Blog Post 1: Perceptions of National Security Threats

            An interesting topic I believe warrants some discussion is that the level of national security is a relative concept, which can be perceived in a variety of ways and often elicits different responses from one country to the next.

             In his article  "'National Security' as an Ambiguous Symbol", Arnold Wolfers argues that the perception and reaction to national security threats ranges widely from nation to nation and must be viewed in the context of a particular nation's experience. Moreover, the degree of danger of past threats also has an impact on the nation's framing and response to the specific threat. Wolfers states that "those nations tend to be most sensitive to threats which...having passed through a prolonged period of an exceptionally high degree of security, suddenly find themselves thrust into a situation of danger" (486).  While I do not think that this theory can account for the full picture, I do think that it helps to at least partially explain U.S. actions in the post-9/11 world.

            The downing of the four planes on 9/11 represents the first major attack by foreign nationals on U.S soil since World War II:a span of approximately 60 years. Unlike many other countries around the world which have had to remain constantly vigilant and prepared to tackle terrorist security threats, before the attacks the United States had enjoyed a long period of relatively unfettered calm, peace, and prosperity.  In contrast, Israel is one such country which, for every step in its entire existence, has had to be remain constantly alert and ready to deal with terrorists and other threats to national security. Due to its history, Israel is used to operating at a lowered security level as it has often dealt with terrorist attacks on its soil: the loss of human life is always saddening, but it seems that this is something that has become a regular part of Israeli life.

            On the other hand, while there is no denying that the 9/11 attacks were absolutely horrendous and despicable, it seems that the "shock" factor was significantly amplified by the fact that the citizens and government of the U.S. did not have to regularly face national security threats of this type and degree in the recent U.S history. In his "War on Terror" speech to Congress and the American public, Bush framed the attacks as an ontological threat, one that jeopardized the very values and foundations upon which America was built. Moreover, Bush painted a picture in which not only the U.S., but the whole world was permanently changed as a result and had a duty to assist the U.S. in its War on Terror: "This is not, however, just America's fight, and what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight."  

            I have come to the conclusion that  different nations may respond to similar threats-- such as terrorism-- in diverse ways based on their unique worldview. Barry Buzan, in his article "Will the ‘global war on terrorism’ be the new Cold War?" writes that nations approach terrorist threats in a few distinctive ways which can be placed on a "wide spectrum of activities", which  "at one extreme, [involves] taking down whole states...[and at] the other extreme, targeted assassinations...(117). The speeches by Bush are moving, emphatic and appeal to the root of what it means to be an American. There is no doubt that the American public was profoundly shocked and angered by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It does not come as a surprise then, that the American public (at least at the time) came to perceive Al Qaeda as a major threat to security and the United States government felt that an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, in full view of the public, was legitimized and in keeping with the core American values of freedom, justice, and democracy.