The Politics of International Security

Imagine the following scenario: a huge explosion occurs at a major population centre in the US, resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries. Within minutes — hopefully — an army of officials from various agencies descends upon the scene. These officials represent the local police and fire departments, the medical community, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and counter-terrorism experts from the local and federal authorities. The initial response of these officials was inspired by the same event — the explosion — yet their professional interest in the disaster varies quite widely. Medical personnel are interested in caring for the wounded; police and fire officials are interested in securing the area and rescuing survivors; FBI and ATF personnel are interested in finding and protecting the evidence of a crime scene, such as witness statements and physical evidence, that could be used in a court of law; and counter-terrorism experts are interested in quickly assigning responsibility for the attack, if appropriate, to some domestic or international terrorist group. Local, state and national politicians are likely to descend upon the scene at some point, and they may wish to blame other politicians (mainly in the opposition party, of course) for failing to prevent the attack in the first place. These people are all making a ‘correct’ response based on their interests, training, and areas of responsibility, yet it is also clear that their goals cannot just conflict with each other, but even undermine each other.