We will write a custom Critical Writing on US National Security Policy Aspects specifically for you
301 certified writers online
The US security policymakers have to demonstrate adaptability and reason in their work. There is a need for them to select the paths towards liberation. In addition, they should leverage the present financial crises, which will enable them provide security more successfully. There are considerations on whether the military departments should be reformed so as to cope with real risks. There is a need to reform the security enterprise in the country. This will ensure that the foreign policy agrees with the national guidelines.
Going Beyond Counterterrorism
In the US, there is a concern for the series of threats. In this regard, there is a need for immediate responses to security threats. It is worth mentioning that during discussions on security concerns, the idea of Grand Strategy is vanishing slowly. A majority of the occupants in the White House have avoided discussing and enhancing an outstanding strategic vision (Fierke, 2007). Many of them do not have a clear picture on the direction the country should take to guard the national interests. Only a few policy makers have focused on the nation’s principles, primacy, and guidelines. It is imperative to differentiate terms such as security dogmas, national security, and grand strategy.
National security strategies and policies are not adequate to curb counterterrorism. As far as the case of Afghanistan is concerned, the grand strategy is avoided. The death of Osama Bin Laden is not enough reason for the US to avoid Afghanistan. On the contrary, Afghanistan is central in the grand strategy, since it should guard the US from Muslim extremism. In addition, it should ensure a stable geopolitical environment, which is essential for enhancing the US interests (Binnendijk, 2006). It is impossible to achieve the grand strategy through implementing counterterrorist procedures alone. Key figures in the nation should enhance the grand strategy, which solves today’s issues. In addition, it guarantees future supremacy.
Hard and Soft Power
American conservatives agree on several issues in regards to the country’s national security. It is thought that the majority of the potential and present national security risks will be long- term. Therefore, a coherent conservative stand will be maintained in the country. Some security analysts advocate for hard power. This involves nuclear deterrence. Conservatives doubt the ability of global institutions to promote successful national security. This never implies discarding the universal opinion or advocating for unilateralism. It is worth pointing out that the US should not wait for justifications from the international bodies before implementing policies that safeguard security interests in the country (Viotti, 2005).
Conservatives question the ability of diplomacy and negotiation in rectifying global disagreements, as well as attaining effective resolution of conflicts. The use of force is regarded as a vital ingredient for diplomacy. Other analysts emphasize on delusion and hope. They argue that communication is imperative in resolving any form of conflict. There is a need for critical diplomacy efforts. Moreover, consistent platforms should be put in place. These include a solid support for military funding, development, and research. This will safeguard that the force’s threat in the country remains reliable.
In my opinion, the liberals and conservatives need to agree on the country’s foreign policy. For instance, there are pledges that President Obama fulfil in North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, and Iran, which will escalate the leaders’ reputation and legality.
Binnendijk, M. (2006). Seeing the Elephant. London: National Defense University Press.
Fierke, P. (2007). Critical Approaches to International Security. New York: Blackwell Publishing, Incorporated.
Viotti, L. (2005). American Foreign Policy & National Security. New York: Pearson Education.