Reflection week 9

This Thursday’s discussion regarding the similarities and differences between security policies was something new for me. I’d never taken the time to actually read Obama’s current security policy, much less one from the era of the Soviet Union.

The similar elements throughout the two documents were striking, and far more frequent than I had anticipated. Culture and the preservation of American ideals and unique way of life is discussed in both, and although the specific enemy we defend against transforms, the general idea of a powerful enemy with America’s destruction as its objective remains the same. This enemy is thought to be morally depraved, in the wrong, and in opposition to everything Americans hold dear. The United States’ identity remains fairly constant through the times, as we continue to see ourselves as a benevolent power, primarily preserving self-interest, in addition to looking out for other countries.

The differences between the Obama and Truman administration’s views were just as frequent and prominent as I had predicted. NSC68’s principal argument was that the soviet menace must be destroyed by any means necessary. To facilitate this, the US should build up their nuclear strength, build and maintain ties with other nations, and fortify the nation against the eventuality of a soviet attack—thinking only in the present and concerned with surviving now rather than plans for the future. In contrast, the 2010 policy focuses on building, maintaining, and increasing innovation domestically –in regards to economics, human rights, security, manufacturing, employment—as a priority, with an emphasis on the complete dismantling of Al Qaeda’s operations. Obama talks about international cooperation and the need to build America’s image to be an example in the world, as well as looking for peaceful solutions, as opposed to a selfish warlike mentality.

The two security policy documents really are representations of the times in which they were written. During the cold war, nationalism was rampant, and so the enemy was made out to be an evil entity, “enslaving” other nations instead of allying with them, and the document really concentrates on only America, and is not concerned with the world outside the cold war nations. Today, I think the war against terror has lost much of its support, so Obama refers to the mission as against Al Qaeda. The broad term of the war on terror previously used deals with a much more general goal, and one that cannot easily be achieved. When a country is fighting a war on terror, they cannot win the war until all terrorism has been exterminated. This is incredibly difficult, because when one leader is eliminated, another quickly steps up to take his place. By narrowing the purpose of our Middle Eastern occupation, America can more easily achieve the goal, and morale will be improved by giving the war a face Americans can rally against.