Presidential Election 2004
National Security

By Alan Shapiro

To the Teacher:

The following three readings focus on national security as a presidential campaign issue. They include overviews of the national security assumptions shared by the two major party candidates; some of their national security disagreements; and other points of view, including those of presidential candidates Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader.

Other materials on this website that may be useful during a study of national security issues include: "Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Resource Unit" and "Nuclear Weapons and Our Future," (pro and con discussions of the Bush administration's National Security Strategy and Nuclear Posture Review); "Civil Liberties and Terrorism," (some discussion of the Patriot Act); "Islam and the West," (background readings on the history of this relationship); "Presidential Election 2004: The Iraq Issue"; and several sets of materials on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Suggestions for classroom activities follow the readings.

Reading 1
Bush and Kerry: Shared Assumptions about National Security

• the threat of terrorist acts in the United States
• multiple problems in Iraq, especially continuing violent opposition to the U.S. occupation
• finding a compromise in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• widespread anti-Americanism in the Middle East
• continuing conflict and instability in Afghanistan
• the spread of nuclear weapons to North Korea and perhaps other countries

Domestic issues such as healthcare, jobs, poverty, education and the environment also affect the safety of the country. But American leaders usually see national security as a military issue that has to do with physical threats to the nation.

Most American leaders share certain assumptions about these "national security" issues. Although President George W. Bush and Democratic contender John Kerry differ in some of their national security views, they too share the following critical assumptions:

ASSUMPTION 1: The U.S. should have the world's strongest military force, the most technologically advanced weapons, and operate military bases around the world.

In every military category of any significance, the U.S. already leads the world by far. Its force of 1,427,000 soldiers on active duty is larger than that of any other country. Its current annual military spending of well over $400 billion dwarfs the combined spending of all the other nations allied with the U.S. in Europe, Japan, South Korea and Australia. The combined spending of China and Russia is less than a quarter of U.S. spending.

"Much of the equipment in countries with which the U.S. has poor relations (for example, Iran, North Korea, and Syria) is old, obsolete or in poor repair, and would be cannon fodder for U.S. forces," according to the November/December 2003 issue of The Defense Monitor, a publication of the Center for Defense Information. The U.S. also has "unrivaled capabilities in communications, sensors, targeting, navigation, intelligence gathering, logistics, training, maintenance and global mobility."

The U.S. has more than 700 military installations and bases in over 50 countries that are positioned to support military action virtually anywhere on the globe. (These statistics, from the November/December 2003 issue of The Defense Monitor, are based on official U.S. government sources.)

ASSUMPTION 2: U.S. power should be used to aid the development of countries that are "democratic" and "capitalist."

Democratic countries are considered to have these qualities:

1) They have a constitution that describes the basic rules of the society.
2) They have an elected representative government with limited powers (legislative and executive branches) and independent courts (judicial branch) that uphold the rule of law.
3) They protect such basic civil liberties as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion.

Countries with capitalist economic systems generally have these qualities:

1) Private or corporate enterprises and private individuals own most goods and materials (as opposed to having all or almost all resources controlled by the government).
2) Investments are determined by individual decisions rather than by the state.
3) Prices, production and distribution of goods are determined by "free market competition" rather than by government planning.

In the Middle East, Israel is the only nation governed democratically. Elsewhere in this key area of the world, nations are governed by unelected leaders. And although some of these countries have huge oil wealth, many of their people are very poor and have no jobs. The Bush Administration says that its goal in Iraq is to create a stable, prosperous, democratic country that will be a model for other Middle East nations.

ASSUMPTION 3: At present, the two greatest threats to the security of the U.S. and the world are global terrorists (who usually come from weak and unprogressive states) and nuclear proliferation (the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorists or to nations that do not already have them).

Terrorists

Many of the people living in North African and the Middle Eastern countries resent their autocratic rulers for denying them freedoms and opportunities for better lives. Many also resent Western nations in general and the U.S. in particular. This partly stems from history: European colonial powers ruled much of this region well into the 20th century. And today, people resent the U.S. for its invasion and occupation of Iraq and for its support for Israel in its festering conflict with the Palestinians.

