National Security

As I ended my post on Security, I wrote a bit about national security, and that I would return to it another day.  In his comment, Felix complimented me, adding that "... when it comes to the details of national security, we may find that we diverge".  A conversation with Felix is always interesting.  We almost always diverge in some aspect of our conversation subjects, so I thought I'd ramble on this evening about national security.

At bottom, I have conflicting views about national security.  It's easier to say what it is not, rather than what it is.  As I said in that post, "Bluster, bullying, aggression, barriers, and arms are, in my amateur psychological perspective, signs of feeling insecure."  Unfortunately, as I see it, the GWB administration relies almost entirely on four B's, bluster, bullying, barriers, and bulls**t.

Thinking through my fingers now, without any particular expertise, it seems to me national security has two forms, physical and emotional.  Perhaps emotional isn't the correct word, character or confidence would be better choices.  For now though, let me use emotional while the thought clarifies itself.

Taking physical national security first;  simply put, it's the physical strength and ability to right ourselves and retain our identity no matter what threatens our people.  Whether that threat is natural disasters, or internal or external attack isn't really important.  National security lies in our people having the capability to form cohesive, coordinated responses.

As I think about it, that's a reasonably good definition of personal security too.  There's no life without risk or threat.  Security is the confidence that one can withstand the blows and retain our identity in spite of the changes living bring.

National security is defensive, not aggressive.  There is good reason all oaths of federal office begin:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend         the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and         domestic; ...

It's also interesting that there's no mention in the oath of defending the nation.  The Constitution is deemed to be the nation's core, and its death (or corruption?) would change the meaning of nation altogether.

Extrapolating from that, the nation doesn't need security.  Its security rests in the Constitution.  When the Constitution is secure, so is the nation.  That's a bit far-fetched, but basically accurate.  As with any concept, however, the people and officers swearing the oath are what make it work.  In my opinion, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney and their group have done more to damage the Constitution than al Qaeda.

The fingers have come to a place that the mind recognizes that there aren't really two different forms of national security.  All that I've written so far define both physical and emotional security.  National security is the defensive support of the Constitution and the values it establishes. 

There is something missing though.  This definition of national security has no place to assist other nations to be equally secure, and that is precisely where national security takes a very dangerous turn.  When in the name of national security the nation undertakes remaking other nations in our image, we have moved beyond the defensive, Constitutional national security to aggression.

There are numerous reasons to develop a generous foreign aid to assist other nations.  Their security, their "confidence that one can withstand the blows and retain [their] identity in spite of the changes living bring", is equally as important as our own.  The ideal, therefore, would be that every nation be secure.  And any nation's security rests solely on the personal, individual security of its people.