US National Security: Policymakers, Processes, and Politics [4 ed.] 9781685852511

Citation preview

U S NATIONAL SECURITY

FOURTH EDITION

US NATIONAL SECURITY Policymakers, Processes, and Politics Sam C. Sarkesian John Allen Williams Stephen J. Cimbala

LYNNE RIENNER PUBLISHERS R O 111 D E R LONDON

Published in the United States of America in 2008 by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 1800 30th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301 www.rienner.com and in the United Kingdom by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 3 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London WC2E 8LU © 2008 by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sarkesian, Sam Charles. US national security : policymakers, processes, and politics / Sam C. Sarkesian, John Allen Williams, and Stephen J. Cimbala. — 4th ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-58826-416-9 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. National security—United States—Decisionmaking. 2. United States—Military policy—Decisionmaking. I. Williams, John Allen, 1945- II. Cimbala, Stephen J. III. Title. IV. Title: US national security. UA23.S275 2007 355'.033073—dc22 2007022727 British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

Printed and bound in the United States of America

™

The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48-1992. 5

4

3

2

1

Contents

List of Tables and Figures Preface

vii ix

Part 1 Introduction 1 National Interests and National Security 2 The Conflict Spectrum and the American Way of War 3 The US Political System

3 25 49

Part 2 The National Security Establishment 4 5 6 7 8

The President and the Presidency The Policy Triad and the National Security Council The Military Establishment Civil-Military Relations The Intelligence Establishment

67 91 113 131 145

Part 3 The National Security System and the Policy Process 9 10 11 12

The Policy Process The President and Congress Empowering the People Who's Who in the International System

v

167 179 199 223

vi

CONTENTS

Part 4 Conclusions 13 14 15 16

Long-Range Issues of National Security National Security and Nuclear Weapons Making the System Work The Study of National Security: The Presidential Mandate

Reading List Index About the Book

245 273 289 307

313 317 333

Tables and Figures

Tables 8.1 14.1 14.2

Types of Intelligence US and Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces, 2004 World Nuclear Arsenals, 2005

146 281 284

Figures 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.2 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 6.2 8.1 9.1 9.2 16.1

National Security and Foreign Policy US National Security Priorities Concentric Circle Approach Elite and Participatory Models Systems-Analysis Approach Policy Power Clusters and the National Security System The Conflict Spectrum Special Operations Command The National Security Establishment The Policy Triad The Department of State The Department of Defense The Department of Homeland Security The National Security Council The Chain of Command Department of Defense Budget Allocation, 2006 The Intelligence Cycle Policy Phases Differences in Policy Phases Framework for the Study of National Security vii

6 10 17 18 18 20 29 33 80 92 94 97 100 105 115 118 154 170 175 308

Preface

ASSESSING THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT AND ISSUES OF US national security in the twenty-first century, we conclude that much of what we wrote more than ten years ago remains relevant today. Nonetheless, the new era has created a strategic landscape that requires a rethinking of US national security, particularly with respect to international terrorism and homeland security. Any study of US national interests must encompass questions of values and interests about unconventional conflict. The involvement of the US military in operations short of war (such as lowintensity conflict and peacekeeping missions) has become commonplace. This development has complicated the relationship of policy, strategy, national interests, and the use of force, and it highlights the need for an expanded and effective intelligence apparatus. All of this is even more complicated by the impact of globalization, the information age, and the myriad uses of cyberspace. The main themes and reference points in the third edition remain relevant and served as the basis for this edition. We have assessed the new era, however, and examine how the challenges in the past years have magnified and complicated those themes and reference points. Our focus remains the same: how the national security system works and its effectiveness in responding to current and future global challenges. We address these matters by examining the following questions: How relevant are the institutions of the national security establishment in responding to the strategic landscape of the twenty-first century? How well do they function? How do those in the national security system assess the international strategic landscape? What is the US grand strategy and policy in the twenty-first century? What role does public opinion play in US national security policy? And particularly important, what are the US national interests that must form the basis of national security policy? ix

X

PREFACE

As with the p r e v i o u s e d i t i o n , the t h r e e of us have c o m b i n e d our research and teaching experience, as well as our working experience in various parts of the national security system, and hope that we have provided a balanced assessment of the strategic landscape of the twenty-first century. In writing the book, we had the invaluable help of colleagues and students past and present, particularly Robert A. Vitas, Michael P. Noonan, M a r y Frances L e b a m o f f , Stephen J. G u e r r a , Peter M. S w a r t z , Steven Michels, Michelle Johns, and John Wood. Their comments on various parts of the manuscript were extremely helpful. We stress, however, that this book represents only our own views and assessments.

