A strong education system is very important for any nation state. An effective education system will enable a state to foster great minds, rather than stifle them, and will as a result produce larger numbers of great scientists, mathematicians and generals. Without a strong education system, a state will not be able to achieve its full potential in any field without relying unnecessarily on foreign powers, and in so doing trading away bits of its sovereignty. A strong economy is also very important for a nation. A strong economy allows a state to keep all of its citizens gainfully employed, and to out produce its rivals both in times of peace and in times of war. Without a strong economy, a state will be able to accomplish nothing, as (as the saying goes) money is power.
Bit what good is a strong education system if students die in outside attacks on American soil? What good is ensuring a strong economy, wherein everyone is free to fulfill the American dream (white picket fence, nuclear family, golden retriever named Jack, yadda yadda yadda) if our financial centers are being brought to their knees by terrorist attacks? National security is of utmost importance.
However, the fact that national security holds vast importance does not mean that the nation should hold anywhere near infinite power. The nation cannot and must not violate individual rights, and must not violate the sovereignty of foreign nations unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. In this, I agree with Colin Powell and the Powell Doctrine that stemmed from the First Gulf War. In essence, the Powell Doctrine states that we should only go to war if it is deemed absolutely necessary, but, if we do, to do so with overwhelming force. The problem then, of course, is determining when an intervention is necessary, but that is another topic for another blog post.
So, should a specific leader care about national security more than any other thing? Most definitely; even if a leader follows Machiavelli’s advice to the letter in ensuring the public will follow his command, it doesn’t matter if the enemy is pounding at your door with such ferocity that no show of public love / fear will turn them back.
As far as the term “territorial integrity” goes – it is my estimation that territorial integrity is synonymous with national security, as should part of your territory fall to an enemy or in some mother way become instable, the rest will likely soon follow, or, lacking that, face major instability.
4 comments:
I must disagree with your beleif that national security between nation-states is the most important concern on the minds of modern day world leaders.
There are very few, if any, nations scouring the globe looking for countries to invade in this day and age where trade blocs, international organizations, and business investment create new levels of interdependence. Yes, the United States probably could seize Canada if it so desired, but what good would come of it? The United States has business interests and billions of dollars in investment going north of the border. Plus, Machiavelli's concept that a nation with a government that serves its people well may be easy to invade but will be very difficult to hold must be taken into consideration. Not only would a US invasion of Canada hurt business interests, but it would be draining on the military to hold such a large country with distinct groups of people. I believe domestic institutions, education and health care, should be the greatest concern to world leaders not only to prevent internal conflict, but act as a deterrent to invasion by outside forces due to a stable government and a contented populace.
seamus mcgregor, we are in complete agreement.
You say: 'I believe domestic institutions, education and health care, should be the greatest concern to world leaders not only to prevent internal conflict, but act as a deterrent to invasion by outside forces due to a stable government and a contented populace.' Note that you bring up security. What you say is that mutual economic co-dependence furthers the cause of peace. What I am saying is that security should be the primary concern of any nation. Our two statements are two different ways of saying the same thing.
I am not sure that they are saying the same thing Mnadler. The impression that I got from Seamus's post was that fostering a positive economic and social climate will, to a certain extent, protect a nation from external security risks and internal threats to territorial integrity. Yours, on the other hand gave off a kind of a protecting the security will lead to internal providence and therefore it is important to protect against them barbarians vibe. I guess that the fundamental and significant difference that I see in your arguments is that Seamus's seems to flow like this:
Internal providence → national security
And your post seems to flow like this:
National security → Internal providence.
That constitutes a big difference to me. Forgive me if I am misinterpreting either of your works, this is just how I perceived them.
I must admit that I was rather surprised by your posting Mnadler… to me it came off as somewhat conservative, which is generally very unlike you, so I am probably misconstruing your argument in some way.
Seamus: you say there are few nations "scouring the globe looking for countries to invade," but what do you think about loss of security through internal invasion? Not to bring up an irrelevant contentious topic, but where illegal immigration has proven to be a strain on the US, it has been downright dangerous for nations like France and England. Though not a breach of territorial integrity, is this not still a safety issue?
Nadz: Word up on the Powell Doctrine. In regards to determing when an intervention is necessary, consider the "Rethinking American Grand Strategy" article's assertion that "the logic underlying the strategy of preponderance can be used to justify U.S. intervention anywhere." I don't think maintaining US hegemony goes hand in hand with reckless military behavior, but what do you think?
Post a Comment