{"id":3022,"date":"2009-02-10T06:26:46","date_gmt":"2009-02-10T06:26:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=3022"},"modified":"2009-02-11T05:52:30","modified_gmt":"2009-02-11T05:52:30","slug":"why-the-nsc-structure-matters-and-when-it-does-not","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=3022","title":{"rendered":"Why the NSC Structure Matters – and When it Does Not"},"content":{"rendered":"

J. at Armchair Generalist<\/strong> gets a big hat tip for his post Reforming the National Security Council<\/a>\u00a0that pointed to this WaPo article on the\u00a0interview of National Security Adviser, Gen. James Jones<\/strong><\/a>.\u00a0 The new APNSA opines on the coming of a “strong” NSC process for the Obama administration:<\/p>\n

\n

….The result will be a “dramatically different” NSC from that of the Bush administration or any of its predecessors since the forum was established after World War II to advise the president on diplomatic and military matters, according to national security adviser James L. Jones, who described the changes in an interview. “The world that we live in has changed so dramatically in this decade that organizations that were created to meet a certain set of criteria no longer are terribly useful,” he said. <\/strong><\/p>\n

….”The whole concept of what constitutes the membership of the national security community — which, historically has been, let’s face it, the Defense Department, the NSC itself and a little bit of the State Department, to the exclusion perhaps of the Energy Department, Commerce Department and Treasury, all the law enforcement agencies, the Drug Enforcement Administration, all of those things — especially in the moment we’re currently in, has got to embrace a broader membership,” he said<\/strong><\/p>\n

New NSC directorates will deal with such department-spanning 21st-century issues as cybersecurity, energy, climate change, nation-building and infrastructure. Many of the functions of the Homeland Security Council, established as a separate White House entity by President Bush after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, may be subsumed into the<\/strong> expanded NSC, although it is still undetermined whether elements of the HSC will remain as a separate body within the White House<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Presidents rarely get the national security process they want but they usually get what they deserve by default of their\u00a0own\u00a0unwillingness to\u00a0 police their subordinates when they stray from the blueprint laid out in their first NSC-drafted executive order – usually titled PDD-1 or NSDD-1 ( “Presidential Decision Directive”, “National Security Decision Directive”). When a Henry Kissinger<\/strong>, or a Zbigniew Brzezinski<\/strong> or a Dick Cheney<\/strong> “grab power” from whomever is supposed to have it, you can be certain\u00a0that these coups have implicit presidential approval.<\/p>\n

\u00a0It is unusual that such a directive has not already been issued by the Obama administration, if the WaPo article is correct. Normally, this is a new president’s first (or one of the first) executive order that the transition team prepares in case the administration begins with a national security crisis. If that has not happened yet\u00a0it’s a troublesome sign\u00a0but I will give the Obama administration credit for attempting to create a new structure outside conventional Cold War and statutory arrangements <\/a>for the NSC. That is long\u00a0overdue, as is some hard thinking about what role the NSC should play in crafting national strategy and policy.<\/p>\n

Presidents need an NSC Adviser and staff to do three things, not all of which are compatible:<\/p>\n

1. Be an “honest broker” and\u00a0coordinator\u00a0<\/a>between State, Defense and the IC on behalf of the POTUS ( Scowcroft Model<\/a>).<\/strong><\/p>\n

2. Critically evaluate the\u00a0policy options provided to the POTUS by Cabinet bureaucracies and offer creative alternatives (Kissinger Model).<\/strong><\/p>\n

3. Act as the “enforcer” and monitor to make certain presidential policy is being implemented and identify those who are\u00a0obstacles, free-lancers and bureaucratic sabotuers for reprimand or removal (Sherman Adams\/H.R. Haldeman* Model).<\/strong><\/p>\n

* Adams and Haldeman were WH Chiefs of Staff who were the\u00a0designated and much feared\u00a0“enforcers” of their administrations. One of Reagan’s numerous APNSAs, Judge Clark<\/strong>, was concerned with enforcing Reagan’s ideological line in foreign\u00a0policy but he is too obscure a figure\u00a0and his tenure too short to serve as an effective example.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

One is easy. Two are difficult but common enough. Success at three\u00a0is virtually unknown.<\/p>\n

