SPEAKING
FREELY The
weaknesses of 'national
security' By Dallas Darling
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please
click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
It has become common
to argue that appeasing Adolf Hitler and the Nazi
Third Reich was a major cause for the slaughter
that occurred during World War II. Absent from
this argument, however, is that Hitler's and the
Nazi Third Reich's "security through superiority"
doctrine was their undoing and led to their
devastating, including the military occupation of
their nation.
Government leaders typically
argue that their prime responsibility is the
maintenance of national security. They do so by
propagating the "security through superiority"
doctrine. It is an
ideology that is often
invoked but rarely scrutinized. It is easy and all
to simplistic to equate strength with military
power and safety. Vulnerability and weakness, or
small militaries, are usually derided and
associated with danger and insecurity. [1]
Fearing to be viewed as too weak, too
appeasing, too easily pushed around, some
government leaders are prone to build and maintain
large land and sea armies. They either spend
enormous resources on developing massive and
deadly weapons systems, or at least try and
purchase them. These same government officials are
usually prone to use threats of military force in
efforts to coerce or bully opponents.
Strong and superior national security
states appear more belligerent and more likely to
initiate conflicts and wars than vulnerable
national security states that pursue political,
diplomatic, and more peaceful-oriented strategies.
Powerful and overbearing national security states
misinterpret their opponents actions, imagine
fears and threats, justify their actions, and
pursue "any means necessary" to prevent
embarrassing mistakes.
Strong national
security states have to distort geopolitical
processes and history while devouring their own.
For decades, the US has declared that "any attempt
by any outside force to gain control of the
Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault
on the vital interests of the United States". In
hindsight, Persian Gulf nations merely wanted to
develop petroleum resources to improve their
economies and societies.
The US justified
a superior national security state, expanded its
military presence around the world, and even
committed genocidal policies against more weaker
and vulnerable nations, like Vietnam, to prevent
the supposed spread of communism and due to the
Domino Theory. While the Domino Theory never
transpired, communism was not always spread by
steel but popular, democratic movements.
Strong national security states increase
international tensions, making their nation and
the world less secure. They project hostility,
aggressiveness, and belligerency onto more
vulnerable countries. Cuba's communists never did
launch an assault against the US - but the US did
attempt to invade Cuba. Neither did the
Sandinistas invade or bomb the US as the Reagan
Administration propagated. But the US did attack
and bomb Nicaragua.
The John F Kennedy
administration constantly verbalized a "missile
gap" theory. What this really meant was a massive
increase of nuclear-biological-chemical weapons
that led to the illogical Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD) doctrine. The Ronald Reagan
administration, along with those that followed,
argued for a "margin of safety". This actually
meant superiority through military strength. The
George W Bush administration's ill-fated
preemptive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan revealed a
kind of "absolute" national security.
But
like the Third Reich, a strong absolute national
security state and its "security through
superiority" doctrine is having a devastating
impact on the US In retrospection, a more stronger
national security would have sought diplomacy,
appeasement, accommodation, and would have trusted
other nations to help bring to justice those
responsible for September 11. Real superiority
would have meant pursuing a policy of patience and
"smart" power.
In the great majority of
species, conflict between two animals of the same
kind almost invariably stops short of slaughter.
The fight continues until one of the combatants
gives in and retreats, or appeases, the other
combatant. The jackdaw will offer the vulnerable
back of his skull to the beak of his attacker. An
appeasing wolf will avert his head and present his
jugular vein to his assailant's teeth.
A
submissive rat will roll over and expose his soft
underbelly to the victor. A turkey will
acknowledges defeat by stretching its neck out.
Some animals will utterly stop fighting, signaling
a peaceful compromise and truce. [2] Still yet,
and even in hierarchical orders, alpha-leaders
will not fight to their death. Instead, they
carefully and cautiously choose their battles.
These instincts help them survive and to save
their strength.
Animals practice a
"balance of power", more so than humans. Unlike
animal kingdoms, human kingdoms are more likely to
commit massacres and engage in genocidal wars. In
the 20th century, and with reference to World War
I, World War II, and the Cold War, tens of
millions of humans were killed and slaughtered.
Such extreme national security and violent
aggression would have caused mass extinction among
many animal species.
To prevent more
regional human-like extinction, perhaps its time
to scrutinize major national security states that
practice security through "military" superiority.
Again, real national security may be better
realized through diplomatic, peaceful, and other
more "vulnerable", overtures. Superiority through
strength might be realized by trusting other
nations and being susceptible to the ideals of
appeasement and smaller militaries.
Dallas Darling is the author of
Politics 501: An A-Z Reading on Conscientious
Political Thought and Action, Some Nations Above
God: 52 Weekly Reflections On Modern-Day
Imperialism, Militarism, And Consumerism in the
Context of John's Apocalyptic Vision, and
The Other Side Of Christianity: Reflections on
Faith, Politics, Spirituality, History, and Peace.
He is a correspondent for www.worldnews.com.
You can read more of Dallas' writings at
www.beverlydarling.com and
wn.com//dallasdarling.)
Speaking
Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows
guest writers to have their say.Please
click hereif you are interested in
contributing. Articles submitted for this section
allow our readers to express their opinions and do
not necessarily meet the same editorial standards
of Asia Times Online's regular contributors.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
