The construction and prioritization of threats in the post-Cold War era and the evolution of American national security policy

• Main Author: Kronfeld, Melissa Jane
• Format: Text
• Language: unknown
• Published: No Publisher Supplied 2018
• Subjects: Arctic; Climate change
• Online Access: https://dx.doi.org/10.7282/t34m97zd; https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/57350/

This dissertation asks, given the apparent disconnect between externally defined (or objective) threats and those internally (or subjectively) prioritized by the American government, under what conditions does the U.S. prioritize specific types of threats to its national security? In the case of this research, I seek to understand what are the primary determinates of prioritization in regards to the threat posed to the United States by terrorism, narco-trafficking, climate change and the emerging geopolitics of the Arctic region? At its very essence, this dissertation seeks to explain what Ronnie Lipschultz questioned: “how do ideas [sic] about security develop, enter the realm of public policy debate and discourse and, eventually becomes institutionalized in hardware, organizations, roles, and practices?” In this dissertation, I examine two primary explanations and the hypotheses they generate to explain how the U.S. government prioritizes threats to its national security. The first is the role of the international system and the second is the role of political culture. A Realist bias towards the effects of the international system, posits that factors external to the U.S. government’s choosing - primarily the changing nature of the international system, evolving power dynamics, and the impact on the character of the threats emerging from it - is the best explanatory variable for threat prioritization. The alternative, a Constructivist-Institutional (i.e. bureaucratic) argument, posits that a bias towards U.S. political culture and its effects on the decision-making processes of national security institutions (factors internal to the character of the U.S. political and institutional perspective) is the primary determinate in threat prioritization. Ultimately, I argue that the latter explanation is better substantiated. I illustrate this through a series of case studies, each which explores a threat representing a different level of prioritization in the schemata of U.S. national security policy. And I present an examination of acquired qualitative and quantitative data, indicating the dominance of subjective factors versus objective measures in ranking threats.