The US national security is a critical matter inside and outside this country. Here, we’re going to address what constitutes it, and the strategy behind it.
Today, I want to speak to you about US national security. This is a crucial issue in international relations because the US is still the most powerful country in the world. Despite its decline, the US national security requirements affect the whole global stage directly. For this reason, it’s essential to know what determines it to understand US behavior in world politics.
On this occasion, I’m going to focus on the international dimension of US national security. The internal dimension is also important, but due to the US involvement in international matters, it is mostly determined by foreign affairs.
National security is a sensitive matter because it affects the fate of a political community. I don’t want to go over the meaning of national security, and I refer you to the video I spoke in detail about this concept.
For now, it’s enough to say that national security has to deal with the safety of the State. In other words, it’s the security of that institution in charge of ruling a society. You may object that the national security is related to society. Otherwise, we would be talking about a dictatorship or despotic regime. This objection is valid, but it needs further clarification. The State is formally in charge of its society’s safety. In this way, analysts, politicians, officials, and so on identify the State’s security with the protection of society. That’s a convention that responds to the political stage on which States are the dominant organization.
The essence of any State’s national security is its survival in the long run. That means the preservation of its territorial integrity and sovereignty. However, things may be quite different depending on the role a State plays in world politics. And in the case of the US, this is crucial due to its leading role in this sphere.
The American presence, with numerous military bases scattered across the world, is fundamental to understand its national security. Nevertheless, this is not enough because we have to take into account geopolitical factors. I always stress this dimension of global politics because States are territorial entities. Their geographical position determines the way they see the world and their interests. The US doesn’t escape to this reality.
So, any approach to this topic requires addressing those geopolitical factors that are involved in the US national security. Later, we’ll be able to analyze the international implications regarding the position of the US on the global stage.
The US territory has continental dimensions by spreading across a wide strip of land between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. In addition to this, it has access to the artic circle through Alaska, which is, at the same time, a large depot of raw materials. Aside from this, its population is over 300 million people. We have to include its possessions in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and most notably, the Hawaii archipelago, which is located in a strategic area.
In the initial stages of the formation of the US, the American continent was its natural sphere of influence. Indeed, the Monroe doctrine is clear evidence of this. During the nineteenth century, the US strengthened its position in the western hemisphere. That allowed it to expand its influence and become a colonial power at the end of that century. At that time, it was clear the maritime orientation of this country by building its war navy.
Nevertheless, the twentieth century was different for the definition of the US national interest, and also for its national security. WWII was decisive to involve the US in the international quest as a great power. After 1945 the world presence of the US was overwhelming. It meant a critical shift in its global position. Since then on, its foreign relations changed dramatically, and they followed a clear strategy determined by this new situation in geopolitical terms.
I don’t want to go into depth on the US foreign policy since 1945. That’s something I’ll discuss in forthcoming episodes. However, it’s important to stress not only the broader scope of the US national interest, or its greater influence in world affairs, but the new approach to ensure its national security.
By 1945 the international stage was global for the US, and it reoriented its geopolitical perspective according to the new scenario. In this regard, the main concern for the US security has been the Eurasian continent. That’s easy to explain because most world’s population live there. Besides, the most influential and politically active States are in this world island.
Besides this, I have to mention the role Nicholas Spykman, played in the design of the American strategy. He based his analysis on the ideas of the British geographer Halford Mackinder and adapted them to the US interests. Spykman conceptualized the US as a naval power and identified the main threats for its security from a geopolitical standpoint. These threats were mainly any attempt to control the whole world island by a single State or the formation of a coalition of States. In any of these cases, the emergence of a Eurasian power, able to tap the vast resources of this continent, would pose in danger the US security. Such continental power could build a navy and subject America.
In Spykman’s view, it was necessary to keep the balance of power in the Old World by dividing this area. To do so, he argued that the US would need to get involved in this area’s political quarrels. Furthermore, America would have to dominate the “rimland,” namely the land strip that borders the Eurasian rim. This region goes from Europe to Southeast Asia through the Middle East. He considered vital the control of this area because it entails the control of Eurasia, and as a result, the control of the world. In this way, the US would be able to keep the continent divided and avoid the rise of any continental rival or an anti-American coalition.
Spykman advanced the containment policy that the US would adopt after WWII. That has meant the containment of any continental power, such as the Soviet Union, and the formation of a net of allies in the rimland. Since then on, the national security, considered in geopolitical terms, has been this strategy aimed to prevent any power seizes the world island. The diplomat George Kennan developed this idea at the beginning of the Cold War, and it informed the American foreign policy.
