3.3 Behavioural Norms in response to Threats behavioural imperative in all NSS documents examined is to America’s foremost maintain its military superiority, enhance the capabilities of its armed forces, and defeat asymmetric threats 2010, 5). In an effort, as earlier NSS documents help note, “to (NSS make the world not just safer but (White House 2002) America will kill or better” “[…] capture the terrorists, deny them safe haven or control of any nation; prevent them from gaining access to WMD; and cut off their sources of (White House 2006). US support” from sturdy alliances, its unmatched military as well having the ‘greatness’ results a strong and evolving democracy, and a dynamic citizenry world’s largest economy, (White House 2006, 1). Phrased differently, hegemony is the first and foremost normative predisposition guiding American internationalism (Jervis 2003; Merlini 2002): there should be no doubt: the United States of America will continue to “Going forward, underwrite global (White House 2010, 1). This condition will ensure an security” unwavering commitment to the foremost principle of providing safety and security for the American people as well as its allies and partners (White House 2006, 4, 17, 20). The behavioural preference is to rely on the institution of the military as a primary tool to protect the US homeland, which is a consistency of all NSS documents since 2001: “Our Armed Forces will always be a cornerstone of our security (Ibid: preface) and to be […]” able to export security to allies and partners, and access to the global commons (Ibid., 14; see also White House 2002, 30, 32). Moreover, security at home could only be achieved by strengthening civil defense, emergency, law enforcement, customs, border patrol, and immigration responses. On this point, however, the NSS of 2010 differs significantly from its two predecessors. While embarking on a global war against terrorism, which the
3.3 Behavioural Norms in response to Threats America’s foremost behavioural imperative in all NSS documents examined is to maintain its military superiority, enhance the capabilities of its armed forces, and defeat asymmetric threats (NSS 2010, 5). In an effort, as earlier NSS documents note, “to help make the world not just safer but better” (White House 2002) America will “[…] kill or capture the terrorists, deny them safe haven or control of any nation; prevent them from gaining access to WMD; and cut off their sources of support” (White House 2006). US ‘greatness’ results from sturdy alliances, its unmatched military as well having the world’s largest economy, a strong and evolving democracy, and a dynamic citizenry (White House 2006, 1). Phrased differently, hegemony is the first and foremost normative predisposition guiding American internationalism (Jervis 2003; Merlini 2002): “Going forward, there should be no doubt: the United States of America will continue to underwrite global security” (White House 2010, 1). This condition will ensure an unwavering commitment to the foremost principle of providing safety and security for the American people as well as its allies and partners (White House 2006, 4, 17, 20). The behavioural preference is to rely on the institution of the military as a primary tool to protect the US homeland, which is a consistency of all NSS documents since 2001: “Our Armed Forces will always be a cornerstone of our security […]” (Ibid: preface) and to be able to export security to allies and partners, and access to the global commons (Ibid., 14; see also White House 2002, 30, 32). Moreover, security at home could only be achieved by strengthening civil defense, emergency, law enforcement, customs, border patrol, and immigration responses. On this point, however, the NSS of 2010 differs significantly from its two predecessors. While embarking on a global war against terrorism, which the