Essay on the Primacy of National Security

In an era when both national and international security remains matters of great concern, I like it that the literature focuses on the security status and activities of powerful states such as the United States of America. In geopolitics, where countries are believed to be the key players motivated by respective national interests, powerful states often determine the power balance to sustain the anarchy. Therefore, the security profile of a country such as the United States, being a superpower is important in benchmarking the general state of world security. Though the literature is explicit in underscoring the centrality of national interests in the activities of the United States, I dont like the fact that it seeks to assert the fact that hegemonic influence that leads to suppression of other emerging powers.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

One critical approach that civilizations use today to ensure peace is through diplomacy, which involves the peaceful settlement of controversies. During the world wars, the arms race and unchecked militarization of states were among the major factors that caused the outbreak of the wars. The concept of primacy as alluded in the text is akin to undermining the perception of America as a beacon of democracy and diplomacy. Ideally, the United States of America is endowed with resources; human, capital, military and other different forms of wealth that can be harnessed to secure its geopolitical interests. However, the chapter on primacy seems to focus specifically on the use of coercion and the military power to maintain the superpower status of the US.

I do not like the proposals fronted by primacy argument that the US should strategically station its troops all over the world and use that influence to suppress other sovereign states. It does not provide a balanced view of the intentions of upholding world peace while at the same time protecting the US domestic security. It beats logic that every independent state would protect its territorial integrity and repel any foreign intrusions. This fact implies that the implementation of the idea of militarism as a central foreign policy approach is likely to spur up violence against the US instead of fostering peace. For instance, the incursion of the US military into Asian countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in a record high number of terrorist attacks in the country than before.

Realpolitik points to the fact that superpowers determine the world order, but they are not the sole actors. Therefore, unipolar-powers can only exercise their influence sparingly. Therefore, the United States cannot undertake to single headedly attempt to have overreaching control in all other independent states without risking its national interests. Foreign diplomacy is not just a matter of keeping the United States safe within the context of military control but also economically and politically. While using force may succeed in entrenching the US as a central power in the world order, it has devastating economic effects since it risks the possibility of multilateral economic agreements between it and other regions of the world. Economic power is a critical determinant of military force since war and militarization are expensive undertakings.

I like the way the chapter interlinks the discourse of national security with applicable international relations theories such as realism and liberalism. However, I do not like the subjective way in which the idea of primacy looks at the US national interests. In essence, national security is a priority of virtually all state actors, but relevant theories of international relations define it as consisting in the need for self-preservation, military power, economic progress, and dominance over other countries. A unilateral protection of US military strength alone as proposed by the ideology of primacy may undermine the other aspects of national security.