There are many ways to set up a national security team. And we have some relatively recent examples that can serve as archetypes.
In Eisenhower’s administration, the most powerful force in international affairs (after the president) was the Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. This was similar to how things were set up under the Ford administration with Kissinger serving as Secretary of State.
However, it was much different than how Kissinger operated in the Nixon administration. Kissinger ruled the foreign policy roost under Nixon from his position of National Security Adviser. The Secretary of State was largely shut out of the most important decision making processes.
Jimmy Carter ultimately wound up with a similar set-up, where Zbiginiew Brzezinski ran the shop as National Security Adviser.
Ronald Reagan’s operation was a mess from the beginning because he never delineated roles. The result was that the NSC and CIA under Bush and Casey ran roughshod over the traditional policy apparatus, and one hand didn’t know what the other hand was doing.
Under Poppy Bush, James Baker served as a very strong Secretary of State, restoring prestige to the office. While under Clinton, foreign policy seemed to be made in a teamwork fashion, bringing in State, Defense, and the National Security Council, without any one dominating.
Under Dubya, the decision making process shifted dramatically away from both State and the White House and was conducted in concert between the Pentagon and the office of the Vice-President.
We can kind of break these down into 4 groups.
1. The State Department serves as the most important foreign policy making player (Eisenhower, Ford, Poppy Bush).
2. The National Security Adviser (and White House) are the most important foreign policy makers (Nixon, Carter)
3. The Vice-President and/or Pentagon are the most important players (Kennedy, LBJ, George W. Bush).
4. There are no dominant players, but rather an inclusive committee based process (Clinton and, to some degree, Kennedy).
So, my serious question is: which of these set-ups do you think would work best for Barack Obama. And, depending on which you pick, who do you think the key people should be in the key positions?
The biggest challenge that President Obama will face will be regaining for the United States a measure of respect around the world. Right now we have no coercive power (“Oh yeah, you and what army?”), we have no soft power (“Us? Oh, we’re not for you, we’re against you. Sorry.”), and we have no moral authority (“Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, waterboarding, extraordinary rendition – the United Soviets of America?”). We don’t face massive armies that require an iron will and tons of weapons to keep them from invading our allies, we are opposed by diverse interests that are disbursed throughout the world. Ensuring our national security will depend on intelligence agencies across the world, and that will require the cooperation of many nations. In order for us to acquire that cooperation we will need to have collegiality, mutuality, and respect at the center of our foreign policy – no longer can oderint, dum metuant be our foreign policy credo. Fixing this mess that Junior has made pretty much mandates the State Department being at the center of our national security team.
Who should lead the team? Someone who is well-known and universally respected internationally. Someone who is well-liked but who is not to be pushed around. Someone who Obama could trust and who would willingly submit to President Obama’s leadership.
Someone named Al Gore.
#4
with the caveat that the Sec. of State of the next administration is CRITICAL. There are several international negotiations that need to take place to restore confidence that America can be trusted.
I can’t get into who exactly should be appointed except to say NONE should be political appointees (meaning people who are appointed to ‘pay back’ political favors). It is SOOO important that professionals should be appointed to all the upper levels of the cabinet. Technocrats, if you will. All should probably come from the department they would head, or at least have extensive experience at that department. I can’t say who they should be because I am not familiar with the upper levels of each department.
No current/past members of congress would qualify for department leadership positions. IMO you will be able to tell the likely chances of an Obama administrations success by how many congressmen are appointed. The more there are, the greater failure.
nalbar
l think in order to formulate any kind of response, you have to look at the newly minted office of the DIA, as it apparently oversees all the “security” functions that were once the pervue of the cia, state, etal.
this position would appear to be almost, if not more, important to any of the others…specifically as it relates to current negotiations, and directives…and may, in fact, be a more crucial appointment, because:
imo, who goes there is very important. could that be someone like richard clarke, who appears to lack the requisite military background, or say, wesley clark, who obviously meets the criteria?
l haven’t a clue what the answer is, but it certainly is a position a great authority and influence, especially given the “unitary executive” precedent that has been established.
got DIA [denver intern’tl airport] on my mind…security specifically. arrggghhh!
I think he’s too old to be VP now but he’s a intelligence guru who voted against the war beacuse he read the intelligence.
John Foster Dulles. Allen Dulles (JFD’s brother) was CIA director.
Duh. thanks.
I think this is an interesting topic, but I don’t think that we get a clear view of things no matter how well we count the heads in the DOS or in other viewable government constructs. The military has basically run the country since 1963 through its minions. It has given us unwanted and unwarranted wars. It has supported dictatorships and their brutal work around the world. It is bankrupting us.
We are Argentina except that we think we aren’t. I would say, “except they aren’t snatching people off the street to torture and kill” but they’re doing that too.
Yes.
The Department of Defense now runs US foreign policy for a reason, and it is a reason that would be hard for Obama to overturn, should he want to.
All US planning is now short term. All US planning is arranged around securing strategic resources–mostly this means oil, but not only–by military force. The decision by Bush and Cheney to switch implementation of resource policy from diplomacy to military means was surely a mistake, but one that is not easily undone, now that the US is insolvent. US elites have backed themselves into a corner, and their hope now is to win the war that they have launched for the world’s last resources. This hope looks more vain all the time, but it takes a steadier nerve than the elites have to seek a truce at this juncture. And the consequence of the decision was that planning does not extend beyond the war itself.
This means that the Department of State will remain an arm of the Department of Defense.