Brown argues that increased use and presence of American military forces has implicated US diplomacy at large. I agree with Brown’s assessments that U.S. officials are relying on influence to counter a wide range of threats to America's global interests; eclipsing previous strategies that restricted the use of military force to situations in which the country's vital interests were at stake. This is clearly evident even before September 11, 2001, which showed signs of heavy interfering into the future. While some may say, that these force presence is one of the reliable ways to establish a control over a disorderly world, evidence have showed us the opposite which supports Brown’s argument of ‘dangerous illusion’.
While, we may argue that USA still remains, as the only ‘full service’ superpower, we need to question if this capacity have been ever been fully materialized? When US president George W Bush came on power, he adopted a unipolarity approach in pursuing US interest in foreign affairs. This was clearly evident when President Bush chose to use American military force following the September 11 attack to eliminate perceived threats and to promote U.S ideas around the world “based on four themes: a celebration of America’s physical superiority; a quasi-religious belief in the universality of American values and priorities; a confidence in Washington’s capacity to translate its material resources into intended outcomes; and a sense of threat, sufficient to justify institutional adjustment at home and pre-emptive action abroad.”
National Security in Cyberspace
How it does or does not support Brown’s hypothesis about U.S. relative decline and the transition from unipolarity to polyarchy in the National Security in Cyberspace?
Realizing the US power decline, making an impactful presence globally, the White House has been zealous in protecting its interest. We can see how the U.S has sought to foster a favorable imbalance of power and has conducted its foreign affairs through coercive actions such as the national security in cyberspace. The U.S Iron Triangle, between military/private industry/law-makers, is a clear example of how the state has transition from unipolarity to polyarchy system. In week 3 discussions, Joseph Terrell pointed out that these non-state actors would continue to play a vital role, “to stay competitive in the cyber-power industry” as these companies grow to become a trusted source for the state”. U.S further realizes that securing cyberspace cannot be resolved single handedly or even a single company. Cyberspace security is a global challenge. This is further evident through the recent NATO agreement signed by Bulgaria, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. Although, many would argue that, whether this approach is the appropriate method or vice versa, one thing remain evident is that combination of advance intelligence capabilities would be more beneficial and...