The United States has undoubtedly shaped its national security policies on issues presented in the global stage. Global factors are commonly examined to determine how U.S. national security policies are affected. By themselves, these factors are inadequate in explaining the direction that these multifaceted national security policies will take. Determining the direction of United States’ national security policies involves not only global factors, but domestic factors as well. This paper will examine the effects domestic factors have on the shaping of national security policies. First, it will use various arguments from a select number of previous literature to examine how domestic institutional structures, public opinion, budget politics, and leadership traits play a role in these policies. Next, it will use these arguments to in the context of American politics by presenting several examples found domestically. Lastly, this paper will examine these domestic factors to illustrate how it has misaligned U.S. security policy from actual security threats.
The contours of the American government plays a large role in determining national security policy. Bueno de Mesquita and Smith (2012) discusses domestic international structures as the spectrum between inclusivity and exclusivity of governance and the extent to which the government is held accountable and transparent or personalist and opaque. They argue that these two structures determine the extent to which national security policy can be swayed. Governments that are more accountable to its constituency would be more cognizant of the direction its national security policies take.
Powell’s (1993) guns-and-butter model reflects the degree to which public opinion has an effe...
... middle of paper ...
..." Political Psychology 25 (3): 441-463.
Haney, Patrick J. 2005. "Foreign-Policy Advising: Models and Mysteries from the Bush Administration." Presidential Studies Quarterly 35 (2): 289-301.
Hildebrandt, Timothy, Courtney Hillebrecht, Peter M. Holm, and Jon Pevehouse. 2013. "The Domestic Politics of Humanitarian Intervention: Public Opinion, Partisanship, and Ideology." Foreign Policy Analsys 243-66.
Powell, Richard. 1993. "Guns, Butter, and Anarchy." American Political Science Review 87 (1): 115-32.
Sullivan, Patricia L., Brock F. Tessman, and Xiaojun Li. 2011. "US Military Aid and Recipient State Cooperation." Foreign Policy Analysis 7: 275-94.
Taydas, Zeynep, Cigdem Kentmen, and Laura R. Olson. 2012. "Faith Matters: Religious Affiliation and Public Opinion About Barack Obama's Foreign Policy and the "Greater" Middle East." Social Science Quarterly 93 (5): 1218-42.
She strengthens the persuasiveness of these statements with an authoritative and informed tone. She also references a poll about how people feel that the Bush administration should deal with security in the United States. Poll participants were asked if they felt the government under Bush was adequately dealing with the matter of security and it was found that “only 11 percent thought the administration had gone too far” (251). She may rely on such techniques so readers do not react too strongly to her essay and instead focus on the validity of her
Without understanding the importance of foreign relations the American people’s way of life could be at stake. Not only could the economic strength of the U.S. diminish, but the military might of the U.S. could also be compromised. Mead argues that without the centrality of foreign policy being evident in American politics the happiness of the world is at risk. “Since the United States has become the central power in a worldwide system of finance, communications, and trade, it is not only the American people whose happiness and security will be greatly affected by the quality of American foreign policy in coming years (Mead 176). I contend that without a strong emphasis on foreign policy, we could begin to see the end of American
Bose, M.. (1998). Shaping and Signaling Presidential policy; the National Security Decision Making of Eisenhower and Kennedy. College Station: Texas A&M University Press
After the fear of terrorism grew in the United States do to the Al Qaeda 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the US Government found a need for a centralized department that umbrellas all other agencies when it comes to homeland security. The U.S. Government found this umbrella agency with the passage of the Homeland Security Act by Congress in November 2002, the Department of Homeland Security formally came into being as a stand-alone, Cabinet-level department to further coordinate and unify national homeland security efforts. (Homeland Security) With the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the government had a pinpoint location for the collection and gathering of intelligence, control of policies that effect national security, and a no fail mission. The Department of Homeland Security started to engulf other agencies and created many more, a total of 22 agencies now fall under the DHS. The DHS is control of all areas that deal with national security which included but are not limited to coastal and boarder protection, domestic terrorism, international terrorism, protection of the American people, protection of key infrastructure, protection of key resources and respond to natural disasters.
Watson, Robert P., Devine, Michael J. and Wolz, Robert J. eds., The National Security Legacy
Lampman, Jane. Christian Science Monitor. “New scrutiny of role of religion in Bush’s Policies”. March 17, 2003.
American policy was conflicted on multiple fronts. There was a high-perceived threat, but the means devised to cope with it fell short o...
Should the government decrease military spending or should it increase military spending? This is a question that many Americans wrestle with, and politically speaking, is a point of great contention since to many, military might evokes a sense of security. However, when considering this question from a foreign policy standpoint, does current military spending really match the current level of threats faced by the United States, or are too many dollars being allocated for an unnecessary level of military strength? There are certainly cons in making the decision to drastically lower military spending, but they are minimal when compared to the positive ramifications such a decision would have. This paper aims to explore these pros and cons
...iberties. Ed. Noël Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Government Neutrality Is Not 'Anti-Religion'." Psychology Today (3 Oct. 2011). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
" Journal of International Affairs 52.2 (1999): 691. Academic Search Elite -. Web. The Web. The Web.
Balaam, David. Introduction to International Political Economy, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Education, 2005.
Terrorism will happen again regardless of how prepared the U.S. thinks it may be. This means that it is the country’s job to ensure that there is a continuation of measures that should be taken to fight against terrorism. Others believe that the U.S. is fully prepared for another terrorist attack and that enough has been done. The question at hand is, should the U.S. still be concerned about terrorism. The United States needs to be concerned about terrorism to prevent tragedies like 9/11 from happening again, to address problems with domestic terrorism, and to improve homeland security.
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
Sobel, R. (2001). "The Impact of Public Opinion on U.S foreign Policy since Vietnam." Oxford University Press.
Weber, Smith, Allan, Collins, Morgan and Entshami.2002. Foreign Policy in a transformed world. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.