National Security as an ambiguous symbol, by Arnold Wolfers

Extract

[...] America launched war in Iraq on behalf of democracy (with the main idea that democracies are not a threat to each other, based on the theory of democratic peace) : in this case the use of preventive war may lead to the accusation of agressive policy instead of being seen as defense policy, especially since it has been proved that Saddam Hussein was not a real threat to America and that he did not possess weapons of mass destruction. If necessary, it underlines a bit more on the ambiguity of the notion of national security. Indicative Bibliography by Oboulo.com Wolfers, Arnold 1952 “National Security” as an Ambiguous Symbol. Political Science Quarterly 67:481-502. [...]

[...] This was the case during the Cold War with the armaments race. This is still the case nowdays with more states trying to develop the nuclear weapon. To finish, let us examine Wolfer's statements about the importance of moral dimension in national security. When statesmen call for a security policy, they call for the sacrifice of some values (individual liberty) in the name of another democracy. A security policy entails a comparison and the weighing of values, to decide which ones deserve protection, and which one can be sacrified. [...]

[...] The idea of security has an objective dimension (absence of threats to acquire values) and a subjective one (absence of fear that such values will be attacked). This twofold aspect explains why states act differently towards security. Nations have different degrees of insecurity feeling, depending if they have experienced an attack in the recent past or if they have been attacked suddenly after a period of high degree security. This is particularly relevant in the case of the United State, which had never faced real external attack before 9/11. [...]

[...] ‘National Security' as an ambiguous symbol, by Arnold Wolfers In this text written in 1952, Arnold Wolfers tries to point out the scope of the concept of national security, its meaning and its various implications as well as the way the states deal, and should deal, with it. One may question the relevance of Arnold Wolfers' analysis in the current international context. Before discussing the implementation and the moral scope of the national security politics, we will first clarify the evolution of the notion of national interest, which encompasses the notion of national security. [...]

[...] An efficient security policy is twofold and relies on coercive power as well as on negotiation. This analysis is still relevant nowadays. Thus French security policy is based on nuclear deterrence as much as on negotiation, especially among international organizations (UN Security Council). The states must nonetheless be carefull not to make their enemy stronger through their concessions. Moreover the states have to define what level of security, they want and the need, for “ efforts of security are bound to be considered as a burden”. [...]