In the past, the continental power that threatened US security was the Soviet Union. After the Cold War, the American strategy keeps unchanged, and China substituted Russia. That explains the US efforts to contain China with different alliances by surrounding its periphery.
We’ve seen the geopolitical factors of the US national security so far. However, that’s not enough. Yes, it tells much about this issue, but we need to take a look at the involvement of this country in world affairs. And we can’t forget the structures that support national security and their relation to the international stage either.
The US supremacy is under question. Indeed, many people consider the US is a declining power. Nevertheless, it doesn’t change its security requirements for the moment. In this respect, we have to say that the national security of the US depends on its international position. Its presence all around the world with many military bases, and also the activity of American companies, has a direct impact on its security.
Usually, national security is defined in military terms. However, that’s a narrow perspective that doesn’t take into account other factors. I refer to the role of supplies and access to specific markets that consume American companies’ goods and services.
Nowadays, the US security in the world revolves around the looming threat China represents. That explains the great concern over the rise of this power and its aspiration to become a superpower by 2050. Nevertheless, the world position of the US also depends on its economic capacity to afford its foreign policy. For this reason, we witness how the American economy needs to keep the pace in productivity by importing cheap workforce. Besides its demographic problems, it represents another strategic concern to maintain the war machinery.
Furthermore, we shouldn’t overlook the growing rivalry with other commercial competitors. That’s the case of the uneasy transatlantic relations, and the fear of the US to lose its share in the European market. I refer to the arms market, but tension reaches other industries such as the aircraft, or the automobile industries.
As we can see, the US international interests define and determine national security. That’s important to understand the behavior of this great power. However, this would be an inadequate approach if we don’t take into account the structure of US national security. The reason to do so is the dominant role it plays in American politics.
Who defines national security? That question deserves a clear answer. And for the American case, the question is appropriate because there are many vested interests to determine national security.
Those who constitute the national security complex, that is, the power structures aimed at ensuring the country’s safety, define the national security. I refer chiefly to coercive institutions, but I want to remark that not all enjoy the same relevance in this complex.
In any case, the most important of all is the Department of Defense. The Pentagon is oriented to ensure national security abroad. But its ascendancy in the federal government on this matter is decisive. Its huge budget reflects its power and influence, besides a workforce of 1.3 million soldiers. We should include the staff of those auxiliary industries that supply the Pentagon, with approximately 5 million workers. Naturally, generals and admirals have much power in terms of resources to define national security. And they do it to favor their interests.
Besides the Pentagon, other institutions are part of the same complex too. For instance, that’s the case of the Department of State, in charge of the diplomatic corps and foreign relations. High-rank officials of this department define the main threats and contribute to designing the national security strategy.
Another set of institutions that play a remarkable role in national security matters is the intelligence community. There are many different agencies at the federal level, but there are two that stand out. They are the CIA and the NSA. They have access to a wide range of data and information, and they focus their operations abroad. However, the NSA also operates in the US national territory. They have a large budget and a lot of human resources. They deal with sensitive areas of US security, and that allows them to intervene in the definition and design of national security.
We could add other institutions related to the national security complex, but their activity develops in the national territory. I refer to the FBI, other law enforcement agencies, and courts of justice. They also take part in the definition and shape of national security. Nevertheless, their importance is lesser due to the dominant role of foreign affairs in domestic politics.
In sum, these institutions and their high-rank officials are who decide on national security issues and conduct the US policy in this realm. Indeed, they wield the coercive power and define the national interest. They make all important and strategic decisions or pre-cook them to get the formal approval of elected officials. In brief, they set the national security priorities and shape the strategy of the US.
Question of the day! What do you think is more relevant for the US national security, the geopolitical factors, or institutions? Post your opinion in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.
Bibliography used:
Strayer, Joseph, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State
Strayer, Joseph, Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives of History
Gilbert, Felix (ed.), The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze
Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European States: AD 990-1992
Mann, Michael, The Sources of Social Power
Poggi, Gianfranco, The Development of the Modern State
Anderson, M. S., The Origins of the Modern European State System 1494-1618
Spruyt, Hendrik, The Sovereign State and its Competitors
Le Goff, Jacques, La Baja Edad Media
Giddens, Anthony, The Nation-State and violence
Disclosure: Some of these links are affiliate links where I’ll earn a small commission if you make a purchase at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
En esta ocasión analizamos los orígenes del Estado moderno.
Analizamos diferentes conceptualizaciones del modo en el que funciona la política: como organismo, máquina, mercado,…
On this occasion, we analyze the civil-military relations and the paradox between democracy and militarism.
En este episodio desvelamos las claves del funcionamiento de la política.
Abordamos el Estado moderno y sus principales características que lo diferencian de formas estatales previas.
This website uses cookies.