Suchergebnisse

Where "national security" comes from? From the origins of this extraordinarily ambiguous concept, we do not know much, if not what historical literature has long established, i.e. it is an American product of the early Cold War, inspired by the experience of the global conflict and dictated by confrontation with the Soviet Union, accompanying the integration of what was precisely called the "national security apparatus". Without denying the importance of this pivotal moment, this article aims to open a new track, looking at what is happening discreetly, a quarter of a century earlier, in the two smaller armed forces intelligence services, the Military Intelligence Division (MID) and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). On the basis of specific lessons learned from the experience of 'modern war', there is a definitive, theoretical and practical break, with four central distinctions in military thinking: war and peace, military and civilian, interior and outside, friend and enemy. Our assumption is that, in doing so, the intelligence services are silently but concretely paving the way for this form of government rationality that will soon be referred to by the concept of 'national security'. ; International audience ; Where "national security" comes from? From the origins of this extraordinarily ambiguous concept, we do not know much, if not what historical literature has long established, i.e. it is an American product of the early Cold War, inspired by the experience of the global conflict and dictated by confrontation with the Soviet Union, accompanying the integration of what was precisely called the "national security apparatus". Without denying the importance of this pivotal moment, this article aims to open a new track, looking at what is happening discreetly, a quarter of a century earlier, in the two smaller armed forces intelligence services, the Military Intelligence Division (MID) and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). On the basis of specific lessons learned from the experience of 'modern ...

The White Paper on defense & national security highlighted the need to have a way to respond to internal crises, & to reinforce the resilience of the population. The creation of a National Guard would reinforce French security, particularly in the eventuality of a major catastrophe. It would be formed from citizens who had been trained as part of either an obligatory or a voluntary civil emergency organization; it would also reinforce national solidarity & promote the fundamental values of the Republic.

The structure of European security has within it some highly original aspects, the twenty-year-old Weimar Triangle being one of them. At Polish instigation, it could possibly find renewed relevance today through being extended to Moscow. Were this to be so, a new and broad pan-European security structure could be created.

Résumé.Comment expliquer la politique de sécurité nationale américaine, notamment l'évolution de certaines décisions en matière de politique étrangère et de sécurité intérieure ? Quels acteurs et quels facteurs rendent compte des résultats pour le moins controversés de celles-ci ? Au-delà des discours, des institutions et des énoncés, les choix de sécurité ont été l'œuvre de ceux que nous surnommons les « entrepreneurs » de la prise de décision. La question à laquelle cet article veut répondre est précisément de savoir qui sont ces « entrepreneurs » et comment ils ont réalisé cet objectif de transformation des politiques de sécurité des États-Unis. Trois prises de décision de la première administration Bush sont abordées : la guerre préventive en Irak, la redéfinition légale de la notion de torture, et l'institutionnalisation plus grande de la sécurité intérieure.Abstract.How are we to explain U.S. foreign policy, particularly policymaking on national security and homeland security, under the first administration of G. W. Bush? Who were the actors and what were the factors that produced what were, to say the least, controversial results? Looking beyond the speeches, statements and institutions, the security decisions can be seen as the work of "policy entrepreneurs." This article considers who those entrepreneurs were and how they achieved their goal of transforming U.S. security policy. Three decisions are discussed: the pre-emptive war in Iraq, the legal redefinition of torture by the Bush administration, and the institutionalization of homeland security, in particular thePatriot Act.

The wide consensus on the need for a new White Paper on defence and national security reflects growing awareness of the many dangers darkening the horizon of the coming decades and underlines how urgent it is to adapt our policies in these areas. To meet its objective, the debate that has begun must be deepened and thus broadly open and free of any preconditions. It will provide the politicians with the elements they need to draw up and implement a defence and security policy that meets our country's present and future requirements. Adapted from the source document.

The disappearance of the threat to our frontiers has meant that national territory no longer seems to feature prominently as an issue in national security. How then to promote the spirit of defence and maintain the state's capability for resistance to enable it, if necessary, to withstand the unexpected? The author sketches out some possibilities, particularly in the less tangible areas of defence.

Where does 'national security' come from? The genesis of this extraordinarily ambiguous concept is largely unknown, besides what a few historical works have long established, i.e. that 'national security' is an offspring of the early Cold War, inspired by the experience of the Second World War and dictated by the confrontation with the Soviet Union, accompanying the integration of what was to be called the 'National Security State'. While not denying in any sense the importance of this turning point, this article intends to offer a new perspective by focusing on what is discretely happening a quarter of a century before, within the two modest military intelligence services, the Military Intelligence Division (MID) and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). There, based on the lessons drawn from the experience of 'modern war', a theoretical and practical break is carried out with four distinctions traditionally essential in military thinking: war and peace, military and civilian, front and rear, friend and foe. Our hypothesis is that this silent, but concrete and definite break paved the way to this form of governmental rationality which was to be referred to as 'national security'. Adapted from the source document.