Blog Post Two: Security, Mark Russell

Mark Russell

Blog post 2

Security

            As I read Arnold Wolfers piece entitled “National Security” as an Ambiguous Symbol, I realized that take a separate stance on security than he does. As I do think of myself as more of a realist, I find myself agreeing on some of his points, yet disagreeing on his comparison of security and interest.

            In my mind, national security is the government doing its job by ensuring the protection of its citizens and their well-being. In his argument, Wolfers uses the phrases “national security” and “national interest” interchangeably, which I found to be a vast overstatement. Security is a responsibility of the government and must be upheld at all times, where as the interest is from the people that have put the government in power and comes secondly and is used to gain political standing. For me, this relationship could be seen as, “National interests can only be executed when a nation is secure.”

            A real life example of my theory in execution can be seen throughout the Middle East. Governments like Syria and Egypt have failed or gone against their fundamental job, protecting and providing for their citizens, and as a result they are in revolt. How can the interest of the people be truly executed when they have a government that they are trying to overthrow? In order for these countries to properly function on an international level, they must secure the home front and establish the will of the people so that one day they can take prominence on a global scale.

            I believe another clear example of my theory can be seen in the United States after the events of 9/11. In his work, Wolfers says decision makers are,  “choosing first the values which deserve protection.” This statement can be seen exemplified as the country went into shock. At that time, the Bush administration handled it to the best of their abilities, yet they had lost the security that had made our country so great. Wolfers believe that at a time of trouble, a government must recapture the values that mean the most like “liberty, justice, and peace.”

On this, I agree with Wolfers and the handling of 9/11 by the Bush administration.  With the country in turmoil, Bush did his best to reinstitute the freedom and way of life that Americans were accustomed to by reestablishing peace and promising the American public that those responsible would be caught. Once again I find myself agreeing with Wolfers in saying, “ naked force shall be used for security in reaction in reaction only to violent attacks.” In this case the United States responded to the first attack on the US mainland since 1812 with considerable force, entering Iraq in 2003.

On a separate note, this response could be seen as the national interest that the Bush administration and other neo-conservatives pushed upon the American people through their rhetoric, which is something I think is often times overlooked by the media who sensationalized it.

Regardless of how these events have panned out, I believe that national security is the top priority amongst governments. Although I do disagree with the similarities Wolfers brings between security and national interest, I found his realist view on security to be plausible and effective in today’s complex and violent world.

"National Security" as an Ambiguous Symbol
Arnold Wolfers
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 4. (Dec., 1952), pp. 481-502.