National Security | Introduction
In the days following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America, countries from around the world denounced the attacks. Traditional foes such as Russia publicly expressed sympathy while long-standing allies such as Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and France pledged their support in finding and prosecuting those responsible. This global outpouring of sympathy gave U.S. officials reason to hope that they could count on the international community to help fight terrorism. However, as the United States began to execute its war on terrorism in the months following September 11, international support began to diminish. Although President George W. Bush seemed determined to continue the war without the help of allies, critics of his stance argued that America’s security would depend upon the relationships it nurtured with other nations.
As the forces of globalization change the economic, political, and social relationships between nations, the geographic bulwarks that America counted on to protect it are proving insufficient. Two oceans and two friendly neighbors may help protect a nation from invasion but do little to thwart terrorists. Advances in information technologies have, in essence, shrunk the distances between countries, allowing people to conduct business from anywhere on the globe. Such advances made it possible for the September 11 terrorists to coordinate the attack from various nations. Globalization has also led to an increase in tourism and travel, making it easier for terrorists to hide in host countries without drawing attention. All nineteen of the September 11 terrorists came to the United States on legal visas, and several overstayed them without drawing the notice of U.S. security agencies.
In addition to globalization, other changes have affected America’s security. With the Cold War over, America’s enemies have changed. Some of the most serious threats to national security are no longer established nation-states such as Russia but terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, the group responsible for the September 11 attacks. During the Cold War, security was in large part a matter of outspending enemies on military hardware and sending American spies to the Kremlin. Such Cold War methods have proven ineffective in combating loosely organized terrorist groups scattered all over the globe. As became evident after September 11, the largest military in the world cannot prevent terrorists from flying commercial airplanes into buildings. Moreover, CIA operatives who can speak Russian are of little help in infiltrating terrorist cells in Afghanistan.
In the post–Cold War era, with globalization making national borders more porous, America’s reliance on shear strength to keep enemies at bay has come under increased scrutiny. Professor Janice Gross Stein asserts, “Military preeminence, no matter how overwhelming, does not buy the United States security from attack, even in its heartland.” In light of this fact, as Stein puts it, the nation needs to “acknowledge the need for multilateral solutions.” Without the help of its friends, many analysts argue, the United States will find itself isolated. Henry Kissinger, national security adviser and later secretary of state under former presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, asserts, “The United States will not be able to sort out every international problem alone without exhausting itself physically and psychologically.” Therefore, he concludes, “the ultimate challenge for American foreign policy is to turn dominant power into a sense of shared responsibility.” By nurturing international alliances, these analysts assert, America can help create a unified front against terrorism.
Despite arguments for multilateralism, the Bush administration early on illustrated its willingness to go it alone in fighting America’s enemies. Although Bush was successful in gaining the help of allies to fight the war in Afghanistan to rout the Taliban, the ruling regime that had sponsored al-Qaeda, further actions extending the war on terrorism met with international resistance. As the United States contemplated an invasion of Iraq in an attempt to neutralize the threat posed by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who purportedly helped al- Qaeda carry out the September 11 attacks, America’s allies balked. Many argued that the use of preemptive strikes against Iraq would violate the United Nations (UN) Charter, which prohibits signatories from using aggression against another nation unless for self-defense. Such a lack of international support did not discourage Bush, however, who illustrated a partiality toward unilateralism early in his administration.
One example of Bush’s willingness to pursue America’s interests in the face of international protest is his endorsement of a national missile defense system—a shield that would protect the homeland from ballistic missiles. However, pursuing such a system would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), the international arms control agreement responsible for slowing nuclear proliferation. The international community voiced strong opposition to U.S. withdrawal from the treaty, but Bush elected to withdraw anyway. As professor Stein puts it, “More and more, the U.S. is insisting on an exception for itself from the rules that govern others.” However, many U.S. presidents besides Bush have viewed international agreements such as the ABM Treaty as restrictive and ultimately serving the needs of other nations at the expense of America’s security.
At the heart of the debate about national security is the question of how much the safety of the United States depends on its relationships with other nations. Those who minimize this dependency are confident that America’s military superiority can guarantee its security with minimal help from other nations. Others argue that force alone is not enough. They believe that post–Cold War era threats demand more coalition building. The authors in National Security: Opposing Viewpoints debate many of the methods now being considered and implemented to enhance the nation’s safety in the following chapters: What Are the Most Serious Threats to National Security? How Can National Security Best Be Enhanced? How Should the United States Respond to Terrorism? Do Efforts to Enhance National Security Threaten Civil Liberties? One thing is certain: The threats facing America have changed, and the nation will have to adopt new approaches to combating them if it is to avoid another September 11.
