Rethinking National Security and the Role of the Military - A critical review.

Carl Builder guide us on the military’s role towards national security by comparing the path with using Keenan and Brodie’s containment and deterrence doctrine established in the 1950’s. Using Brodies thinking of 4 key concepts: theory, mission, vision and strategy to come to what national security is at the time of writing. He posits that national security can be re-formulated since while the dangers are not the same form they are of the same kind.

 To simplify this critical review, we will only use classical thinking of liberal and realist thinking as it is tacit knowledge world order has always been anarchic, closely related to Kant’s thinking that man is self-maximizing and to lump the status quo based on three concepts leaves gaps that are far reaching. This review will argue that Builder’s article builds a compelling concept but lacks the necessary details to enable reader to get a concise and complete picture of the militaries role when there are too many metaphors used to try and fill in the gaps.

 To illustrate the gaps, we have to investigate the three key reasons being the press, nuclear and information access by analyzing how the military relates in its entirety while relating them to the liberal and realist thinking as this will help us relate it to international relations, after all the world is anarchic (Bull, 2012, pp. 181-182). States have no higher authority? While this is true we must take into account how world leaders from the whole globe reacts towards other states, information plays a key role in this case it was an elitist (Saddam/Baath party) who had too much information but misinterpreted how it would be taken (Boot, 2003). This was a military action which brought about a swift response from the UN security council.

 “It is apparent that the challenges that confront us today are only different in form, but not in kind, from those that we faced 50 years ago.”

  It is apparent Builder wrote this before the realization of China’s island building in the South China Sea, the national security or in this case national interest is being argued that US has no more interest within the Asian regions stability. Builders builds on the different form but not in kind by arguing that nations no longer threaten US security as “possession of weapons of mass destruction may not be deterrable “. This statement would be supported if there is no longer a threat of total war, after all as the US is a democratic nation public opinion will ensure instability within the globe would garner interest towards the Asian theater. Comparing this to Brodie’s way when politics … intrude on military plans even in circumstances where there is strong agreement on overall ends and means – military strategy as public discourse (Sholtis, 2013, p. 1) could occur at the theory, mission and vision stages if it involves rethinking national security.

Builder’s point in the military hanging on is no longer applicable as the threat of China looms and makes this point moot. While it is true that there is a large threat from no state actors the world we live is ever evolving. At the time of writing his article it was arguable that the role of the military has changed it lacks in foresight as world affairs are constantly changing. It does prove that time for change is ever quickening it does not hold true when thing evolve back to a nation to nation state collision.

 Capping demands against an unlimited threat and insuring the most cost-effective use of the public’s blank check are no longer the challenges of national security.

 Is he arguing the US is no longer interested in the Asian region as a national interest? After all security and interest are intertwined. He states nations survival is no longer at stake, does not sound true in the current climate we face today because North Korea looks to be gearing a more total war approach towards the US and its allies with no sign of negotiating state interests against perceived cost of action. Putting this into the 4 concepts of Brodie’s we would lump this current situation into the theory, mission, vision and strategy with an end goal of the use of traditional military as a means to win wars not to avert them.

 Although democracies have proven themselves in providing balancing mechanisms at the national level, the contending forces have gone global and no longer respect national boundaries.

 Builder gives a strong point towards balancing acts that allow for elitism and egalitarianism to coexist within national boundaries but with technological advances both are free to roam and not worry about national constraints and this poses a security threat as one if unchecked can cause problems. Because of this statement it is clear that rethinking national security is important to understand how to combat or mitigate its effect on the global scale. Further reading shows Builder is leaning towards a liberal view that the “status quo” power being exerted by the US is for the greater good -altruistic roots.

Many believe that Asia’s peace is the product of inexorable forces of history, which are moving international society away from a world dominated by nation-states towards a system in which non-state actors are the most important players, and pose the most significant risks. (White, 2008 - 2009, p. 86).

achieving political unity through domestic debate became problematic as conflicts were defined less by apparent existential threats than by choices made along a sliding scale of national interest (Sholtis, 2013, p. 4). Is Builder referring to this as the term “National Security”? Interests and security are interchangeable as both can arrive at the same political end.

Our challenge is not to find plug compatible replacements for containment or deterrence, for is it to find security p0olicies that will satisfy or please our diplomatic and military establishments.

  In the realist perspective rising powers and nuclear armed states that are considered “rogue states” would it not then be argued that containment and deterrence.  Can East Asia preserve the order it has enjoyed during the past few decades? If it can, Asia’s future will be assured and Immanuel Kant’s vision of perpetual peace will have come a long way towards fulfilment. If not, major war among great powers could again become not just thinkable, but frighteningly possible, or even probable (White, 2008 - 2009, p. 86).

Let us hope that this thinking is not “constructed pragmatically, adapting doctrine to particular problems, not being its slave.” Based on Sholtis view Builder’s narrative about the concepts towards change as a quickening of change to the status quo as long as it does not become doctrine then only those that see war as a clear and present danger will be willing to make the sacrifices of national interest needed to preserve the peace (White, 2008 - 2009, p. 88).

References

Boot, M. (2003). The New American Way of War. Foreign Affairs, 82(4), pp. 41-58.

Bull, H. (2012). The Anarchical Society; a study of order in world politics, 4th ed. In H. Bull. Columbia University Press.

Sholtis, T. (2013). Military Strategy as Public Discourse : Americas was in Afghanistan. Taylor and Francis.

White, H. (2008 - 2009, December - January). Why War in Asia Remains Thinkable. Survival 50(6), pp. 85-104.

Carl Builder, Rethinking National Security and the Role of the Military (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1995). This paper can be accessed through this link: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2006/P7943.pdf