American national security seventh edition edition, (ebook pdf) - Get instant access to the full ebo

https://ebookmass.com/product/american-national-security-

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you

Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing Seventh, North American Edition – Ebook PDF Version, Revised – Ebook PDF Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/psychiatric-mental-health-nursingseventh-north-american-edition-ebook-pdf-version-revised-ebook-pdfversion/

ebookmass.com

The Palgrave Handbook Of National Security 1st Edition

Michael Clarke

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-nationalsecurity-1st-edition-michael-clarke/

ebookmass.com

IoT for Defense and National Security Robert Douglass

https://ebookmass.com/product/iot-for-defense-and-national-securityrobert-douglass/

ebookmass.com

Digital Transformation Success: Achieving Alignment and Delivering Results with the Process Inventory Framework

Michael Schank

https://ebookmass.com/product/digital-transformation-successachieving-alignment-and-delivering-results-with-the-process-inventoryframework-michael-schank/

ebookmass.com

States will face an extremely complex security environment for the foreseeable future.

It is important to understand the perspectives and approaches that provide the context for American national security policy making. As discussed in part I of this book, “National Security Policy: What Is It, and How Have Americans Approached It?,” one of the strengths that the United States brings to policy making is its values. Those values are represented both by the ideals enshrined in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and by the strength and dedication of the American people to do the hard work necessary to make the United States and the world a stronger, safer, and better place for future generations. A successful and sustainable approach to national security will rest on these values, which should continue to influence policy choices in the future.

With national security policy, it is sometimes difficult to understand all the players involved, which is addressed in part II, “National Security Policy: Actors and Processes.” During my career as a military leader, I worked with all the actors discussed, often engaging with the White House and Congress. With the intelligence, diplomatic, and homeland security communities as partners with the military, the challenge was to integrate our efforts in support of shared strategies. Understanding the proper role of the military, the vital importance of the budget process, and the intricacies of national security decision making are crucial to the effective formulation of security policy. There is no substitute for learning about all of these actors and agencies firsthand, but studying their history, culture, organization, and practices is a great first step toward understanding their important roles in American national security.

Recently, the United States seems to have had an overreliance on the military element of power. As this book describes in part III, “Ways and Means of National Strategy,” it is critical to understand and incorporate all elements of power when developing a successful long-term strategy. Our overreliance on the hammer of military power has created a dynamic that makes every problem look like a nail. While military action can gain time for political activity to take place, it is vital that we incorporate economic, diplomatic, informational, educational, intelligence, law enforcement, and other aspects of power in the development of a sustainable strategy. All elements of national power need to be adequately resourced so that we can

and unparalleled knowledge and experience of the two men to whom we dedicate this book: Amos A. Jordan and William J. Taylor Jr. Brigadier General Joe Jordan graduated as the highest-ranking cadet in the West Point Class of 1946, studied at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, earned his PhD from Columbia University, and served on the faculty in the Department of Social Sciences at West Point for twenty years, eventually retiring as the Professor and Head of the Department. He continued to serve in senior civilian positions in the Department of Defense and the Department of State and was a member of the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board. He served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), President of the CSIS Pacific Forum, and as a Senior Advisor at the Wheatley Institution at Brigham Young University. Colonel Bill Taylor was commissioned through the US Army Officer Candidate School (OCS) in 1955 and was later elected to the OCS Hall of Fame. He earned his PhD from American University and served on the faculty in the Department of Social Sciences at West Point for sixteen years. At the time of his retirement, he was serving as the Director of National Security Studies. He then became an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and served at CSIS, where he led the International Security Program, was a Senior Advisor, and helped lead the professional development program. These men provided a tremendous legacy of excellence, precision, rigor, and clarity one that continues to inform this seventh edition of American National Security.

