National Security Policies Concerning the President

National Security Policies Concerning the President In this post-911 world, the President of the United States has more concerns than ever regarding national security. Not only are we at war with terrorists, but recent events have shown this to be a much more dangerous world than was previously thought. In this paper we will address the two major national security issues on which the President should be focused. The first policy the President should be focused is that of terrorism and homeland security.

I include them together because we cannot do an adequate job of protecting the United States (U.S.) without taking the fight to the terrorists. "The Bush administration's National Security Strategy (NSS) of September 2002 is built on three pillars: the right to take unilateral preemptive military action; the need to maintain global primacy; and the need to spread democracy throughout the world." We are reminded daily of the danger to our country by stories about terrorist threats being foiled and operations that have been uncovered.

It is likely that the next major attack upon the U.S. will not be a spectacular event, such as the World Trade Center attacks, but something less visible with long-term results just as devastating. In a speech last year at the Cargo Security Summit, Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, talked about the massive effort required to secure our port system. With over 20,000 containers passing through our ports on a daily basis, this is not just a security issue but an economic issue.

"Cargo security is a linchpin issue, not only for the security of our homeland, but also for our economic security as well. The protection of this supply chain is vital. It's vital to the small business owner who depends on getting supplies on time." Mr. Ridge understands that the fight against Al Qaeda involves not just soldiers and guns, but economic measures.

So just as critical as the fight to preserve our freedoms is the fight to protect our economy, for it is the state of our economy on a more practical day-to-day level that determines our current strength as a nation. Our enemy, our enemy Al-Qaeda understands this quite well. That is why one of the expressed goals - I might add a reiterated goal - when you read or listen to any of their rantings about the United States, is to undermine the economy.

By undermining our economic freedom, Al Qaeda sees this as a way in which to undermine our other freedoms and eventually our security as a nation. Also involved in this policy is the effort to control our borders. No nation can exist for long in this global environment if it allows easy and free access through it's borders. Israel has recognized this with the building of a wall to protect it from terrorists.

In the areas in which this wall has been completed along the West Bank, it has virtually eliminated infiltration across its borders. It has also been very effective in Gaza. We must do a better job of controlling our borders as part of the homeland security effort. The other major national security issue facing the U.S. today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), particularly nuclear weapons. A nuclear club that once consisted of only several nations now seems to be increasing daily.

Many of the nations now known to possess WMD are those with interests contrary to those of ours. Iran and North Korea are the two newest members of the club, and we must have a clear and consistent policy of how to deal with them. Some have suggested that we should engage these countries by giving them part of what they need, such as Iran's public desire for a civilian nuclear program.

"The interests of every nation will be served by an arrangement that gives Iran the civilian nuclear program it says it wants and the international community the insurance it needs." Efforts in the past have focused on controlling the specialized material needed to build the weapons. Some have argued that we should take a more proactive approach to dealing with this problem.

"The best idea so far is the proliferation security initiative (PSI), in which America and other countries are trying to plug the loopholes through which much nuclear material seems to have passed. The PSI includes the interception of suspect shipments." In Iran we have a government that is clearly hostile to the United States. In the past they have supported terrorist efforts and provided them safe haven.

What would an Iran with nuclear weapons do? Should we be concerned about terrorist groups smuggling WMD, supplied by Iran, into the U.S. Iran has indicated that they need nuclear material for peaceful, energy-producing purposes, but they sit astride one of the largest deposits of oil in the world. North Korea is one of the last bastions of communism still left in the world. It is controlled by an absolute dictator who has attempted to keep any trace of the western world from his people.

They live in terrible poverty, yet North Korea has one of the largest standing armies in the world. It is within this environment that they have chosen to undertake a nuclear weapons program. Past attempts at offering them incentives to forego their weapons program have not been successful. This administration has taken more of a hard-line approach, and it remains to be seen if it will work. Stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons may be a dream.

The information about how to build a nuclear weapon has been available for years. Out of work Soviet nuclear scientists and those from sympathetic nations have made it easy to acquire the technical expertise needed. Loose controls over the raw materials have allowed.