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?