The Molding Process

Is the notion of “national security” more or less infinitely malleable? Can anything be a “security” issue? Should security be defined as broadly as that, or should we operate with a narrower definition?

Throughout the short joyous history of my blog, I have found my methodology of attacking questions like these from two different points of view to be the most beneficial. However, in the case of this question, I will utilize a new technique to explain my take on Wolfer's assertion. I think one of the best ways to flesh out a concept or see if an idea stands pat is by using real-life examples. So, let’s put national security to the test!

Off the bat (Game 6 of the world series is going on), the first place my mind goes when I ponder if national security indeed has a malleable definition is to the reading about Fixing the Meaning of 9/11 (Um…the title….). The Bush administration’s focus on redefining social norms through “epideictic rhetoric” and a falsely established sense of “prophetic dualism” portrays an overarching theme that suggests that national security is what you want it to be. With their eyes set on oil and sending a message that would set a precedent in the middle east, the U.S. had to find a way to justify a means to an end. Redefining what fell under national security through a deceitful choice between good and evil, the U.S. made war look only appropriate in order to ensure national security. This is a clear example of the definition not only being bent but also redefined.

Moving now to a more recent example, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the NSA’s (NATIONAL SECURITY Agency) numerous global surveillance programs. Many of these programs entailed very intimate surveillance that involved the cooperation by a vast majority of telecommunication companies. Why would the NSA go to such a far extent to invade the privacy of anyone of their choosing? The answer can be found in the name of the agency. In order to protect national security, the NSA was willing to reach over a threshold that is troublesome, to say the least. Moreover, this clarifies that the definition this agency has of national security and what is justifiable in the name of national security is significantly different than that of other citizens, organizations, and governments.

Pulling everything together here, every definition of national security is grounded within the same fundamental principles; however, if need be, it can be molded to fit an agenda, perceived threat, or interest. What one defines as a security threat is entirely subjective to context. The biggest takeaway here is that leaving the definition of national security broad works in favor of any nation, allowing them to proceed with many actions that could not be justified if the meaning was constricted. The drawback is that this leaves citizens with uncertainty and a sense of ambiguity that may be threatening to trust between citizens and the government.