The National Security domain of United States: threat Perception corners, after 2000

Introduction

 

Eight significant national security theories have existed in US's 227-year history: Washington's Farewell Address, the Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, the Open Door Policy, the Off-Shore Balancer, Containment, and the present theory of Preemption. Presidential ideologies have varied in scope from regional to global and in duration from temporary to essentially permanent. In the Western Hemisphere, the Monroe Doctrine forbade European expansionism. In the same context, the Roosevelt Corollary provided a rationale for American military intervention in response to unstable Latin American governments.

President George H.W. Bush Delivers Address at the Ceremony Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor. Delivered 7 December 1991, USS Arizona Memorial, Honolulu, Hawaii. Courtesy George H.W. Bush Library Center, Source: URL:http://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/...

Its expansion can be attributed to American spy organizations, specifically the CIA, and French military officials working together at Latin American military training facilities. France developed counterinsurgency strategies in the 1950s in response to the colonial conflicts in Vietnam and Algeria. It has often been challenging for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) to fulfill this objective. It still holds a lower position within the intelligence community. Influencing and integrating intelligence-related efforts across DHS components has proven to be challenging.

Additionally, it has trouble articulating its function to Congress and the general public. Some of these issues are related to the decisions made by Congress and DHS officials in the past 20 years to expand the jurisdiction of I&A and increase its complexity. I&A's organizational and workforce-related problems are further underlying factors.

Media and Agenda setting

 Our innate need for guidance, a fundamental psychological trait, can be utilized to determine the influence of news media in shaping agendas. The need to comprehend our surroundings is innate in each and every one of us. The public sphere also demonstrates this inherent need for guidance. Relevance and uncertainty, the two components of orientation need, are highlighted as the first conditions that define the amount of need for each individual. This condition also indicates whether. An individual is embracing reality at a low level, high level, through the media, or thinking outside the box

If there is minimal uncertainty, it indicates a moderate level of orientation, a general understanding of the issue by the majority of people, or the presence of something important to note. The nature of the threat assessment analysis model has also led to the development of public agenda-setting. More precisely, this mediated worldview has resulted in a significant impact between media agendas and public aspirations.

The national and international mainstream media are influenced by the initial formulation of agendas. The media and public attention are focused on the item. The news media's information and cues regarding the importance of an object and its features are not the only factors that influence the public agenda.

Building the threat model and Bush Administration

Challenges of Country Security Refocused to facilitate the rapid and widespread dissemination of questionable material, they initiated the integration of databases from various law enforcement and statistical organizations. The Bush administration implemented a four-step methodological structure to enhance national security. This structure ensures border security, residential safeguards, budget target security, and effective family and result administration after intrusive evaluation.

Beyond what the Bush administration has previously proposed, the Coast Guard and Customs Service would need to undergo a significant expansion. The U.S. Coast Guard, which serves as the nation's primary defense against illicit shipping, would be a significant obstacle to terrorist attacks if explosives or weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were being transported to an American city by ship. There were also significant increases in the number of domestic law enforcement agencies, as well as the integration and modernization of their databases.

Change the national food safety program along with additional protective measures against common fires and explosions in construction. To strengthen security measures for biological research centers, toxic chemical plants, and nuclear power plants in the country, an innovative approach to monitoring and protecting the country's airspace. Additional background checks be conducted on dangerous goods truck drivers, along with implementing other security measures. Certain guarantees were specific to various types of public and private infrastructure.

None of this negates the possibility that even a few minor assaults have a significant effect on their way of life, causing excessive dread compared to the level of exposure. However, resources were limited and both prevention and protection come at a cost. In addition to utilizing military and intelligence resources to proactively combat terrorism abroad and prevent terrorists from reaching American soil, perimeter defense plays a crucial role in safeguarding homeland security against potential terrorist attacks.

