The United States foreign policy is very aggressive and it has affected the United States in some ways. It is presumed that the United States over-relies on its military resources to meet its strategic objectives, which causes challenges in the form of terror threats. There is a need to re-visit the national security doctrine and improve it. However, this will take considerable time and enormous political will, which Washington seems to lack. National Security issues are immensely politicized, that is why it is very difficult to address these issues and to come up with a genuine national security strategy to make United States safe place for its citizens without compromising on citizens’ rights.
References
Carney, J. (2016, January 27). Sanders: I won’t ‘apologize’ for national security stance. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/267279-sanders-says-he-wont-apologize-for-national-security
Miller, A. D. (2017, June 20). Why Trump’s Foreign Policy Can’t Be Stopped. Retrieved from http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/20/why-trumps-foreign-policy-cant-be-stopped/
Welch, M. (2011, March 29). Obama’s Doctrine of Preemptive War. Retrieved from http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/29/obamas-doctrine-of-pre-emptive
+447462439809