1. What is the overall perspective, purpose, or argument?
2
Bookreview
2 Comment by Cassidy: You are missing a running head. Refer to this sample paper for help with your running head: https://www.liberty.edu/casas/academic-success-center/wp-content/uploads/sites/28/2020/04/Sample-Paper-APA-7th-professional-version-06172020
You can also refer to section 2.8 in the APA manual for guidance on what should be included in the running head for a professional paper.
Apply throughout
Abdirahim M Muhumed
Liberty University Comment by Cassidy: Your title page is missing an author note. Section 2.7 in the APA manual will show you how that should be set up. Also, here is an online resource from the APA to help you fine-tune your title page: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/paper-format/title-page
Sum
mary Comment by Cassidy: Your paper title should also appear here at the top of the first page of text. See the sample paper for an example and sections 2.4, 2.11, and 2.28 for more information.
A recurring argument runs throughout the book “The Sovereignty Solution: A Commonsense Approach to Global Security.” The author examines the current scenario, comparing and contrasting twentieth-century strategy with twenty-first-century events. The writers conclude that there is no clear single adversary and no consensus on who poses the greatest threat to our country’s survival. As a result, the United States currently faces four key challenges: First and foremost, we must concentrate on what and who we must focus on. It’s still debatable whether to target state or non-state actors or deal with near-peer competitors or super-powerful individuals. Second, we have non-peer opponents to contend with. They know a lot more about us and how things work in America than we know about them. The final point is that soft targets in the United States surround us. Finally, globalization makes it easier to erode security than it is to maintain it.
As Americans, we must understand what makes us unique and our strengths and embrace them. Americans have short attention spans, are action-oriented, and prefer direct communication over indirect communication. Clarity is equally important to us. One of the core ideas is that we should play to our strengths to harden some of our soft targets. On the other hand, creating this shield of an undivided America may be our most challenging task. The writers acknowledge this, pointing out that we are becoming increasingly divided and that to be strong overseas, we must first be strong at home. It is not an easy effort to solve our illegal immigration crisis.
According to the writers, the belief that there is an American inside every non-American waiting to be liberated by us also makes us strangely insular. We, as Americans, lack the centuries of social context required to appreciate the complexities of foreign culture, no matter how hard we try. While asking for tea in a local language is a fantastic start, learning what lies beneath the surface requires a lifetime of drinking tea with locals. The demands of sovereignty will keep them accountable if we stop trying to make others in our image and instead allow them to pursue their sovereign rights. Non-state actors would not exist in a world where sovereignty requires the accomplishment of specific responsibilities rather than simply promising deference. This is a unique opportunity.
In a sovereignty rules context, avoiding incrementalism and taking a posture that restores teeth to responsibility and accountability is critical to success. Each country has the option of responding as a partner, a struggling state, a failing state, or our foe. Partner countries are ready and equipped to comply with Washington’s requests. Struggling states are willing to help, but they need help. Failed states are neither willing nor capable of resolving their problems. Adversaries have the potential to meet these demands but not the motivation to do so. All past is lost when a catastrophe strikes.
In a world where Sovereignty Rules, the author contends that just one thing matters. Regardless of how long America has had a relationship with a country, the willingness, and ability of that country’s government to meet Washington’s demands in the aftermath of an attack perpetrated or assisted by its citizens determine whether we still regard that country as a friend or as something else. Furthermore, the author claims that America has been assaulted and that these countries are responsible for the crisis. It has occurred regardless of the nature of these countries’ connections with the United States. The question then becomes what kind of relationship these countries would like to have with the U.S. Comment by Cassidy: Good
The author continues to address the solution’s residual key concepts. If any national security plan is to have any practical impact, the government must take action that sends a signal to the rest of the world right away. When there are enough declarations of war, the switch is flipped. We must keep fighting for our national identity and cohesion, emphasizing civic responsibility and ensuring that every citizen in our country has an inner American. Foreign aid and support, as well as education and training, must be reviewed. We must acknowledge that foreign nations must be willing to battle and to toil for their liberties under sovereignty standards. The writers contend that aid corrupts and weakens sovereignty and that governments must take responsibility for their citizens. They go on to state their expectations about how sovereignty will affect alliances and multilateral accords. Sovereignty laws would reshape the global system, and the Sovereignty Solution would keep security and trade apart. As a result, all vexing problems regarding what constitutes a vital or national interest would go away. This is another strong claim that needs to be backed up.
