This week continued our discussion of security from the previous week into more specific forms of security. The visit to the pentagon and the analysis of the NSO security document and Judt's paper highlighted an important aspect of security for me. What I found interesting was the constant changing nature of security.
A question that was asked to the tour guides at the Pentagon was how it had changed with the occurrence of the attacks on September 11. Not only were there significant changes in domestic and foreign policy, there were actual structural changes that occurred. The Pentagon itself was restructured. Escalators that used to directly take one from metro to inside the Pentagon were removed. Additionally, two new security checks were implemented as a result of the attack. The biggest structural change which I'm sure most people noticed were the increased security within airports.
This was interesting because it reminded me of trends in changes of U.S. security policy. Specifically, the introduction of nuclear weapons produced school drills such as "duck and cover" and the President's Emergency Operations Center (PEOC). So, as globalization increases and technological advances continue to occur, I'm curious as to the structural effects threats will have to the U.S. in the future. In the comparison of the security documents, it became evident that Obama's document isolated numerous threats that existing in society ranging from bioterrorism, poverty, nuclear proliferation, and even cyberterrorism. Will the future contain drills that teach kindergarten students how to effectively use McAfee and Norton to be ready for a cyberterrorist attack? Regardless, the issue is increasingly interesting and may be prevalent in years to come.
Toby, I liked what you said about how quickly and drastically the structured security of the United States can change in response to specific threats. However, I find the sociological response of the United States to the new facet of extremism that became prominent on September 11th even more intriguing. Although the initial outbreak of Islamophobia throughout the US populous is completely understandable despite its irrationality, it is interesting to see how that fear of Muslim extremists and even the religion of Islam shaped politics then and even continues to shape politics now. Even just a few years ago, during President Obama's campaign, the claims that our current president was a Muslim and had ties to an extremist group got far more attention in the popular media and in our everyday lives than it ever would have before 9/11. Additionally, even recently, President Obama has decided to purposefully bypass the Sikh temple during his recent tour of Asia because although Sikhism is nothing close to Islam, visiting the Sikh temple would require the President to cover his head, an act which both he and his advisers obviously fear may resurrect the old claims of an Islamic past. Therefore, the fact that these sociological changes 9/11 incited in the United States still exist in the present is, to me, more interesting than the structural changes. To use your example, if cyberterrorism becomes more prominent in society, will an irrational fear of professional hackers and the IT profession in general develop? And will this fear permanently strike a potential speech location, such as MIT, off a president's list?
ReplyDeleteHaha, I love the end of your comment.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. The sociological implications of the terrorist attack are astounding. Both the structural and sociological effects of terrorism are interesting issues to examine.