Potential Effect Wars Have on Homeland Security

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
War on Iraq
War in Afghanistan
US spending on wars
Spending VS security
Conclusion
Reference

Introduction

Wars are ugly and at times are inevitable. Today the world is at war and everyone seems to have a common enemy and that is extremism and terrorism. It is the “war on terrorism”. It was the event of September 11 that changed the course of history. The fall of the twin towers saw the beginning of the two wars that have been prolonged to date. “ America is at war with a transitional terrorists movement fueled by radical ideology of hatred, oppression and murder”(N S C). The United States of America is at war with both Iraq and Afghanistan. Its main reason is to protect the lives and the livelihood of the American people and to provide security to its homeland.

But here is where the question lies. Have these wars in actuality brought security for the American people? Is the average American safer and securer today then he was pre September 11? A clear answer is “no”. The Americans are in fact more insecure than ever before. In no way possible has the government of the United States has secured its homeland despite its stating that it has. America seems to be spending a great deal on both defense and war, so much so that only a small an insignificant amount is allocated for its homeland security. This is evident from the calamities (expected terrorist attacks or unexpected natural disasters) that occur at home and the way that the government deals with them. The responsibility, slow response and non-chalet attitude speaks volumes of how much attention the government gives towards its homeland and its security. Most of the taxpayer’s money goes towards wars which are meant for their security, yet more and more insecure they remain.

The American people voiced their concern and expressed their insecurity and demanded that the government put an end to these wars as they were hopelessly not resulting in any security for anybody. It was in July of 2002 that the Bush administration released its national security. It was a comprehensive strategy encompassing exactly what had to be done, how it had to be done and who would do it. Realistically this strategy was correct as there were no false promises made to the masses. In fact all that it promised was” a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce the Americans vulnerability to terrorism and minimizing the damage and recover from attacks that do occur”.( white house).

How effective this strategy is can only be determined in the long run. It is easy to formulate a strategy but it’s the follow-up and effective and efficient implementation that achieves results. The adequate amount of money must be allocated for this along with special attention which must be given in all sectors. This includes government, private as well as the non-profit organizations. Only and only a collective effort would result in achieving greater benefits. America however chooses to ignore this particular sector i.e. the home land security and gives greater priority to the wars that have been initiated by it in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It believes firmly that it is these wars which will result in greater security and considers these wars imperative in order to protect its home land. Therefore a great amount of money is spent on defense and war and not actual homeland security leaving the Americans deprived of their basic right which is a safe and secure homeland.

Terrorist attacks are not the only threat to the homeland security. There are other issues as well which the government seems to overlook. There are other unexpected incidents that occur which need the immediate response of the government, for example, shootings in colleges and campuses which have become common now and have taken away a lot of innocent lives. The government fails to respond in an effective and efficient manner resulting in greater insecurity amongst young vulnerable students. If the government took this matter seriously the first time around the incident would not have occurred again and a lot of lives would have been saved. Similarly when America is hit by hurricanes, tornados or when fire breaks out r any other natural calamity, the government has to be quick and responsive and deal with such chaotic situations in a way so that its people feel secure despite whatever happens.

Therefore going to war is not the only way to buy security for its people and other domestic issues have to be dealt with as well and given the same amount of priority as defense and war is. For this the government has to first of all apply the apathy factor. One of the social realities to be faced in disaster planning is that the general attitude toward disaster preparedness is characterized by apathy (Auf Der Heide). It has to understand and feel the levels of disasters and the necessities of being prepared and then dealing with it after it has occurred. Public apathy, as well as economic restraints, is reflected in a lack of political support for disaster preparedness. Programs have been difficult to initiate or maintain unless they have been demanded by the citizens or mandated by law and paid for by the state or federal government (Auf Der Heide)

Therefore in order to overcome these expected or unexpected incidents, the government has to be aware, be prepared and have immediate implementations to make sure that such incidents do not occur again.

Sadly, however the government is bent upon increasing it’s funding for war and conveniently choosing to ignore what anybody has to say or think. Despite protests America went to war with both Iraq and Afghanistan increasing its defense budget significantly and paying little or no attention towards its homeland security.

War on Iraq

It was long before September 11 that America wanted to rebuild Iraq. September 11 only paved way for its mission and gave America a reason to give to its people. It had nothing what so ever to do with “war on terror” which of course later became the only excuse for its troops for staying in a foreign land.

The main man behind this war was Dick Cheney (the then vise president) for whom it did not take lomg to convince Bush (president of the US) to attack Iraq. The main reasons for attacking and entering Iraq were 1) oil and 2) Israeli security. The government however denied that the war had anything to do with oil and stated so on many occasions trying their level best to convince the general public in believing their stance. In any one of the speeches made to the public, or to the United Nations Security Council, the word oil was never used. The reason that the government gave time and again was that Iraq possessed illegal weapons of mass destruction which had to be looked into inorder to safeguard the security of every American in the US. Of course as time passed, it occurred and became clear to everyone that instead of protecting, this war became a greater threat and the average American became more insecure than before.