As faculty in the Department of Social Sciences in the 1970s, Jordan and Taylor recognized the need for a textbook that would explain US national security to an audience with renewed interest in security issues after the Vietnam War. The first edition was published in 1981 and quickly became the most relied-upon text in national security policy courses at institutions serving undergraduates, graduate students, and military and civilian government professionals. Subsequent editions of the book followed the same basic approach identifying the history, continuities, and trends in American national security policy that provide context for the contemporary challenges that policy makers face on a daily basis. Jordan and Taylor combined their efforts with Lawrence J. Korb of the Brookings Institution for the third and fourth editions, and Michael J. Mazaar of CSIS for the fifth edition. The sixth edition returned partial responsibility for the book’s

authorship to the Department of Social Sciences at West Point, as Jordan and Taylor recruited Michael Meese and Suzanne Nielsen, previous and current Department Heads, respectively, to co-author that edition. Rachel Sondheimer, an Associate Professor who teaches American politics at West Point, has joined Meese and Nielsen to co-author this seventh edition.

The Department of Social Sciences at West Point is responsible for teaching the disciplines of political science and economics to cadets, and it is also home to the Combating Terrorism Center, which provides cutting-edge research on the terrorist threat, as well as the Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis, which supports the Army’s senior leaders as they shape the future force. It is a national resource of talented military and civilian faculty who teach cadets about the national security policies that they will observe, encounter, help develop, and execute throughout their professional careers. Classrooms at West Point are the ideal laboratory to test the concepts from this text, and the current version has benefited greatly from the insights of faculty and students as it was developed. Indeed, this work would not have been possible without this collaboration at the United States Military Academy, which is among the reasons why proceeds from the sale of this book are donated back to West Point. Several faculty members leveraged their considerable national security expertise to help draft significant revisions to many chapters. In particular, we would like to acknowledge the work of Terry Babcock-Lumish (“Putting the Pieces Together: National Security Decision Making” and “Nuclear Policy”), Jordan Becker (“Europe”), Ruth Beitler (“The Middle East”), Ryan Bell (“Putting the Pieces Together: National Security Decision Making” and “Nuclear Policy”), Steven Bloom (“Economics”), Roxanne Bras (“Irregular Threats: Terrorism, Insurgencies, and Violent Extremist Organizations”), Tania Chacho (“East Asia”), Robert Chamberlain (“Latin America”), Meghan Cumpston (“The International Setting”), Joe DaSilva (“The Evolution of American National Security Policy” and “Congress”); Brian Dodwell (“Homeland Security”), Dean Dudley (“Planning, Budgeting, and Management”), Brian Forester (“Presidential Leadership and the Executive Branch” and “South Asia”), Jim Golby (“The Role of the Military in the Policy Process” and “Military Power”), Jessica Grassetti (“Planning, Budgeting, and Management”), Liesl Himmelberger (“East Asia”), Seth Johnston (“Europe”), Bonnie Kovatch (“Sub-Saharan Africa”), Patrick Kriz (“Latin America”), Charlie Lewis (“The

CCP Chinese Communist Party

CENTCOM US Central Command

CENTO Central Treaty Organization

CFE Conventional Forces in Europe (treaty of 1990)

CFIUS Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CJTF-HOA Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa

COIN counterinsurgency

COM chief of mission

COMINT communications intelligence

CPA Coalition Provisional Authority

CSCC Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications

CSCE Conference for Security Cooperation in Europe

CSSTA Cross-Strait Services Trade Agreement

CTR Cooperative Threat Reduction

CVE countering violent extremism

CYBERCOM US Cyber Command

DC Deputies Committee (of the National Security Council)

DCA Defense Cooperation Agreement

DCI Director of Central Intelligence

DCS defense commercial sales

DEA Drug Enforcement Agency

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DIA Defense Intelligence Agency

DISA Defense Information Systems Agency

DMZ demilitarized zone (Korean peninsula)

DNI Director of National Intelligence

DoD Department of Defense

DoDIN Department of Defense Information Network

DOJ Department of Justice

DPP Democratic Progressive Party (Taiwan)

DPRK Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea)

DSCA Defense Security Cooperation Agency

DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

ELINT electronic intelligence

ESDP European Security and Defense Program

EU European Union

F3EAD find, fix, finish, exploit, analyze, and disseminate

FATA Federally Administered Tribal Areas

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FDI foreign direct investment