The first four elements in the Bush policy statement's list as important elements of national security strategy stand out the most. These include championing goals for human dignity, fortifying partnerships to combat global terrorism, and collaborating with others to resolve regional conflicts. The letter presented a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy that indeed heavily relied on international cooperation with allies of the United States.

When considering preventative war, Bush's strategy of "looking outward for possibilities to expand liberty" took on a new meaning. In this situation, the war in Iraq—although initially supported by a combination of anti-terrorism and anti-proliferation arguments—ultimately transformed into a conflict with the objective of imposing Western democracy and American-style capitalism on Iraq.

The Bush administration shifted its approach from a policy of avoiding nuclear proliferation to a more comprehensive and assertive counter-proliferation policy, which constituted the second key component of the plan.

Internal Intelligence

The Department of Homeland Security officially established IAIP in March 2003, and Paul Redmond, a former CIA officer, served as its first director. As the deciding place was important for the homeland security intelligence tasks under a new Terrorist Threat Integration Centre, under the direction of the CIA, in late 2002,   after the passage of the Homeland Security Act but before the formation of DHS.

The National Strategy assigned the majority of threat-focused activities to the Terrorist Threat Integration Centre (which would later change its name to the National Counterterrorism Centre), while DHS IAIP was responsible for vulnerability assessment, protective action, and warning.

The Implementing Actions of the Commission that Investigated the Attacks Act was approved by Congress in August 2007 and modified the legal standing of I&A to incorporate the changes. Since,  then, the Department of Homeland Security Intelligence and Analysis (DHS I&A) has enhanced its capabilities and formalized its rules and procedures in various ways throughout the Obama and Trump administrations. There are several concerns about the future of I&A that current DHS and congressional officials must address.

Obama Administration’s Approach to the National Security Objectives

The Bush approach was able to get off to a strong start by assuming prosperity and the availability of deployable military strength, whereas the Clinton plan was occasionally criticized for taking peace for granted. On none of these could Obama rely upon. The integration of national security and homeland security is a reflection of the fact that the safety and security of American citizens are top priorities for the US government. The main goal of the Department of Homeland Security is to ensure national security.

The main objective of the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A). The Obama administration's manifesto aimed to decrease the reliance on military force and criticized unilateralism, advocating for a more peaceful and cooperative approach instead of promoting aggressive nationalism. Obama's strategy was instead built on three essential pillars: "building our foundation" through domestic economic regeneration. A worldwide environment of largely peace and stability was Bill Clinton's legacy to George W. Bush. By enlarging NATO and countering Serbia's destabilizing actions in the Balkans, Clinton's "Engagement and Enlargement" plan contributed to the stabilization of Europe. However, the Clinton administration expanded Cold War defense obligations worldwide instead of reducing them, especially among the new NATO members.

 In this way, the Bush administration found itself in the position of having to support two Balkan peacekeeping missions and protect a larger region with fewer troops than before. The Obama report outlined six broad security objectives that were similar to the Bush administration's objectives: national security, defeating al Qaeda, preventing the spread of nuclear and biological weapons, promoting peace in the Middle East, stabilizing failing states, and securing Cyber Space. Advancement of values and strengthening global cooperation were identified as non-security objectives at the conclusion.

Obama's affirmation distinguished between specific adversaries and rejected Bush's categorization of terrorist organizations and rogue governments. Mostly securing the nation's borders, the main objective of this anti-al-Qaeda campaign was to prevent the group from finding refuge by supporting the Afghan government. The unilateralist approach of Bush and the counter-proliferation arrangement of Obama were much more at odds with each other. To pursue the goal of a world free from nuclear weapons, disarmament through negotiation was the initial objective in this category.

Once again, in contrast to the Bush approach, the Obama administration's strategy document did not include a comprehensive commitment to global conflict management. The Obama administration focused on promoting peace and security in the "Greater Middle East." While both Presidents Bush and Obama acknowledged the potential threat of failing states, they differed in their approaches to addressing a few dangers. But the momentous stage of the Obama administration in terms of global significance was particularly complex, especially in the Middle East.  