Finally, the writers consider the consequences of sovereignty norms on our military forces. Under the relational framework in a Sovereignty Rules world, the only kinetic mission for U.S. forces abroad would be to get in, break, and get out, not to fix. Anyone who wants to live will surrender, while our soldiers will target those who reject. We would not detain, imprison, or occupy for an unlimited period of time.
Critique Comment by Cassidy: Good heading.
Without resorting to invasions, nation-building, or attempting to transfer American standards of life over the world, The Sovereignty Solution proposes an alternative method for ensuring national security and maintaining global order. It is based on the premise that each country is accountable for its own way of life, regardless of other countries’ concerns. Every country, like us, is free to chart its own path without fear of foreign meddling (Bauer et al., 2020) It means that people should be free to live under whatever form of government they like, to use their natural resources as they see fit, and to operate their economies according to whatever principles they prefer. This should only be so long as nothing violates others’ sovereignty regarding pollution, refugee flows, or the inability to police their borders. Comment by Cassidy: Good citation
The author also argued that we are becoming increasingly divisible, creating a clever vulnerability that adversaries can exploit. The togetherness and harmony of citizens of a country are vital in enhancing the country’s security. When there is cohesion in the country among the people, it assists in ensuring the secrets of the country do not reach the enemies. The book denotes that for all the attention accorded the need to better secure America’s physical infrastructure, no one considers our latent domestic divides as a potential national security vulnerability. The author advocates the need for a less divisible America that will benefit the United States regardless of whether the strategy presented in these pages strikes readers as acceptable in full. A more indivisible America will certainly advantage the United States.
However, something worth noticing in the writer’s work is that the United States desperately needs to develop a deep understanding capability, unlike it currently possesses. The reason is that everyone in government today is assigned to pay careful attention to what may or may not be happening inside nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea. No one pays systematic, sustained attention to what is transpiring in the seams of societies throughout the developing world (Floridi, 2020).. According to Russ Feingold and Chuck Hagel. On the globe map, some of the most frightening challenges to the United States may be festering in those dark regions about which we know so little. When these two senators wrote this, they referred to literal places and spaces in geographical hinterlands like remote valleys along the Afghan-Pakistan border. But in the twenty-first century, any community can serve as a hideout, especially when no U.S. agency bothers to routinely monitor what is going on university campuses or among restless pockets of foreign populations. Though these are precisely the kinds of populations, shrewd governments pay close attention to if they hope to stay in power. Comment by Cassidy: You should not have two periods after a citation.
Application
Within the next century, the United States will be dealing with terrorist attacks as well as other forms of sovereignty violations in a significantly different way than it does now. Once all other choices have been exhausted, we will have no choice but to respond to attacks against Americans, particularly those on American soil, with overwhelming force. We can improve how the world polices itself if we do it with foresight and as part of a larger plan (Jarke, 2020). If we don’t, and we continue to respond to security concerns haphazardly, often promising ourselves and others more than we can give, we’ll find ourselves locked in a spiral of attack and response that will only get tighter. We’re squandering more blood and wealth on things we can’t change or control. Comment by Cassidy: Good
Sovereignty is the most useful double-edged blade in the international community’s arsenal. Sovereignty refers to a state’s ability to command its society according to its desires. In exchange, each state is responsible for ensuring that its nationals do not infringe on the sovereignty of others. As a fundamental foreign policy constituent of a new national strategy, the author of this book advocates enhancing independence on a global scale.