FDR Franklin Delano Roosevelt

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRE Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement

FISA Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

FISINT foreign instrumentation signals intelligence

FMF foreign military financing

FMS foreign military sales

FSB Federal Security Service (Russian)

FTAA Free Trade Area of the Americas

FY fiscal year

G7, G8, or

G20 group of seven, eight, or twenty (international economic forums)

GAO Government Accountability Office

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GDP gross domestic product

GEOINT geospatial intelligence

GNP gross national product

GPS global positioning system

HASC House Armed Services Committee

HPSCI House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

HSC Homeland Security Council

HUMINT human intelligence

IADB Inter-American Development Bank

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile

IED improvised explosive device

IGO intergovernmental organization

IMF International Monetary Fund

IMINT imagery intelligence

INF Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (treaty of 1987)

IOB Intelligence Oversight Board

IRBM intermediate-range ballistic missile

ISAF International Security Assistance Force

ISIL Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant

ISR intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance

JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff

JSTARS Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System

JTTF joint terrorism task force

KGB Committee for State Security (Russian)

START Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (1991)

TCO trans-national criminal organization

TPP Trans-Pacific Partnership

TSCTP Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Partnership

TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

UAV unmanned aerial vehicle

UN United Nations

USA

PATRIOT Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USIA US Information Agency

VEO violent extremist organization

VTC video teleconference

WMD weapons of mass destruction

WTO World Trade Organization

YPG Kurdish People’s Protection Units

to states. Advocates for a focus on this broader security agenda an agenda that has received greater emphasis since the end of the Cold War believe that these issues deserve a place next to the traditional focus on the security competition among states as national security priorities.3

A second question, which is related but even more fundamental, is raised by scholars and policy advocates working in a field known as human security. These advocates question the adequacy of the concept of national security itself by disputing the presumption that the state rather than the individual is the key unit of concern. Particularly in predatory, failing, or failed states, security from external threats may not be the most urgent consideration. Human security is also related to transnational security challenges. According to the United Nations (UN), “Human security is needed in response to the complexity and the interrelatedness of both old and new security threats from chronic and persistent poverty to ethnic violence, human trafficking, climate change, health pandemics, international terrorism, and sudden economic and financial downturns. Such threats tend to acquire transnational dimensions and move beyond traditional notions of security that focus on external military aggressions alone.”4 Threats to human security vary across time and are highly context-specific. Human security scholars vary in the definitions that they use; some focus on the full range of threats to personal well-being and dignity, while others focus more narrowly on political violence. However, they agree on putting the welfare of individuals at the center of their analyses.5

The term national security is an elastic one; its meaning and implications have expanded, contracted, and shifted over time. Reminiscent of Dr. Samuel Johnson’s definition of patriotism as “the last refuge of scoundrels,” protection of national security has sometimes even been invoked to justify or conceal illegal acts. Because national security issues can involve high stakes, it is especially important to analyze critically any argument that employs national security as a justification for a position or action. It is also useful to remember that national security policy in the US context serves both material interests and nonmaterial values and to return occasionally to first principles. Does a particular policy further US security or economic interests or values while preserving the US Constitution and the framework it establishes for the American way of life? If the answer to that question is uncertain, then so may be the grounds on which a particular policy rests.

Perspectives on International Politics

Three of the most important intellectual perspectives in the field of international relations are realism, liberalism, and constructivism.6 These three worldviews reflect different basic assumptions about which phenomena are truly important and how the world is expected to operate. It is useful for both scholars and policy makers to be self-conscious about their perspectives so that they understand the likely strengths and weaknesses of their approaches to international events and developments. Clarity about core assumptions may also help policy makers anticipate circumstances under which their various initiatives may be mutually reinforcing or might instead be contradictory.

