Malleable Security: Blog 9

Living in a controversial society where being safe has become a privilege, the concept of what makes the average human secure is quite complex. Each individual in society holds a book in each step. America, the country of diversity struggles with the essence of human balance; equality and coming to a common ground. National security has to be defined by national interest due to the diversity and thought, and the diversity in international values. According to the standards of society today, due to the expansion of diverse thought in popular culture  the notion of “national security” is a malleable concept, which makes Wolfers correct.

When dissecting the concept of malleable national security, one can think about the simple notion of how people perceive security different. For many people, the word “security” itself means something different. For example, some may define security as owning a gun, which supports one's effort to maintain their own personal security, while someone else may feel that owning a gun is absurd and the security a gun provides should be the responsibility of law enforcement or the government. Another example is how some people believe security is best secured under a state that supports religious laws because the laws of their sovereign God is their perception of security. On the other hand, the idea of living under  a state that enforces religious laws in unjust and unfair because it is impossible to properly accommodate everyone's religious freedom this way. It seems that when thinking from the perspective of government authority, and from the perspective of the populace the notion of security is seen under different lens. Furthermore, this puts an emphasis on the liberal thought expressed in Federalist Paper 51, where it is believed that the governance of society is based on the governed.

In relation to the national interest, each state should be able to determine their own malleable concept of security based off of the norms, traditions, and their current sociopolitical circumstances. When considering the notion of security, one can ponder the reasons states have went to wars, and their status on the hegemonic spectrum.  Depending on the national interest, a country may feel the need to put emphasis on a specific form of security, rather than focusing on a less relevant form for the sake of circumstance. This can be seen in the way that states fight for, defend, and protects territory (general resources). A classic example of the stressed importance of territorial security is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The historic territory holds relevant and religious value for both parties so their national interests have decided that  defending personal honor, preserving legacy, history, and the religious right is a form of security both sides should secure. Unfortunately, since Israel holds more hegemonic powers with their resources, international support (amung other hegemonic states), and their military it puts Palestine in a dangerous cradle. In National Security Strategy 2001, the value of military presence is the interest that the U.S has decided is the form of security that is paramount to their agenda of maintaining peace and security through militaristic hegemony. All in all, the notion of security is something that should be determined through the national interest of a state because as a state, it is important to determine what is important and what holds more value as a state when considering what actions will place one in a better position on the hegemonic spectrum.