The National Security Strategy 2010 provides definitive ideologies on what contributes to global security, national security and homeland security. Essentially, there are multiple concerns highlighted in this policy document that help in understanding the values of domestic and international relations. Notably, there are several distinctions between the three aspects of this legislation as reflected in both the Obama and Trump administrations over the years. Therefore, there is a need to understand the various distinctions among the various terms to help understand each aspect to development.
Primarily, national security encompasses the USA state defense and foreign relation with critical focus on gaining advantage of military, favorable international environment or preparedness to resist or counter any potential destruction from within or without the borders. On the contrary, home land security involves nationally concentrated efforts to ensure that the US is not vulnerable to terrorism. The provisions mandate the chief commander to ensure that that the country is safe and ready to combat and recover from major disaster or emergencies while reducing damages associated with such attacks (O’Sullivan & Ramsay, 2015). Likewise, global security is the universal approach to maintain peace and relations among nations as championed by the international bodies like the United Nations and other continental entities like African Union. The key emphasis of such a strategy is to enhance good standings among nations by helping them solve any potential crisis and respond to threats as integrated society.
Likewise, multiple social concerns may play a role in shaping homeland safety alongside the organs of governance. According to the White House (2017), the variations are overriding and may affect the image of any leadership based on how well the agencies are involved. In essence, the federal law may face considerable challenges in executing its mandate to ensure that written rules are put in action. Some of the major concepts that the paper seeks to integrate is the value of inclusivity and equity among different communities. While some regions may be facing safety threats others may consider basic needs as their priority. Such deviance may limit the ideal impacts of these laws in societies.
The Trump administration traded a major back fall to these guidelines by abolishing some of the provisions of the law. In essence, the Arab-Israeli peace deals suffered major blow following the continued wrangles with the Muslim countries. Evidently, there exist several concerns that ensued as a result of Trump’s treatment of certain sections of communities. The Department of Homeland Security and the stakeholders of the Homeland Security Enterprise all had a role to play in strengthening the international ties (Department of Homeland Security, 2020). However, the recent attacks on Islamic states and countries considered threat to the United Stated of America may prove that the immediate former president neglected certain provisions of the law in his quest for power and statutes.
To conclude, homeland, national and global security both have unique geographical attributes which differentiate each of them from the other. Although the Obama administration focused on enhancing worldwide peace, Trump’s governance showcased reluctance on tolerance to certain division of religion and affiliated parties. It is important to understand how countries develop tactics for the all-inclusive value of economic growth. The legislative materials focus on enhancing integration and understanding among the key stakeholders.
References
Department of Homeland Security (2020). The DHS strategic plan fiscal years 2020-2024. Web.
O’Sullivan, T. & Ramsay, J. (2015). Defining and distinguishing homeland from national security and climate-related environmental security, in theory and practice. Journal of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, 12(1), 43-66.
White House. (2017). National security strategy of the United States of America. Web.