A 21st Century Problem:
If any issue has defined the United States in the 21st century, it is national security. Terrorism and threats to national security have been consistently ranked amongst the top issues for American voters, with 80% of voters indicating that terrorism was a “very important” issue for them even in the 2016 election, 15 years after 9/11. As a result, the United States has involved itself in countless armed conflicts to defend America’s national security. However, with few marquee victories, the question as to why America’s national security policy is not producing the desired results may be answered by investigating how national security policy is shaped.
Commander in Chief:
As referenced in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, and can thus be considered the head of national security policy. Alongside this title, the President has been given significant powers by Congress to both shape and implement national security policy, such as the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 (9/11), and the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2002 (Iraq). These authorizations allow the President to effectively enter into armed conflict with American troops on their own, as long as Congress is notified within 48 hours. However, how a President shapes their national security policy powers is arguably more significant than how much they can influence national security policy.
Although a majority of Presidents have served in the armed forces, we have seen a significant decline in both the rank and service of Presidents, with three of the last four Presidents having never been part of the military in any capacity and none having attained the rank of 0-6 since President Eisenhower. As we have seen Presidents with significantly less national security policy experience than their predecessors, it shouldn’t be surprising that some of the most calamitous military missteps in American history have come in the past half-century.
All the President’s Men:
The unending, rapid influx of national security issues make it nearly impossible for decisions to be made solely by the President, which has led to a number of agencies being formed. This includes the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Intelligence Council, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Department of Homeland Security. These departments bear the brunt of the national security policy workload by providing analysis and information, theorizing policy proposals, and ultimately implementing the President’s preferred policy.
These departments are led by cabinet-level officials with significant national security experience. In order to organize and interact with each agency, the President typically uses a combination of management strategies to ensure that each agency’s concerns are being addressed. The department-centered approach has the National Security Advisor act as a supervisor to facilitate the presentation of each department’s advice to the President without any personal input from the National Security Advisor. The formalized approach has the President request a range of proposals from each department, which the President then reviews and decides upon. Collegial managers form working groups tailored to specific issues, while the National Security Advisor safeguards the President’s interests. Lastly, the palace-guard management style is defined by a National Security Advisor with centralized power to determine what the President should hear and act upon.
The significance of the President’s management style on the national security regime indicates that having experienced military leaders in the highest level of national security departments may not be enough to guarantee a successful national security policy. Rather, success may be more significantly correlated to the ability of the President to manage the national security community within the Executive branch and successfully interpret their input using their own security policy experience.
Congress’s “Role”:
Although the executive branch clearly has a significant stake in national security policy, Congress is not powerless. Congress has the sole authority to officially declare war as stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and can revoke the powers it has given the Executive branch by passing legislation. This was shown during the Trump administration where Congress blocked President Trump from taking military action in the Middle East without prior Congressional authorization on three separate occasions.
Congress also has the “power of the purse” as outlined in Article I, Section 9. Congress has shown in the past that it is both willing and able to withhold funds meant to implement policies it either disagrees with or wants greater oversight over. This was shown during the Obama Administration when Congress withheld funding for the Syria Train and Equip Program until it received further information about the plan and mandated notification about further steps.
However, today’s Congress suffers from the same lack of military experience as the Presidency with only 91 total veterans serving in the 117th Congress, the lowest total since World War II. This inexperience, alongside the deliberately slow pace of Congress and the political advantage of pushing the burden upon the President for political parties, may help to explain why Congress has been so willing to designate overwhelming national security power to the executive branch over the past half-century.
Who Should Lead?:
Overall, there is clearly a significant lack of military experience within the current U.S. government, which has contributed to the failure of national security policy planning in the 21st century. However, hoping for voters to elect representatives with greater military expertise may not be the only solution. Rather forming a more direct linkage between those in the government with significant military experience to decision-making roles may be more efficient. Recent administrations have been proactive in choosing veterans to serve in their cabinets, with a third of the Trump Administration being former military. Congressional committees focussed on national security are almost always chaired by and composed of veterans with significant military experience. Simply put, the voices within the most vital positions in the government regarding security issues are more than qualified to tackle the issues of the day, however, whether their plans are being listened to by the rest of the government or supported by the public in opinion polls is a separate, more concerning issue.
Comments