Some conservative Muslims in the region oppose Western secularism and materialism as well as its rampant sex and violence, much of it of American origin, in films, books, magazines and music.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians. Egyptians have been key supporters of Osama bin Laden. Libyans were responsible for such terrorist acts as the blowing up of a Pan Am flight over Scotland. Syria has supported Hezbollah and Hamas, the Palestinian group responsible for many suicide bombings in Israel. The U.S. has accused Iran of supporting terrorists. Moroccans and Tunisians seem to have been behind the recent devastating attacks on passenger trains in Madrid. Terrorists have organized in just about every area of the world, but North Africa and the Middle East have produced groups that operate outside of their own countries.

Nuclear Proliferation

Eight nations are known to have nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, China, Israel, Pakistan and India. North Korea probably has several nuclear weapons and Iran may have a program to develop them.

Recently, the world learned that over some years the chief Pakistani nuclear scientist sold plans and equipment for nuclear bombs to North Korea, Iran, Libya, and perhaps others. (Libya has since abandoned its nuclear program and surrendered the materials for it.) The immense explosive power of nuclear bombs and their release of long-lived radiation make them the most lethal weapons human beings have ever created.

The gradual spread of nuclear weapons and the possibility of terrorists getting hold of them are special concerns for U.S. leaders.

ASSUMPTION 4: The U.S. should act militarily to protect its national security, with others (for example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, other allies, and the United Nations), or by itself, if necessary,.

The U.S. is allied with a number of European nations and Canada in NATO, which came into being after World War II primarily as a defense against the Soviet Union and its allies. While it is not a military alliance like NATO, the UN was organized with world peace and security as its chief aim and has asserted military power through its members in peacekeeping operations on a number of occasions.

Sometimes U.S. leaders who share Assumption #4 disagree about when or if the U.S. should use military force on its own. Was Iraq a threat to Middle East security and to U.S. national security? If so, how serious a threat? Was it serious enough for the U.S. to attack Iraq without the full support of the UN and all of its NATO allies?

ASSUMPTION 5: National security at a time of terrorist threat requires regulations like those in the U.S.A. Patriot Act, which was approved by Congress immediately after 9/11.

The Patriot Act expands significantly the government's power to wiretap, monitor computers, obtain nationwide search warrants and detain indefinitely, without charges, people suspected of terrorism.

The use of such powers creates a conflict between provisions of the Bill of Rights and governmental actions that override them in the name of national security. Is the threat to security so great that it is more important than, say, an individual's right under the Constitution not to "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"?

Reading 2:
Bush and Kerry: Disagreements about National Security

Though Bush and Kerry agree on basic national security propositions, they disagree at times on how to implement them.

BUSH

Two major documents released in 2002 provide a clear view of George Bush's plan for U.S. national security: "The National Security Strategy of the United States" and "The Nuclear Posture Review."

1. "The National Security Strategy of the United States"

The document makes this important assertion of American power: "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively....We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed....the President has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States."

In short:

1) The U.S. is and will continue to be the greatest military power in the world, for the U.S. will not allow any other nation to match or surpass its power.
2) The U.S. will act militarily and preemptivelyóthat is, before it is attacked by terrorists or another nation-and if necessary alone.

The U.S. attack on Iraq, begun on March 19, 2003, is an example of this national security strategy in action. Before the attack President Bush said that Iraq was a "gathering threat" to the U.S. What were the President's reasons?

• The main reason given by the Bush administration was that Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, was a murderous tyrant who possessed and continued to build biological and chemical weaponsóand that he could well possess nuclear weapons within a short period of time. (After a year of effort, American inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.)
• The Bush administration charged that Iraq harbored terrorists linked to Al Qaeda, the international organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. (No clear-cut evidence of an Iraq connection to Al Qaeda has been established since the end of the war, and Bush himself has declared that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11.)
• The administration charged that Iraq was in violation of numerous United Nations resolutions, was not cooperating with UN inspectors and was not reporting and turning over its weapons of mass destruction. (Iraq cooperated to some degree with UN inspectors but before the U.S. attack had not provided detailed documentation of its claim that it had no weapons of mass destruction.)
• A "regime change" in Iraq was essential for the peace of the world and as a preliminary step to creating a democracy in Iraq that would lead the rest of the Middle East to democratize. (As of April 2004, a year after the U.S. attack on Iraq, the future of democracy in Iraq and the Middle East was unclear.)