Realism. The oldest and perhaps the predominant view of the nature of international politics is realism, which has intellectual roots dating back to Thucydides and Machiavelli. Realists see international politics as a dangerous, conflict-prone realm in which security is far from guaranteed. States are the primary actors and can be analyzed as if they were unitary and rational actors whose core national interest can be defined as power. Given the presence of anarchy defined as the lack of a single authority having sovereign power over the states in the international system realists assert that states must pursue self-help strategies in order to survive. Although some states may strive only to maintain their positions in the system, others may pursue domination. To preserve independence and prevent destruction, states seek to balance the power of other states either through alliances or through internal means of increasing their relative power, such as arms buildups or economic mobilization. Although alliances may be useful forms of cooperation, they should be expected to last only as long as the common threat that initially brought the allies together remains relevant.

An important contribution of the realist school of thought is its emphasis on the central concept of power. Although it can be tempting to define power as influence or as the ability to get one’s way, this approach can easily become misleading. For example, a Canadian victory in a trade dispute with the United States does not make it reasonable to conclude that Canada is more powerful. Seeking to give the term a more scientific and measurable

be more peaceful in general, it is less likely to go to war with another state that shares its democratic institutions and norms.

In addition to focusing greater attention on the domestic characteristics of states, liberalism also differs from realism in the mechanisms it suggests for the maintenance of international peace and stability. Realists would likely dismiss any suggestions that a permanent peace among states is possible, but they would hold that periods of relative peace and stability can be achieved if states prudently look to their interests (defined as power) and pay adequate attention to maintaining a balance of power in the international system.17 Liberals, on the other hand, would be more likely to look to the mechanisms identified by Kant in his 1795 political essay “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch.” There, he hypothesizes that a permanent peace among states would have three characteristics: all states would have representative, elected governments; these governments would form a federation among themselves to resolve differences and to ensure an overwhelming response to any state’s aggression; and individuals would have the basic right not to be automatically treated as an enemy when arriving in a foreign land.18 This last provision, a minimal human right that opens the door to commerce, identifies a mechanism for the development of peaceful relations, which is explored more fully in Kant’s 1784 work “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose.”19 According to this essay, trade will increase the interconnectedness among societies, which will in turn increase the benefits of peaceful relations and heighten the costs of increasingly destructive wars. Though scholars working within the liberal tradition have refined these basic arguments and developed more specific propositions, Kant’s central ideas still underpin much of the liberal approach. Democratic peace theorists explore the possible benefits of democracy in terms of peace and security. Kant’s notion of a federation of states was an early articulation of the focus of modern liberal theorists on the roles that international institutions and international law can play in furthering common interests among states.20 Finally, the idea that increased trade can promote peace continues to inform liberal thinking. For example, political scientists Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye developed an approach called complex interdependence that sees the mutual dependence between states created by economic interconnectedness as making conflict less likely.21

For most liberals, these ideas are underpinned by concepts of universal

human rights and the view that the freedom and moral autonomy of the individual are central values. A classic statement of this viewpoint can be found in the US Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”22 The liberal desire to protect the individual is also embodied in international law, such as the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” adopted by the United Nations in 1948, as well as in the Geneva Conventions and other laws of warfare.23

Like realism, liberalism has both strengths and weaknesses. It is a historical fact that liberal democracies have rarely if ever fought one another, although the process of democratization can itself be quite dangerous to international peace and security.24 International law can be useful in defining standards and in establishing a mechanism to punish individuals when domestic systems cannot, but its most significant shortcoming is the lack of guaranteed enforcement. Similarly, international institutions have been significant in helping states to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (later the World Trade Organization, or WTO) has facilitated free trade and global economic growth, for example but they, too, are limited by uncertain enforcement. Finally, increased international commerce has improved individual welfare around the world if unevenly and the mechanism of mutual dependence has been used in efforts to make war less likely between states. As an example, in the early post–World War II years, Germany and France established the European Coal and Steel Community (which later evolved into the European Union [EU]) with the intent of making war between them less likely. However, even in the area of trade, there have been disappointments. In 1910, Sir Norman Angell argued in The Great Illusion that economic interconnectedness had made war obsolete and conquest counterproductive; World War I broke out only four years later. Overall, the world wars in the middle of the twentieth century were great setbacks to the liberal vision. Enlightenment did not necessarily mean progress, and economic interdependence, democracy, and international institutions were not adequate to preserve the peace.