Human Security and the National Defense Strategy
Kathleen McInnis, an international security specialist for the Congressional Research Service — a non-partisan public policy research institute that works for Members of Congress — wrote a report titled, “COVID-19: National Security and Defense Strategy,” that laid out an interesting framework in which to view national security.
There is “realist” security, which is the traditional version of security whose focal point is deterrence or prosecution of warfare between states.
“Human” security, on the other hand, focuses on the individual in society and includes food security and access to healthcare.
Realist security threats are vital to protect against, but our success is largely unmeasurable. Consider: How many lives have been saved as a result of U.S. presence in Europe or East Asia? It’s impossible to know, but conventional wisdom is that the United States has successfully deterred high-intensity conflict through the projection of military and political might across the globe.
Our success in addressing human security threats, however, is much more visible. And not only is it more visible, but the lack of preparedness in this domain can result in measurable catastrophe — so far, more than 87,000 American lives have been lost to COVID-19.
McInnis highlighted that the Obama administration expanded its definition of the threat against the United States to include elements of human security, whereas the Trump administration’s national security strategy focused on more traditional security considerations, particularly the threat posed by great power competitors — such as China and Russia.
Regardless of an administration’s national security focus, though, the Department of Defense receives the greatest portion of security funds.
A CRS estimate found that DOD received more than double what non-DOD agencies — Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, etc. — received in funding allocated towards security.
This mismatch may result in a reduced capability to respond to non-traditional security challenges such as a pandemic response, as we’re seeing now with COVID-19. The DOD, with its outsized budget relative to other security-focused agencies, is asked to fill gaps where other government entities may be better suited but lack the appropriate resources or personnel.
To illustrate this, the report recalled funding cuts to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development in the early 1990’s and its negative impact on U.S. civilian expertise in Iraq and Afghanistan. This resulted in the DOD executing non-military tasks — including building schools and managing civilian government functions — in those countries over the last two decades.
Moving forward, current or future administrations may expand the scope of security threats to include human security challenges and reallocate funding to agencies better positioned to address those challenges. With experts already predicting a flat or reduced DOD budget in light of the looming $4 trillion deficit as a result of coronavirus aid packages, what DOD capabilities or projects would be sacrificed?
The Army’s modernization efforts, designed to ensure the Army maintains a competitive advantage in the multi-domain battlefield, may be at risk if funding is redistributed to other executive branch agencies or cut altogether.
If you enjoyed this content, please subscribe to the jumo brief today to receive a free weekly newsletter in your inbox every Saturday morning! You will receive weekly content like this and much more!
The jumo brief helps leaders keep up to date on social commentary, news, and current events that are relevant to the Army.
Brennan Randel
@BrennanRandel