Many U.S. allies in NATO and the UN opposed the Bush decision to attack Iraq preemptively. And most of the citizens of those nations whose leaders supported the decisionóGreat Britain, Spain and Italy, for exampleóopposed it as well.

"The National Security Strategy of the United States" also states that the U.S. will not participate in the newly-formed International Criminal Court (ICC). This court, which was created to try individuals accused of major war crimes, has been joined by more than 100 nations. The Bush administration does not want to participate because it fears that on some occasion the court could unfairly indict American officials or military personnel for political reasons.

2. "The Nuclear Posture Review"

Below are some key points in the Nuclear Posture Review.

"Nuclear weapons play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies and friends." The nuclear policy maintains that in order to "dissuade competitors," "deter aggressors," and "defeat enemies":

• The U.S. must develop new nuclear weapons (so-called "mini-nukes" or "low yield" nuclear weapons) that can penetrate deeply into the earth, destroying stores of enemy weapons of mass destruction
• The U.S. may need to resume the testing of nuclear weapons so it can try out new nuclear weapons and to ensure the reliability of existing ones.

In keeping with this nuclear weapons policy, Bush opposes U.S. participation in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which bans "all nuclear weapons test explosions" and which all major nations, except the U.S. and China, have signed. Nor will the U.S. rely on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it and most of the nations of the world have signed to solve the nuclear weapons proliferation problem. The Bush administration, as of April 2004, was attempting a diplomatic solution to North Korea's nuclear weapons program, but, in keeping with its policy of military preemption, reserves the right to determine on its own whether to attack North Korea.

KERRY

In recent speeches and interviews Democratic presidential contender Senator John Kerry provides a view of his plan for U.S. national security.

As noted in the first reading, Kerry agrees with Bush on five basic propositions about national security. He supports maintaining U.S. military as the strongest in the world and the U.S.'s right to act preemptively and on its own if necessary. Kerry also voted in the Senate to support Bush's call for war on Iraq because he believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

But Kerry gives much greater emphasis to acting with U.S. allies and in accordance with United Nations decisions.

While Kerry supported "regime change" in Iraq, he did not believe that was justification for war, and he did not believe that the Bush administration proved that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. In his Senate speech announcing he would vote for the war resolution, he said, "Let me be clear. The vote I will give the President is for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies....These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."

Months later, after the U.S. had occupied Iraq, Kerry defended his vote, saying that Bush misled the country. "My regret is that the President of the United States didn't do what he had said he would do"óthat is, to attack Iraq only after all diplomatic efforts had failed and after the U.S. had won the support of its allies. (August 2003, on Meet the Press) From Kerry's point of view, Bush attacked Iraq without the support of major allies and the United Nations and not as a last resort since the consensus in the UN at the time was to continue the work in Iraq of UN inspectors. While Kerry would also act preemptively, he thinks the Bush preemptive attack showed disrespect "for international institutions and international law."

The Bush response to this critique is that (1) Iraq's continuing failure to document its weapons programs and its failure to fully cooperate with inspections was yet another violation of a UN resolution and (2) support for the war came from Great Britain, Spain and Italy as well as several dozen other countries, even if not from such major powers as France, Germany, and Russia.

Kerry is scathing about the Bush foreign policy and its negative impact on national security: "The Bush administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history," charges Kerry. "Now the United Nations is divided and we are fighting an increasingly deadly guerrilla war in Iraq almost single-handedly. We have lost the good will of the world, overextended our troops, and endangered not enhanced our security...."

The most important differences between Bush and Kerry on foreign policy and national security seem to be summarized in the following, from Kerry's address to the Council on Foreign Relations (12/3/03): "Intoxicated with the preeminence of American power, the administration has abandoned the fundamental tenets that guided our foreign policy for more than half a century-belief in collective security and alliances, respect for international institutions and international law, multilateral engagement and the use of force not as a first option but as a last resort."