The governments second biggest reason was Saddam Hussain who they feared was a great threat to the Middle Eastern security and they firmly believed that he had the military capability to apply force way beyond the borders of Iraq. Therefore, removing Saddam Hussain became the foremost and only priority of the government for which it ended up spending millions and millions of dollars.

War in Afghanistan

The war in Afghanistan was in response to September 11. The fall of the twin towers was the beginning of the governments “war on terror”. The main motive behind this war was to capture Osama Bin Ladin (who is the brain behind Al-Qaeda), to eradicate Al-Qaeda and completely destroy the Taliban who supported and provided a safe harbor to AL_Qaeda. The government advocated this war to the public by saying that this war was imperative as otherwise every American would be under great threat. Therefore, in order to protect the lives of the American people, US went to war in Afghanistan. Of course it’s apparent that the American people are not at all safe, in fact are in greater danger than before the war. The war has been less successful in achieving the goal of restricting Al-Qaeda movement.( Rothstein)

US spending on wars

The United States without a doubt and as everyone knows has been the most alarming military power in recent years. Due to these wars, its spending has been on a significant rise. “For financial year 2008, Bush administration has requested $ 647.3 billion to cover the costs of national defense and war. This includes the defense department budget ($483 billion); some smaller defense related accounts ($22.6 billion) and the projected financial year 2008 cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and counter related operations ($141.7 billion). However, it does not include non_DOD expenditures for homeland security ($36.4 billion). (Carl)

“The United States has accounted for 28% of world defense expenditures in 1986 and 34% in 1994, today it accounts for approximately 50%. (Carl)

Spending VS security

The general US public’s attitude towards these wars is totally in the negative as they did not get the security that they were promised. Rather they are more insecure today than they had ever been before. Similarly, the increased amount of spending on defense has not brought any stability in either Iraq or Afghanistan, nor has it assisted in declining any terrorist activities. If at all terrorists activities have increased manifold. The American public has now started to question the increased expenditure on defense and these wars, as well as the high level of threats that the citizens still face. They are paying more taxes, more money and they are more insecure. Therefore, increased spending has, in no way resulted in increased security which was stated to be the main reason for going to war. “The pentagon plans to spend more than $2.75 trillion during the next five years. Concerns such as these led the World Economic Forum to lower America’s competitiveness rating, dropping it from first place to sixth.” (Thornton)

Conclusion

The government has to devise a strategy which will guide, organize and unify the nation’s homeland security. This is an absolute necessity and the government has to now shift the amount of money it is wasting on defense and war and invest it in its homeland security in order to achieve greater results and give the American people what they want. The government has to realize and acknowledge that aside from terrorist threats, there are also non-terrorist events that too reach catastrophic levels which result in significant implications for the security of the homeland.

Secondly, and most importantly the government has to realize and accept the fact that the homeland can not be secured simply relying on defensive approaches. Concerted efforts must involve offense at home and abroad.

A strategy must be formulated providing a common framework through which the entire nation should focus its homeland security efforts on the following four goals:

The government has to be aware of terrorist’s attacks and must be able to prevent and disrupt such attacks before they even occur. For this the government should deny terrorists and terrorist related weapons and materials entry into America and across all international borders. They should disrupt the ability of these terrorists to operate.
Measures must be under-taken in order to protect the lives and livelihood of the American people. Special attention should be given to the infra-structure and other key resources. The government should try and minimize the result of an attack or disaster should it occur. The government should respond quickly and efficiently to recover from incidents that do occur. It should also build a culture of preparedness. This awareness and preparedness would help a great deal in achieving a certain level of security in the minds of the people. This would include clarifying roles and responsibilities across all levels of government as well as the private and non-profit sectors.
The government must continue its efforts to strengthen its foundation in order to make sure of the long term success. Responsibilities that would be assigned by the government would have to be fulfilled and done in an effective and coordinated manner so as to accomplish the success of the strategy and eventually result in securing the homeland.

In order to achieve the above, the government has to re-locate its budget by reducing the amount that is being spent on defense and wars that don’t make any sense and shift this amount towards the security of the homeland. As it is the reason given for these senseless wars and its increased expenditure is security for the homeland which apparently has not been achieved but rather has been proven to increase threats to the general public.

Reference

Auf der Heide, Erik. 1987. Disaster Response: Principles of Preparation and Coordination.

Carl Connete, project on defense alternatives briefing memo #41, 2007.

H.S Rothstein, Afghanistan and the troubled future of unconventional warfare. N S C national strategy for combating terrorism (Washington DC, GPO 2006).

Phillip Thornton, “US slides down competition league; concern over America’s growing twin deficits” the independent (London), 2006.

White House, national strategy for homeland security 2002. p.2.

Click Here To Order Now!