Defining the Threat
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Last week’s article and discussion laid the groundwork for understanding how national security can be used as an ideological tool. In Robin’s article from last week, he made mention of President George Bush’s State of the Union Address before the invasion of Iraq. For this week’s analysis, I thought it would be useful to look at that important address before the invasion and look at how the threat to the United States was defined. After all, the concept of national security implicitly requires a related threat to that security.
For this week, the related item that will be analyzed (President George Bush's State of the Union Address in 2003) is available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
The threat, whether it is the much talked about terrorist threat of present day or the communist threat of the past, seems to have some common elements to it. One of these elements is the omnipresent nature of the threat. A supposed threat that has no geopolitical centre or transnational in nature seems all the more menacing as the threat cannot be definitively constructed. If that is the case, the threat can never be truly eliminated and as a result there is always a fear in the back of the minds of everyone in society that the threat could emerge at any time. As Bush said, “Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.” In essence, what is conveyed to the public is an omnipresent threat, which in reality may or may not exist but nonetheless could strike at anytime. Thus, the threat nipped at the bud and taken care of before it can emerge.
Another criteria that these threats to national security seem to possess is an unusual desire to subvert the underpinnings of a society without any limitations on their means of doing so. That is to say, those who are defined as a threat are somehow different in nature to the rest of the population because they only possess murderous intentions. This is evident in Bush’s speech when he said that this new threat had “ambitions of cruelty and murder [that] had no limit.” Hence, once the threat becomes defined in such a menacing fashion, people naturally look to defend themselves from this threat.
Once the threat is defined, this is where the concept of national security begins to emerge. As soon as people accept the belief in the existence of an omnipresent and menacing threat, they look for protection against this threat. In stark contrast to the so-called villain in this scenario, those in charge of protecting society, in this case it is the government, are cast under a very different light. This stark contrast in roles is evident in Bush’s State of the Union Address when he stated that, “…we [the United States government] are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind,” as well as assuring that he “will defend the freedom and security of the American people.” Consequently, two images emerge. One of the vicious terrorist focussed on destroying Western society, and the other image of a heroic President and his government there to protect mankind.
As a result, it is this seemingly heroic government that casts itself in the role of defending a nation’s security. There is little if any objection to the government’s role in this situation. After all, individual citizens are not likely to possess the tools necessary to protect themselves from such an ominous threat. Additionally, if this threat is so potent, then people are willing to impose some restrictions on themselves in order to combat this threat. In the minds of the people, longer waits at airports and the targeting of certain groups deemed to be a threat becomes an acceptable consequence if the other option is impending disaster at the hands of these “outlaws.”
2 comments:
v. nguyen, good question.
I will do my best to give you a response.
First, I think you are right. National security very much has the effect of creating what we can call "in" groups and "out" groups. If you are not in the in-group, you are automatically considered on the out and under greater scrutiny. This separation is a key role of national security and how it comes to define the threat. Without the creation of a group that the population can be consider to be "outsiders" a definition of national security is difficult to construct.
Although I think it is a bit of a broad brush stroke to say that generally people who accept the national security structure are Caucasian, you are right in that those who define the targets are generally of a certain background and socio-economic status. With that said, and keeping in mind the idea of the creation of an in-group and an out-group, it is important to look at why, as you say, Caucasians are the ones who generally accept such security practices and not minorities.
I don't think the answer is as simple as saying that because one is not the target that one then accepts the situation as it is. Although if certain groups are the target, they may certainly be more outspoken about the situation, it is still to simplistic of a viewpoint.
I argue that they (Caucasians) and even other racial and ethnic groups as well, come to accept certain arrangements because they are made to believe that such arrangements are appropriate given the circumstances that are dictated to them by the state. In creating an atmosphere were people are on constant alert and fear, certain arrangements become easier to accept, regardless of what race one is.
In addition, from this standpoint that it is the state who defines national security, it is very unlikely that Caucasians in general will be defined as out-group members. Such a definition would upset the status quo tremendously, and altering the status quo usually not an objective of the government. Hence, your hypothetical of turning the tables on the majority is unlikely to happen under my construction of national security as an ideological tool by the state. It is unlikely to be defined in such a way as to upset society's arrangements unless it is advantageous to do so.
However, that is not to say that Caucasians in general are not targets. Although Caucasians as a group will never be defined as a threat to national security in the way that Muslims and Arabs are today, certainly members the Caucasian group certainly are targets of national security measures. This is apparent when we look at the suppression and surveillance of anti-war groups. They are not simply targeted based on their race or ethnicity. They are targeted, I contend, because they have the chance of upsetting the status quo. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that national security, while it incorporates elements of race and ethnicity, is not solely based on this factor alone. It incorporates a more complex idea of maintaining the status quo by gaining the consent of the population in general through the definition and use of the idea of national security.
Although this isn't really the main focus of your entry, I would like to bring up the part where you say:
"In the minds of the people, longer waits at airports and the targeting of certain groups deemed to be a threat becomes an acceptable consequence if the other option is impending disaster at the hands of these outlaws."
I don't think these examples are deemed "acceptable" by the groups who are being targeted (essentially the minorities). The only people who seem to find it acceptable, or willing to tolerate excess time in security, are generally Caucasian. I also would think that if these security measures were targeting them, the Caucasians would no longer be so "willing" to allow such events.
What are your thoughts on this?