Bush disagrees with this criticism of his policies and how they have been carried out. He says he supports collective security and the NATO alliance; supports international institutions like the UN; believes he took the country to war only after all peaceful measures had been exhausted and with "a coalition of the willing," even if not with all allies.

Kerry voted against Bush's request for $87 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan, and for more equipment for American troops, which Congress approved in October 2003. Kerry's explanation: "The best way to support our troops and take the target off their back is with a real strategy to win the peace in Iraq-not by throwing $87 billion at George Bush's failed policies." However, Kerry did vote for an amendment that would have approved the $87 billion if the money had come from rescinding the part of Bush's tax cut that favored the wealthy. He voted for an amendment to do that. When the amendment failed, Kerry voted against the bill.

Bush points to Kerry's votes on the $87 billion as evidence that Kerry flipflops on issues: He voted for war on Iraq but then refused to support the necessary funding for American troops and reconstruction in Iraq.

Kerry seems to accept the Bush policy that nuclear weapons "play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies and friends." But he opposes building new, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, declaring, "I don't want a world with more useable nuclear bombs." He believes the U.S. should be an active member of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But he has not made clear whether he believes in the Nonproliferation Treaty's call for "an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons."

Kerry supports U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court, but believes U.S. officials "should be provided some protection from politically motivated prosecutions," a position that nations belonging to the ICC think is already built into the court system.

(Information on Kerry's positions comes from his responses to a Peace Action questionnaire.)

Two other issues are likely to receive campaign attention:

1) Did the Bush administration give enough attention to Al Qaeda before September 11, given the repeated warnings Bush received from the CIA and other sources that an Al Qaeda attack was coming?

2) Did Bush insist on an Iraq-Al Qaeda link in the absence of convincing evidenceówhile giving short shrift to Pakistan's known sales of nuclear weapons plans and North Korea's known nuclear weapons development?

Reading 3:
Other Views of National Security

Presidential candidates Dennis Kucinich (Democrat) and Ralph Nader (Independent), as well as other critics, do not agree with the national security assumptions shared by Bush, Kerry and other U.S. leaders. Here is a sampling of these dissenting views.

ASSUMPTIONS 1 and 2 (the use of U.S. military force around the world)

The idea that the U.S. has some special mission goes back to early colonial days. John Winthrop, the leader of Puritan settlers in Massachusetts, declared in 1630: "For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us." More than two centuries later President Woodrow Wilson stated his conviction that the U.S. is "to show the way to the nations of the world how they shall walk in the paths of liberty." At his April 13, 2004 news conference, President Bush declared, "I want to change the world."

But George Kennan, an American diplomat, and writer, said that for Americans "to see ourselves as the center of political enlightenment and as teachers to a great part of the rest of the world [is] unthought-through, vainglorious, and undesirable....this planet is never going to be ruled from any single political center, whatever its military power." Kennan also wrote in 1951 that a nation's quality and success is ultimately determined by its "spiritual distinction"ósomething rarely cited in foreign policy discussions. ("The American Mission?" The New York Review of Books, 4/8/04)

But candidate Dennis Kucinich has cited it repeatedly. He has proposed a Department of Peace as a cabinet level agency to promote nonviolent conflict resolution and world harmony. "The Department of Peace aims to do nothing less than to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our country." (Council on Foreign Relations, 9/1/03) "We can change the whole debate in this country, and we've got to do it," Kucinich said in a rally in Lincoln City, Oregon. "It's about the [Democratic] party standing for something....This is a spiritual matter, not just a practical political matter." (New York Times, 5/17/04)

Ralph Nader attacked the "bloated military budget." "Imagine how many clinics, schools, public transits, playgrounds for children, safer food and drinking water, cleaner air could be gotten for the $300 billion that will have been spent on the U.S. war and occupation in Iraq," said Nader. ("In the Public Interest," vote-smart.org, 12/27/03)

Critics also point out that U.S. efforts to promote democracy can be hypocritical. At the same time that American leaders now say they are focused on helping Iraq to become a free society with democratic institutions, the U.S. has friendly relations with Uzbekistan, an unfree country run by a dictator, because he permits U.S. military bases in it.