PART 1 Introduction

1 National Interests and National Security

THE INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIC LANDSCAPE OF THE TWENTYfirst century is shaped by complex and contradictory forces. The world is characterized by turmoil, and changing patterns of state-to-state relationships as well as conflicts within states caused by ethnic, religious, and nationalistic differences have become commonplace. International terrorism, drug cartels, and threats created by information-age technology add to the turmoil. Earlier, there was a widespread sense of optimism about peace, but that was all shattered on September 11, 2001, by the terrorist attacks on the United States and the long war against international terrorism. A United States at war against terrorism and the notion of a new concept of war have become intermixed with globalization, economic expansion, homeland security, and the attempt to pursue US values peacefully. In this new environment, US national security policy and priorities have become complicated, often ambiguous, and even inconsistent—not because of immediate threat of major conventional war but rather the unpredictable, uncertain, and confusing characteristics of the international arena. Disagreements and disputes within the national security establishment, Congress, and the public were muted temporarily in response to the September 11 attacks and the resulting war in Afghanistan. 1 But now the US involvement in Iraq and the continuing concerns about Iran and North Korea magnify the challenges to US national security policy and have caused a great degree of turmoil in the US political system and in US foreign relations. Although questions have been raised about national interests, national security, and the US role around the world, the terrorist threat and the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology seem to have overshadowed much of the traditional perspectives also, at least for the foreseeable future.

3

4

INTRODUCTION

National Security The international security landscape of the initial years of the twenty-first century has clouded the concept and meaning of US national security. The integration of national interests into meaningful national security policy has become more difficult. Recognizing the problems of defining and conceptualizing national security, we offer a preliminary definition that includes both objective capability and perception: US national security is the ability of national institutions to prevent adversaries from using force to harm Americans or their national interests and the confidence of Americans in this capability. There are two dimensions of this definition: physical and psychological. The first is an objective measure based on the strength and military capacity of the nation to challenge adversaries successfully, including going to war if necessary. This also includes a more prominent role for intelligence, economics, and other nonmilitary measures as well as the ability to use them as political-military levers in dealings with other states. The psychological dimension is subjective, reflecting the opinion and attitudes of Americans on the nation's ability to remain secure relative to the external world. It affects the people's willingness to support government efforts to achieve national security goals. Underpinning this is that the majority of people have the knowledge and political will to support clear policies to achieve clear national security goals. National Security, Foreign Policy, and Domestic Policy National security must be analyzed in the context of foreign policy, defined as the policies of a nation that encompass all official relations with other countries. The purposes of foreign policy are multidimensional. For the United States, the purpose is to prevent conditions detrimental to the United States and maintain relations with other countries to enhance conditions favorable to US national interests. The instruments of foreign policy are primarily diplomatic and political and include a variety of psychological and economic measures. In the immediate past, national security differed from foreign policy in at least two respects: national security purposes were more narrow and focused on security and safety, and national security was primarily concerned with actual and potential adversaries and their use of force, whether overt or covert. This means there was a military emphasis, which usually is not the case in foreign policy. National security policy now overlaps with foreign policy, however, sometimes blurring any distinction. But much of foreign policy requires compromise and negotiations—the dynamics of give-and-take-—as well as all of the techniques and subtleties associated with traditional diplomacy. This kind of work is primarily a matter for the

NATIONAL INTERESTS A N D NATIONAL SECURITY

5

US Department of State, with long-range implications for national security policy. These relationships are shown in Figure 1.1. Until recently, most Americans felt that US values could not be imposed on other states unless survival was at stake. National security is now seen by many to include the projection of US values abroad (see Chapter 2). This adds to the confusion and highlights the interrelationship among foreign, domestic, and national security policies. "America's concept of national security today is infinitely more complex than at any time in its history. The same is true for the relationship between the foreign and domestic components of national security." 2 Although this observation was made a decade ago, it remains relevant today. The difficulties of determining US national interests and establishing national security priorities are compounded by the increasing linkages between a number of national security and domestic policies. The domestic economic impact of certain national security policies links US domestic interests and policies to the international security arena. This is seen in economic sanctions, embargos on agriculture exports to adversaries or potential adversaries, diminished foreign oil sources, border security, and the export of technologically advanced industrial products. And in a dramatic way, September 11 obscured dramatically the distinction between domestic and national security policy. Owing to the special characteristics of our democratic system and political culture, it is increasingly difficult to isolate national security issues from domestic policy. Besides the relationship and link between foreign and national security policies, domestic interests are important in establishing national security priorities and interests. Some scholars call these "intermestic" politics and policies. 3 Nonetheless, national security policy by definition involves military force. Distinctions must be made between foreign and domestic policy and national security. The primary distinction rests in the likelihood of military force as well as in use of the military as the primary instrument for implementing national security policy. Although many other matters are important in the overall notion of national interests, they are best incorporated into foreign policy and the overlap between such policy and national security. 4 These observations are the basis for defining national security policy, expanding on the concept of national security: National security policy is primarily concerned with formulating and implementing national strategy involving the threat or use of force to create a favorable environment for US national interests. An integral part of this is to prevent the effective use of military force and/or covert operations by adversaries or potential adversaries to obstruct or deny the ability of the United States to pursue national interests.

Figure 1.1 National Security and Foreign Policy

Noncrisis Foreign policy

•

, XI . - < — National security policy

Crisis Foreign policy

• National security policy

*

if!

afc

*

*

*

Pre-World War II Relationship Foreign policy

>• National security policy

Superpower Era Foreign policyNational security policy

Post-Cold War Era Foreign policy SE u £ o

-J

U CQ 00 o ta

S •2 E S o m L. s D.spo

o a. n

«¡a

o. o

JS ai

ü