Thoughts on national security documents

Let me begin by saying I found it refreshing to read some "real" documents. That is to say, ones that were based in more modern day issues and weren't the simply the product of theorical IR brooding. It was just cool to know that I had been reading something that was previously "top secret". With that said, I would like to focus on NSC-68, a US security document dealing with the threat of the communist Soviet Union in the 1950s. I found it particulary interesting because, although I learned about the red scare and the threat of the USSR, the information you get in text books is no match for the original.

With the general tone of the document being a genuine "good vs. evil" type of deal, it seemed natural to take a realist standpoint. The overwhelming message of the briefing was that the Soviet Union was a potential threat to the safety and security of the United States and, on a larger scale, the world. The IR realist would take to the idea that we (America) must not trust the USSR to be peaceful. We must prepare for the worst and use our military and economic powers in an attempt to crumble to soviet regime. By allowing the USSR to grow in power, the US would lose ground as the world superpower. The document also gives the impression that the United States would be prepared to take action against the USSR in order to preserve it's own well being. War however is mentioned as a possible way to deal with the USSR, but it is reserved as a last resort. I think if the document was written in the purely realist sense, war would not be looked down upon. After all, if you are a realist the best and most efficient way to eliminate a threat. Of course, liberals maintain that rational people will do whatever possible to avoid going to war as the consequences far outweight the benifits

Aside from the aforementioned realist qualities, there are also strong elements of liberalism present in the nsc-68. For example, the United States has always believe in the promise of the democratic state. This goes along with the notion that the USSR is evil and archaic and the United States is wonderful. The idea of spreading democracy and eliminating communism is present throughout. It is even postulated that communism doesn't represent the will of the Soviet people. On the contrary, they are simply forced to comply. This cites the liberal ideal that people want representation and that they are rational at the core. No one would wish communism upon themselves. Liberals tend to believe that those who were raised and live in an autocratic society would welcome the introduction of democracy with open arms (of course as we can see today, this is not always the case). This idea of spreading representative forms of government and protecting the homeland is seen more in the document regarding the US security policy. It is liberalism and constructivism in the truest sense. It honestly seemed more like a patriotic speech (a bit of propoganda even) than an official guide to national security. It was almost a pump-up speech, like we were going to justify all future military conflicts on the basis that America is the best country and we won't put up with any crap from anybody. Something about phrases like "freedom is on the march" just give the aire of cautioned empire building. I'm not really sure what that means...but I just don't like the idea of assuming responsibilty for every governmental issue in the international community. God only knows we have our fair share of problems to deal with here.