A president who is himself a product of the establishment consensus – a George Bush, Sr<\/strong>. or a Dwight<\/strong>\u00a0Eisenhower<\/strong>– is looking for a National Security Adviser who is an honest broker and staffs his NSC with military and foreign service officers, with a sprinkling of CIA and DIA veterans. They will expect obedience from State and the Pentagon\u00a0but as their policy choices coincide with Beltway conventional wisdom, they get it most of the time anyway.<\/p>\n

A president who comes to Washington as an “outsider” in some fashion\u00a0or as a “change agent” – a Richard Nixon<\/strong>, Jimmy Carter<\/strong>, Ronald Reagan<\/strong> or Bill Clinton<\/strong>–\u00a0will pick a National Security Adviser who will build a staff of what one national security scholar has called a “team of academic superstars” who will aid the president in taking control of American foreign policy. Clashes between the White House and the career bureaucracy will be frequent and increasingly vicious, particularly with State, though in the Bush II administration that role was played by the senior managers of the CIA.<\/p>\n

Some presidents have a dysfunctional NSC process – a category that includes John F. Kennedy<\/strong>,\u00a0Ronald Reagan<\/strong>, Bill Clinton<\/strong> and George W. Bush<\/strong> – where the inmates take over the asylum and free-lancing by deputy assistant secretaries reigns supreme. Both Kennedy and Clinton strongly resisted a formal NSC decision making\u00a0structure for their administration that would inhibit their ability to “pop in” to offices, chat up whomever and issue snap decisions. While this stance flowed from their desire to keep their options open and remain free of “handling” by their own\u00a0staffers, it ultimately led to chaos and dangerously amateurish improvising during crisis moments.\u00a0 Reagan and Bush II by contrast had formal structures in place but undermined them overtly ( Reagan in NSDD-2<\/a>) or covertly ( Bush in letting his Vice-President\u00a0operate a shadow mini-me NSC of his own). In Reagan’s case, this was aggravated by an unwillingness to fire anyone, no matter how much the rat-bastard deserved it,\u00a0and a general distaste for confrontation.<\/p>\n

Unless a president supports his NSC adviser down the line, the bureaucracies will do as they please to the point of making his administration’s top officials into laughingstocks. While you might not know it from the State Department’s current broken down condition, it was historically\u00a0amongst the very worst offenders in this regard ( though both the Pentagon and Langley could rise to the occasion), regularly abusing the interagency process and blatantly defying presidential instructions. Give\u00a0Foggy Bottom strategic planning,\u00a0USAID or Public Diplomacy and they\u00a0will let these nascent “competitors” wither on the vine.<\/p>\n

The problem largely is that the State Department is filled with bright and talented but fairly insular\u00a0individuals who imagine themselves more capable and informed and ultimately deserving of authority than the guy actually sitting in the Oval Office who was elected by the American people\u00a0or any of his appointees. They need a strong hand at SecState and consistent follow-up by the NSC; and if given these conditions, State can perform amazing feats of diplomacy for a president. Absent that, State can create great friction for an administration.<\/p>\n

The Obama administration is setting itself up for a very “strong” NSC process. Jones and Chief of Staff Emanuel\u00a0are a\u00a0potent combination and Defense, State and the CIA all have been given major political heavyweights as principals. Moreover, Jones appears to be in sync with Robert Gates<\/strong> as to the need for imaginative “new thinking” in national security affairs ( maybe we should send him this<\/a>). However all the potential on paper\u00a0in the world, at this stage of the game,\u00a0means nothing.<\/p>\n

It ultimately comes down to the President of the United States. What does he want ?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

J. at Armchair Generalist gets a big hat tip for his post Reforming the National Security Council\u00a0that pointed to this WaPo article on the\u00a0interview of National Security Adviser, Gen. James Jones.\u00a0 The new APNSA opines on the coming of a “strong” NSC process for the Obama administration: ….The result will be a “dramatically different” NSC […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[360,361,531,304,102,87,51,239,78,270,380,187],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-21st-century","category-america","category-barack-obama","category-defense","category-diplomacy","category-foreign-policy","category-history","category-ic","category-ideas","category-national-security","category-organizations","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3022","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3022\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}