National Security Strategy

National Security Strategy

The date September 11, 2001 has changed the way in which the entire world started to perceive threats and their own security related to these threats. Concerning the security and approach of the U.S., the White House has published its new ‘National Security Strategy’ in 2002 setting a guideline for its eventual war on terrorism. This is the primary text that will be mainly dealt with in this writing because it is the official source showing U.S. plans of action. The 35 page long document alongside other issues mainly refers to the supremacy of the U.S. concerning its military power in which Bush’s policy of preemptive wars is justified as a necessity to fight terrorism. My argument in this paper is that when one analysis the U.S. national security plan after the attacks of September 11, the National Security Strategy is flawed, especially regarding certain points, first of all the threats are set too broadly in which it gives the U.S. the right to attack any state which is seen as a possible threat rather then mainly focusing on the most crucial terrorist groups alarming the USA such as al-Qai‘da. In addition to this the U.S. foreign policy in my opinion is one, which rather than solving the problem of terrorism will create more enemies and in addition increase the vulnerability of America itself because of the wrong type of actions taken in the military sense and the high level of involvement in regions with Islamic character.

The attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the possible failed attack on the White House, has shown the world that threats are no longer only states however different groups of terrorists operating through complicated networks in numerous countries. In addition it demonstrated that such terrorist organizations were indeed both capable and fearless of constituting a huge threat to even a great military power such as the U.S. In this sense the fact that these groups do not belong to a certain country although they might receive support from several countries makes it hard to locate and strike them. The USA in its new National Security Strategy has made it public that for them there is no difference whatsoever between terrorists and the countries providing assistance to them. The significant aspect here is that along with this statement states are also directly brought into the picture in the fight against terrorism. In the introduction to the National Security Strategy it is said that “The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states”(www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf). In this case the method of action which the U.S. has taken towards Afghanistan as a weak state is obvious. However what had to be done should have been to try to hunt down and eliminate Usama Bin Laden and his network rather then poring down huge amounts of deathly bombs, resulting in the death of thousands of civilians. In the end what difference remains between the terrorist acts and the US response if innocent civilians have to suffer in both of their methods?

Another point considering the national security policy the U.S. has been following is that the threats are set too broadly. In this sense it is said that ‘rogue’ states constitute a problem for the security of the USA. Paul Pillar, in his book Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy indicates that “there are a handful of countries that have often been labeled “rogue states”- a term that has been replaced in the State Departments official lexicon by “states of concern”” (Pillar, p. 51). Additionally he mentions that these states which have been identified as rogue states may be trying to be effective in their own regions however this does not mean that there is a threat directly to the U.S. national security. A further problem that must be considered when thinking about the U.S. actions against the so called ‘states of concern’ is the idea of the preemptive war. The Bush administration has strictly been the idea that terrorism cannot be deterred in such a way as it was the case in the Cold War. There are many statements in the National Security Strategy indicating that the US will not take the risk of not taking any action and will act preemptively against threats before they are fully formed. “Bush’s preventive war doctrine postulates America’s right to take steps against perceived enemies before they actually strike at America” (Barber, p.100). Consequently it finds in itself the right to attack even if there is no imminent threat. In this case Barber further humorously criticizes the US policy in which he wants his readers to imagine an international law in which it says “nations may only resort to war in cases of self-defense, except the United States, which because it is special can resort to war whenever it wants” (Barber, p.100). In other words the question is what would happen if any other country such as North Korea or India or even a western state would pursue policies like the U.S. or if they would even be allowed to. The USA is basically using its power to do whatever it wants careless of whether or not it is legally right. It has provided itself the opportunity to eliminate every threat including states, which may cause problems for it in the future with the idea that they provide fertile ground for terrorist activities or are developing weapons of mass destruction. In this case however when we look at Afghanistan as an example, bombing a country is not the right way to act just because there are terrorist activities in a country even when some of the population supports these as well. The main idea here is that preventive war, if America is trying to apply it is “always directed at the declared enemy-terrorists- and never at parties guilty by increasingly remote degrees of association; never, for