In short, critics disagree with the idea that the U.S. has a mission to teach other countries how to organize their government and their economy. And they do not believe that the U.S. has the right to use its power to force other countries to change. If Americans want to be a beacon for others, they ought to demonstrate more effectively the justice and the worth of the institutions of their country and the power and beauty of their values.

ASSUMPTION 3 (terrorism and nuclear proliferation as top threats)

Critics agree that the threats posed by terrorists and nuclear proliferation are real enough, but they disagree with the way U.S. leaders analyze and respond to these threats.

Terrorists

Since 9/11, wrote novelist and essayist Susan Sontag, "The Bush administration has told the American people that America is at war." But, she argues, "this antiterror war can never end. That is one sign that it is not a war but, rather, a mandate for expanding the use of American power [and] Öa powerful disincentive to having a mainstream debate about what is actually happening." (New York Times, 9/10/02)

Writes journalist and analyst George Packer: "In treating the war on terrorism as a mere military struggle, the Administration's mistake begins with the name itself. 'Terrorism' is a method....The enemy is an ideology...that reaches from Karachi to London, from Riyadh to Brooklyn, and that uses terror to advance its ends. The Administration's failure to grasp the political nature of the war has led to many crucial mistakes, most notably the Pentagon's attitude that postwar problems in Afghanistan and Iraq would essentially take care of themselves, that we could have democracy on the cheap: once the dictators and terrorists were rooted out, the logic went, freedom would spontaneously grow in their place....Like the Bush Administration, the Democrats have failed to grasp the political dimensions of the struggle. They, too, have cast it narrowly, as a matter of security, " Packer writes. To say, as Bush frequently has, that terrorists attack because they hate our freedom is to fail to see their political, religious and cultural motivations.

Nuclear Proliferation

While it would be difficult to find someone who thinks nuclear proliferation is a good idea, critics think the U.S. approach to halting it is wrong and that it isn't working. In fact, nuclear proliferation is increasing. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (an organization agency affiliated with the United Nations), says: "If the world does not change course, we risk self-destruction... Eventually, inevitably, terrorists will gain access to [nuclear] materials and technology, if not actual weapons." ElBaradei offers a number of proposals to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Most importantly, he insists upon the fulfillment of "the commitment of the five nuclear states recognized under the nonproliferation treatyóBritain, China, France, Russia and the United Statesóto move toward disarmament....We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for securityóand indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use." (New York Times, 2/12/04)

Dennis Kucinich agrees. He would "persist toward total, worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons" as well as "abide by the principles of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty." He would also "abandon plans to build a so-called missile shield" and "prohibit the introduction of weapons into outer space."

In short, critics say the U.S.'s current stances on terrorism and nuclear proliferation leave much to be desired. The U.S. has not developed policies that address the serious political and cultural problems posed by terrorism. And the U.S. isn't doing what it must do to stop nuclear proliferationónamely, strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and living up to the pledges it made under that treaty.

ASSUMPTION 4 (acting militarily to protect U.S. national security)

Few would quarrel about the right of any nation to protect its people. But on the day that the U.S. invasion of Iraq began (March 20, 2003), Dennis Kucinich said in a speech to the National Newspaper Association: "While I support the troops, I cannot support this mission. President Bush has launched an unprovoked attack against another country....This Administration has assumed an aggressive ideological policy approach which calls for America to be the first to attack" and is "in contempt of international law."

"Once again the hopes of people of two nations are being smashed by weapons in the name of eliminating weapons," Kucinich said. "Let us abolish weapons of mass destruction at home....Joblessness is a weapon of mass destruction. Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. Hunger is a weapon of mass destruction. Poor health care is a weapon of mass destruction. Poor education is a weapon of mass destruction. Discrimination is a weapon of mass destruction."

