Reflection: Security/ Sanity Week

This week was paired with a heightened sense of caution amongst the citizens. There was a plot thwarted to bomb the Metro system, a flight from Yemen carrying "suspicious" cargo escorted by fighter jets to JFK, and a slight sense of anxiety from the high influx of people for the Rally to Restore Sanity. These events have led some to be more cautious in their day to day activities across the country, but D.C. in particular.

This heightened caution relates to our class discussion on security. The question I raise from these events is; what is a greater security threat, the events themselves (the thwarted plot, the flight, the large quantity of people) or the response to these potential threats? My argument would be toward the latter. For although these security risks may be great, our society's response may trigger a amplification of threat. Take for example the Rally to Restore Sanity. In hindsight, there was no meaningful damage done to the citizens or to the area. However, if individuals became frightened by the influx of people, the overcrowding of the metro, or the crowd in general, there could have been mass hysteria. This could ultimately lead people to feel uncomfortable in their homes, stray away from stores, or possibly suspect other individuals as threats to individual security. The actions taken, such as preemptive self-defesne could result in damage to other individuals and their property.

My argument is not that society should let security risks go unattended, but rather asses the threat. This assessment an analysis of potential damages, financial costs of said damages, potential courses of action to avoid threat (including inaction), and weighing of importance in regards to other threats. If individual, groups, or society misinterpret a threat or neglect to properly analyze it, the consequences could be more dire then the original threat. Therefore, threat assessment is vital in ensuring security for all.

The Greatest Threat to Global Peace and Security

The greatest threat to global peace and security is the suppression of free thought and lack of acceptance socially and culturally. The ignorance that causes states, citizens, and non-state actors to oppress free thought and reject 'others" leads to other threats such as; nuclear war, terrorist attacks, wars, genocide, catastrophic climate change, economic crisis, etc. Threat in this scope is anything that can disrupt civil society that is to say a voluntary society with collective action.

When an individual or group (state and otherwise) attempts to suppress free thought/expression they impede any natural form of progress within society. For example, suppressing a dissenting voice against a leader might lead to a totalitarian society where this leader then controls almost every action made by a citizen. The suppression destroys any chance at civil society because individuals are coerced into action. As for a lack of acceptance, it is this form of neglect that ultimately leads to further aggression. Those who are not accepted or cast as “others” will seek vengeance against the society that failed to accept them. The other opportunity for threat is for the “others” to be attacked by the non-accepting group/individual. For instance, Al Qaeda is unaccepting of the Untied States way of life and thus seeks to bring its western tradition down.

The greatest way for our world as a whole to see less conflict and therefore a lack of threat to security and global peace is to be more accepting of those seen as different, as well as allowing for expression by individuals and groups. This way the true landscape of the globe is painted; flaws can be pinpointed and fixed, ultimately leading to further progression for mankind.

Reflection 9

Our class spent a large amount of time discussing the security foci of the NSC 68 and the Obama document. The NSC 68's main scope was the Soviet Union and communism, in regards to their affect on the United States and democracy. The Obama document evolved security to focus on the environment, education Al-Qaeda, economic strength, global cooperation, US technological and scientific innovation, alliances, and advancement of democracy in the Middle East. The definition of US security expanded greatly under the Obama document, leading one to wonder what security is.

In my opinion, the Obama document expanded the definition of security in an effort to not leave anything out in the case that circumstances change in the world. That is to say, the United States' resources may no longer be focused on AL-Qaeda or another organization and therefore there must be another scope of focus. However, the expansion of the definition also shows that the administration realizes that US resources cannot be solely focused in one area.

I see security threats to be anything that can make a dent to the US and Western way of life. This gives a great scope of security because the western way of life is so broad; economics, the business sector, media, education, technology, medicine/health, democratic ideals, etc. Therefore it is up to the government and the citizens to realize the great source of threat in the world and seek to secure their way of life. This, in my opinion, means a focus on the expansion on education, technology, "green" products/ values, the spread of democracy, economic stability, cooperation with global actors (states and institutions), and helping citizens in nations that are unable to provide for their people. Security means carefully watching each section of life and maintaining stability within it, either through government or civic in/action.