Security and Identity

Are there boundaries to security policy? This is a difficult question to answer, as almost anything that defines us as a state could, in some way, be interpreted to affect our security, beyond the weapons and manpower needed to defend ourselves from attack. The most distantly-connected aspects of our nation can have an impact on our ability to stay secure. Some are obvious, like, for example, the economic situation and our diplomatic ties: if we have enough money, we will be able to build proper weapons, if we have the right allies, they can help us. However, some are less directly connected, but just as important. For example, educational standards: if our population is well-educated, they can utilize their mental capabilities and knowledge to defend our country intelligently. And then there arises the issue of what makes a state more or less likely to be attacked, which is varied and could come in all shapes and forms. One could be direct and logical, and say that if we push green fuel, we will be less interested in foreign oil, and thus weaken the power of people in regions where America is not well-liked, therefore stopping a threat before it advances. Or one could be completely speculative and disconnected, and theorize that fighting global warming might improve America’s image in the world and stop a threat before even the motivation for the threat emerges. Even the craziest of ideas can, at least theoretically, be seen as possibly affecting a state’s security.

For example, take education. This one policy can affect our national security on many, many levels. On the most direct level, it can help fill and expand a workforce with a certain skill set, such as engineers who can design better weapons. On a slightly less direct level, it can create a large pool of extremely knowledgeable experts who can come up with better strategies and tactics for defending ourselves. On an indirect level, it can give a population the means with which to select better leaders, the information that lessens the threat of irrational, uncomprehending voter anger forcing the government’s hand on important issues of national security, and even could make people more knowledgeable about foreign countries, therefore lessening misunderstandings. And this is just one policy that could have a ripple effect of consequences that wind up profoundly affecting the security of the state. There really are no boundaries on what can be labelled as “security policy”.

Of course, this can lead into murky territory. It would help our security, of course, if we could meddle in other states’ affairs to the extent that we could make sure that they act internationally in a way that would strengthen our own security, help us out with all domestic issues that would make us stronger, and not do anything to help or incite our enemies. This of course, does not mean we should do this, because while it helps our own security, it may not do the same for that of other states. This is the murky part, because just like our national identity can affect our level of security, our approach to security can affect our national identity. For example, taking over as many countries as we can in order to control them and use them against our enemies is something most Americans would object to. Since in our definition of the concept, sovereignty rests with the people, we would only be defined as “the United States of America” as long as we had a say in how we as a state acted. However, if we all decided that controlling other states was a good idea, we would be blatantly violating our professed ideal of self governance, and would therefore render our national identity false. Our state would no longer be “the United States of America” as defined before we started controlling other states. On a similar note, it would help security if the government could arrest anyone they wished to, at any time. However, we as a country define ourselves by our commitment to liberty and our affording of natural rights, such as habeus corpus, to our citizens. Therefore, we would cease to be defending American ideals the moment we gave them up, and since our ideals define us, we would cease to be Americans. We would probably still be called “Americans”, but the definition of an American that runs deeper than the name would be lost.

I believe that things should stop being defined as “security” the moment they stop protecting a state, and proceed to destroy it. If we cease to become America, we are no longer protecting America, we have only a defensive shield left, and whatever we are defending would no longer resemble America, but would be something entirely different. This is a dangerously tempting path to take when our security is threatened. After all, it is very difficult for an enemy to harm something if it is destroyed before they reach it.