The Bush "National Security Strategy," wrote the lead editorialist for The New Yorker magazine, Hendrik Hertzberg, is based on "the notion of America as both the policeman and the legislator of the world, and it's where the Bush vision goes seriously, even chillingly, wrong. A police force had better be embedded in and guided by a structure of law and consent. There's a name for the kind of regime in which the cops rule, answering only to themselves. It's called a police state." (The New Yorker, 10/14/02 and 10/21/02)

Jonathan Schell, a world security analyst and scholar on nuclear weapons, wrote: "...even as the Bush Administration proclaimed U.S. military superiority, it pulled the country out of the world's major peaceful initiatives to deal with global problems-withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol to check global warming and from the International Criminal Court, and sabotaging a protocol that would have given teeth to the biological weapons convention. When the UN Security Council would not agree to American decisions on war and peace [regarding Iraq], it became 'irrelevant'; when NATO allies balked, they became 'old Europe.'" (The Nation, 3/29/04)

Ralph Nader was sarcastic about "the chicken hawks in Washington, led by Bush and Cheney," who pursue "a preemptive war that was never declared by Congress as the Constitution requires." ("In the Public Interest," 12/27/03) The "chicken hawks" phrase refers to people who clamor for war but when younger avoided combat service during the Vietnam War.

In short. critics say: Current U.S. policies seem aimed at global domination and run counter to effective participation in major international organizations.

ASSUMPTION 5 (The Patriot Act)

The Patriot Act has many critics. "The Patriot Act takes dead aim at the Bill of Rights and represents a perverse inversion of the principle on which America's justice system is based: innocent until proven guilty," the American Civil Liberties Union stated. "The question everyone in America must ask is whether we can trust unchecked surveillance, investigative and detention powers to any government official-elected or appointed, current or future."

Dennis Kucinich, a member of Congress from Ohio, noted that "Washington was gripped by fear when it passed the Patriot Act. Worse than that, most members of Congress never read the bill. It was brought forth at about 1:00 a.m. at a time when most members had already been in session for more than 14 hours. Members were not given copies-there was one copy on the desk of a clerk of a bill that was over 300 pagesÖ."

What Congress voted for that night, said Kucinich, was a "broad revision to First Amendment rights....The FBI can get information from video stores on what you watch, financial information, your education records, your health records....people are picked up, locked up, not told what they're charged with...held in some cases incommunicado, not provided legal protection...." (www.kucinich.us, 4/14/04 speech in Eugene, Oregon)

Ralph Nader declared that "under the guise of preventing terrorism," the U.S. is now allowing "Big Government surveillance, unannounced sneak and peek searches of citizens' homes and businesses, and the rise of legions of government snoopers." (Letter to Conservatives, vote-smart.org, 4/2/04)

Critics of the Patriot Act also remind Americans that efforts by past leaders to restrict our civil liberties are now regarded as both unconstitutional and shameful. During World War II, for example, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, on grounds of national security, ordered the removal of Japanese-Americans from their homes to "relocation centers"óan act for which the U.S. has since officially apologized.

In short, critics say that the Patriot Act contradicts the Bill of Rights and weakens the very civil liberties that make the U.S. great.

Classroom Suggestions

1. Create a web.

Write "National Security" on the chalkboard and invite student comments about meanings they give these words.

• How do students define this term? (eg, safety of the country)
• What actions promote "national security," in their opinion? (eg, build up U.S. armed forces)

Ask students to name events in the news that they think bear on national security. As they respond, draw a web showing relationships between word definitions and actions. Star controversial items for further study. Work for clarity and consensus on a definition of "national security" before you assign readings and further discussions.

2. Have a class dialogue.

Have students pair up in twos facing each other. Ask them to bring their knowledge and opinions to the topic of "national security," which you might define simply as "the safety of the country." What do students think is the most important national security issue facing the United States?

Have one person in each pair speak for one or two minutes in response to this question. Then the other partner speaks for the same amount of time.

Remind students that when they are in the role of listener, their goal is to focus their complete attention on the speaker and listen in interested silence. After each student has spoken, have the pairs dialogue for another two or three minutes. Then invite students to offer their ideas to the whole class and record ideas and opinions on the chalkboard for later discussion in connection with the readings.