Military expending of Bush & Obama Administration, in US$ billion

 

FY	DOD BASE BUDGET	DOD OCO	SUPPORT BASE	SUPPORT OCO	TOTAL SPENDING
2003	$364.9	$72.5			$437.4
2004	$376.5	$91.1			$467.6
2005	$400.1	$78.8			$478.9
2006	$410.6	$124.0	$109.7		$644.3
2007	$431.5	$169.4	$120.6		$721.5
2008	$479.0	$186.9	$127.0		$792.9
2009	$513.2	$153.1	$149.4		$815.7
2010	$527.2	$163.1	$160.3	$0.3	$851.6
2011	$528.3	$158.8	$167.4	$0.7	$855.2
2012	$530.4	$115.1	$159.3	$11.5	$816.3
2013	$495.5	$82.1	$157.8	$11.0	$746.4
2014	$496.3	$85.2	$165.4	$6.7	$753.6
2015	$496.1	$64.2	$165.6	$10.5	$736.4
2016	$521.7	$58.9	$171.9	$15.1	$767.6
2017	$523.2	$82.5	$177.1	$35.1	$818.9

 

Sources: US Government Publishing Office, the Budget of the United States Government, accessed date 2 June 2023  Note: based on the Federal Budget documents

URL: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/budget/2022

As of 2022, stores for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) are included within the Department of Defense (DOD) budget, so military spending is not distinguished between the two for budgeting purposes. In 2022 the government budget designated $752.9 trillion to the Department of Defense, which may be a 1.6% increment from the entire sum distributed in 2021.

The defense investment arrangement incorporates a $525.4 billion Pentagon base budget, which is 1 percent less than the amount approved for 2012. It requests $88.5 billion for U.S. combat operations abroad, which represents a 23 percent decrease primarily attributed to the end of U.S. involvement in Iraq. Panetta told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that the budget effectively balanced competing key objectives while achieving the $487 billion in savings over 10 years required by an agreement between Obama and Congress. 

The terrorism stone

 

After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush administration advocated for measures to counter terrorism and shape the political agenda. George W. Bush promoted measures that set the stage for the fight against global terrorism. He presented danger as cruel, tenacious, and ever-present throughout his speech. Communists were considered terrorists during the Vietnam War. Then, in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan focused on a wave of predominantly nationalist terrorism that primarily targeted Americans and occurred with greater frequency in the Middle East.

George W. Bush's reaction to 9/11 was passionate and marked by outrage. W. Bush was able to outline the issue of psychological warfare as a war against a formidable global enemy. A few may see this assumption as common sense, but it is far from it. He has focused his activities on al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But instead, he sought to escalate the conflict and alter the Middle East. President Barack Obama sought to implement some of the policy ideas criticized by Bush's detractors when he took office. Obama sought to downplay the threat of terrorism and focus on repairing relationships with Muslim nations. Still, despite his desire to do the opposite, he continued to uphold and, in some cases, strengthen many of the very policies that Obama claimed to strongly dislike.

Conclusion

The devastating terrorist attacks on the United States over two decades ago, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established in the United States. However, compared to when it was established, DHS does not currently meet America's requirements. Although the department still has a significant responsibility to play in preventing foreign attacks against the United States.

The Bush plan took the strength of the American economy for granted, and perhaps as a result, the Bush policies weakened it. Bush's primary economic strategy of reducing taxes and regulations was aimed at stimulating economic growth, but this objective was not achieved. The GDP during the Bush administration was only 2.1 percent.

The media agenda and the national security threat perception of the United States have a close relationship. Historically, public opinion has always mattered in the US foreign policy agenda in terms of gaining popular mass recognition for the actions of the government. Despite the role of interest calculation as a part of the Senate, Congress, and different government agencies or elite non-governmental organizations, the actual threat calculation and construction of popular threat perception is a long-debated issue in the US security prism.