In today’s world, national security entails more than only foreign policy and military. It also includes the internal political setting, which is currently a important source of danger for the U.S. Our current inclination toward hyper-partisanship and combative political speech is a vulnerability that our most dangerous adversaries may exploit. For example, the North Vietnamese were highly skilled at pitting Americans against one another, much like the Iraq conflict is doing now. Trying to make sovereignty the focal point of our policy is unlikely to reconcile all of our differences. However, sovereignty addresses several issues Americans care about, including clarity, accountability, transparency, responsibility, and consistency. It will appeal to the majority of Americans just on principle. Our approach essentially re-imagines two classic concepts for the twenty-first century. A worldwide, real liberal tolerance is linked to a Westphalian state framework (Higgins, 2020). This will necessitate a shift in mindset, as the current Westphalian system is severely flawed. As a result, we have two options: either abandon it in favor of some form of multinational control or modify it so that it benefits them.
Policy review
Washington’s prudent foreign policy of friendly neutrality would avoid establishing unforgiving foes or dubious international friendships, as well as entangling the US in foreign alliances (Zeng et.al., 2017). This policy has enabled the United States in current days not to create relentless enemies or any uncertain international friendship. This helps keep the United States secure the security of its citizens in current and future days. Comment by Cassidy: There should be a period after “al” but not after “et” For example: (Mamba et al., 2020) Refer to section 8.17 for more information.
Racial Health Disparities, Prejudice, and Violence is a current public policy issue in light of the theories provided in this book. In contemporary society, African Americans and other minorities face prejudice and discrimination, which significantly negatively influences their health. African Americans, in particular, are at risk of prejudice and violence based on their color, putting their lives in jeopardy and even costing them their lives. Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely than white individuals to access health care. Furthermore, even when access to treatment is controlled, they tend to receive lower-quality care. We know that discrimination, prejudice, and violence have a disproportionately negative impact on racial and ethnic minorities’ health and well-being.
The American College of Physicians is dedicated to eliminating racial inequities in health and health care in this regard. This entails combating the prejudice at the base of the issue and the discrimination, inequity, violence, and hate crimes that follow from it. Public health challenges include racial inequities, discrimination, harassment, and violence. Evidence-based solutions are required to fight the stressors that disproportionately affect racial and ethnic populations. The policy is critical in ensuring that prejudice is eliminated. Comment by Cassidy: Good
References Comment by Cassidy: The reference title should be at the top of the following page. Refer to the sample paper linked above as well as section 9.43 for more information.
Bauer, N., Bertram, C., Schultes, A., Klein, D., Luderer, G., Kriegler, E., … & Edenhofer, O. (2020). Quantification of an efficiency–sovereignty trade-off in climate policy. Nature, 588(7837), 261-266. Comment by Cassidy: You should be listing out all of the authors, not using “…” in place of authors’ names. Refer to section 10.1 for guidance.
Floridi, L. (2020). The fight for digital sovereignty: What it is, and why it matters, especially for the EU. Philosophy & Technology, 33(3), 369-378.
Higgins, A. (2020). The Sovereignty Solution: A Common-Sense Approach to Global Security. Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy, 1(1), 10.
Jarke, M. (2020, June). Data sovereignty and the internet of production. In International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (pp. 549-558). Springer, Cham. Comment by Cassidy: Refer to section 10 to see what should be included in this reference.
Zeng, J., Stevens, T., & Chen, Y. (2017). China’s Solution to Global Cyber Governance: Unpacking the Domestic Discourse of “Internet Sovereignty”. Politics & Policy, 45(3), 432-464. Comment by Cassidy: Hello again, Abdirahim,
This is a good start to your paper. Some things that could be improved on would be your running head, your title spacing, and your author note.
I just want to remind you that you chose for a targeted review for formatting. I saw quite a few grammar concerns, but I am not able to comment on these. It would be valuable for you to check out the resources from the OWC website (linked below).
For additional support with your writing needs, consider reviewing the many helpful writing aids on the OWC website or utilizing our live chat service.
If you have any specific questions that I did not address here, feel free to email the OWC at onlinewriting@liberty.edu or schedule a live appointment at http://www.liberty.edu/academics/graduate/writing/index.cfm?PID=17176. Also, please be sure to complete the Student Satisfaction Survey located at the bottom of your completed request.
Blessings, Cassidy