3. Discussion

In connection with each reading have students prepare two or three good questions, questions that if answered well would lead them to a clearer understanding of some national security issue. Each class session on a reading might begin with student questions for analysis and discussion. For detailed suggestions see the "Doubting Game" section of "Teaching Critical Thinking" on this website.

Reading 1

• What is an assumption? How clear are students about each assumption?
• What questions do students have about any of these assumption? How might such questions be answered?
• Do students agree or disagree with each assumption? Why or why not?
• What do you understand about each of the major national security concerns cited in the reading?
• Based on student responses, do you see areas where students need to increase their understanding (such as of nuclear proliferation, the possible causes of terrorism, preemption as a military doctrine, or the Patriot Act)?

Reading 2

• What is President Bush's national security strategy? his policy on nuclear weapons?
• In what ways does Kerry agree with Bush? In what ways does he disagree? Why?
• How would you define the positions of Bush and Kerry on Iraq?

Reading 3

For what reasons do critics attack each of the following current U.S. national security policies:

• Use of U.S. power to promote American institutions
• Analysis of terrorism threat
• Cooperation with international organizations
• Nuclear proliferation

Do you agree, disagree or have mixed feelings about criticism of each policy? Why?

4. Critical thinking

Ask students to critically examine Bush's "National Security Strategy," his nuclear weapons policy as described in the "Nuclear Posture Review, or Kerry's position on Iraq. See "Teaching Critical Thinking" on this website for detailed suggestions.

5. Continuing study

Talk with the class about the national security issue that most interests them - an issue on which Bush and Kerry disagree. Assign each student to keep a weekly notebook record of the remarks of either Bush or Kerry on this issue as reported in newspapers, on TV or on their websites (georgebush.com and johnkerry.com). Provide weekly class time for student reports and discussion.

6."Fish bowl" on national security

How do students view the five assumptions? Would they replace any? With what? What principles do students think should govern U.S. national security concerns? To consider the latter question, conduct a "fish bowl" conversation.

In a "fish bowl" five to seven students sit in a circle in the middle of the room to begin the conversation. It is important to ensure that the group reflects different points of view. Everyone else makes a circle of chairs around the fish bowl. But only students in the fish bowl can speak. Each has an opportunity to present a point of view for a couple of minutes. The teacher then asks for clarifying questions and further comments. After 15 minutes or so students from the larger circle can be invited to replace students in the fish bowl by tapping one of the latter on the shoulder and moving into that student's seat.

Following the fish bowl discussions, work with the class to determine if the group can reach a consensus on any principles.

7. Writing

Write an essay on one of the following topics:

• George Kennan said, "National quality and success is ultimately determined by a nation's 'spiritual distinction.'" How do you understand this statement and what do you think would enhance the "spiritual distinction" of the United States?
• Critics of the Bush administration argue that the aim of its national security policy is to achieve world domination. What is your opinion of this point of view and what evidence do you have to support it?

8. Student Action

What should the U.S.'s role be in the world? Why? How should it be implemented? Such questions could be the subject of a class inquiry into national security past and present and competing points of view.

The inquiry might lead to:

• A student-written and published magazine for school-wide distribution
• Letters to congressional representatives and senators, secretaries of defense and state, the vice president and president
• A forum with officials and student representatives sponsored by the class and the school PTA

9. Further Inquiry

Many national security issues past and present could be the subjects of student inquiries. Some samples:

Historical:

• Why did the U.S. enter World War I?
• Why didn't the U.S. join the League of Nations?
• Why were Japanese-American citizens forced into detention centers during World War II? Why weren't German-American and Italian-American citizens?

Current:

• What motivates terrorist acts against the United States and its citizens?
• What are the pros and cons of U.S. membership in the International Criminal Court?
• What are the major provisions of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty? How effective has the treaty been? Why? How might the treaty be strengthened?
  

This essay was written for TeachableMoment.Org, a project of Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. We welcome your comments. Please email them to: lmcclure@morningsidecenter.org.

Back to top