U.S. National Security: Policymakers, Processes, and Politics 9781685859091

Citation preview

U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY

=

U.S. XATIOXAL SECURITY

Policymakers, Processes, and Politics Sam C. Sarkesian

Lynne Rienner Publishers • Boulder and London

Published in the United States of America in 1989 by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 1800 30th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301 and in the United Kingdom by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 3 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London WC2E 8LU ©1989 by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sarkesian, Sam Charles U.S. national security Bibliography: p. Includes index 1. United States—national security—Decision making. I. Title. II. Title: US national security. UA23.S275 1989 355'.033573 88-32394 ISBN 1-55587-022-8 (alk. paper) ISBN 1-55587-023-6 (pbk. : alk. paper) 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 Z39.48-1984.

Contents

List of Figures

vii

Preface

ix

PART I INTRODUCTION 1

National Interests and National Security

3

2

The Conflict Spectrum and the American Way of War

23

3

The American Political System

40

PART II THE NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT 4

The President and the Presidency

53

5

The Policy Triad and the National Security Council

72

6

The Military Establishment

85

7

The Intelligence Establishment

94

PART III THE NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEM AND THE POLICY PROCESS 8

The Policy Process

115

9

The President and Congress

126

10

The Public, the Media, and Interest Groups

139

11

Allies, Adversaries, Potential Adversaries, and Others

154

v

vi

Contents

PART IV CONCLUSIONS 12

Long-Range Issues of National Security

173

13

Making the System Work

191

14

The Study of National Security: The Presidential Mandate

204

Reading List

209

Index

211

Figures

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

National Security and Foreign Policy U.S. National Security Priorities Concentric Circle Approach Elite and Participatory Models Systems-Analysis Approach to Policymaking Policy Power Clusters and the National Security System

10 11 15 15 16 17

2.1

The Contemporary Conflict Spectrum

26

2.2

The Contemporary Conflict Spectrum, Revised

35

4.1

The National Security Establishment

64

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 7.1 7.2 7.3

The Policy Triad Department of State Department of Defense The National Security Council Central Intelligence Agency The Intelligence Community Intelligence Cycle

73 74 77 81 98 100 103

8.1

Policy Phases

119

8.2

Differences: Policy Phases

123

11.1

U.S. Collective Defense Treaties

158

14.1

Framework for the Study of National Security

205

vii

Preface

It has often been said that "security is a state of mind" and that national security is the way people feel about themselves and the confidence they have in their leaders and the political system. But things like state of mind, confidence, and the nature of the political system are not easy matters to examine—or even to identify with precision. Indeed, simply defining the concept of national security evokes disagreement among scholars, policymakers, and the American people in general—most of us tend to see only "bits and pieces" of national security. How can we understand national security issues and provide informed assessments? There is no easy answer. But there is surely a place to begin: at the focal point of the national security process and the offices and institutions responsible for U.S. national security. Studying these will not provide all the answers, but it will provide knowledge essential to seeking the answers— which is the basic motivation for this book. This book is an outgrowth of my teaching, research, and experience in a variety of national security issues. This background has convinced me that the concept of national security has become so distorted and politicized that, in most areas of national security, it is increasingly difficult to develop a sense of balance and analytic objectivity. Indeed, many college students—as well as some policymakers, military professionals, academicians, and particularly elected officials—seem to lack a sense of history or understanding of the concept of U.S. national interests. They tend to equate the ideals of American democracy with the realities of the existing international security environment. They analyze U.S. national security posture in terms that assume and demand immaculate behavior and an immaculate system, while often glossing over the realities of the world. Combined with a focus on the issue of the moment only, such perspectives do little to develop a serious understanding of national security issues. Seen this way, national security becomes a zero-sum game—issues are black or white. One is either moral or immoral. National security policy is good or bad. Political actors in the external world are good or evil. Unfortunately, the international security environment does not lend itself to such simplistic notions. American mind-sets tend to place national security issues in quick-fix, short-term, do-able frameworks. That is, we tend to see an issue only after it becomes a national security problem and to respond to that particular problem in a traditional fashion: identify it, find the best solutions, apply ix

x

Preface

them, and "fix it," all according to conventional notions and expectations. Thus, we tend to seek solutions to the problems of the Middle East, Central America, and nuclear war, for example, with momentary information and superficial understanding, neglecting a systematic basis for identifying and applying U.S. national interests, policy, and strategy. The purpose of this book is specifically to correct the problems that evolve from such superficial decisions: to provide a systematic way of studying U.S. national security by approaching the subject from a long-term perspective, linking it to historical continuities and discontinuities, and basing this analysis on the nature and character of the U.S. political system. From this perspective, national security is first determined by the leadership quality and mind-set of the incumbent of the Oval Office—the fundamental premise of this book is that the President is the center of the national security policy process. Some attention is given to the details of prevailing national security issues, but the intent here is not to offer solutions to these issues. The focus on some general substantive issues provides a realistic context within which the President, the National Security Establishment, and the policy proccss function; and some attention to major substantive issues (such as the nature and character of the Soviet system) assists in understanding the difficulty of developing within the U.S. National Security Establishment a coherent policy and strategy direction and a supporting network of political actors. But one will not find here what the United States should do in the Middle East, for example, or in Southeast Asia or Central America. This book is not offered solely as a textbook on U.S. national security. It is also a study and analysis of the problems of trying to formulate and implement coherent national security policy and strategy in a democracy. This additional dimension will assist serious students and policymakers to focus on fundamental issues and, more importantly, to rethink the basis for U.S. national interests and long-term national security policy and strategy. The book is divided into four parts. Part I is a study of the meaning and concept of national security, U.S. political characteristics, and the international security environment. This part establishes boundaries and reference points for the remainder of the book. Part II examines the National Security Establishment, beginning with the President and the nature of the presidency and continuing with special focus on national security policy—this includes a study of the policymaking structures, like the National Security Council. The military and intelligence establishments are also analyzed. Part III begins with a study of the national security policy process, comparing foreign with domestic policy. The remainder of the chapters in this part use this policy process framework to examine the system—that is,

Preface

xi

the important political actors involved in national security policy, their roles and power, and how they relate to the President and the process. Part IV is a series of conclusions that provides a systematic view of the U.S. national security system and its critical components. The fundamental focus remains—a common sense way to study and understand the essentials of U.S. national security. I wish to thank Stephen J. Cimbala of Pennsylvania State University, who read and commented on the manuscript. His knowledge of the subject matter and his incisive critique were invaluable. Also, students in my classes at Loyola University of Chicago have contributed by their questions and c o m m e n t s about many of the subjects in this book. Laurette Liesen of L o y o l a University of C h i c a g o assisted more directly by reading and commenting on the manuscript. However, this book represents my own views and interpretations of how U.S. national security should be studied and analyzed. Consequently, it is surely vulnerable to criticism, and I make no apologies for this. I have tried to achieve balance by taking account of views of noted scholars and experts on U.S. national security. But in the final analysis, this is my own work, and I am responsible for any errors, misinterpretations, and idiosyncrasies. Sam C. Sarkesian

— Parti — Introduction

1 National Interests and National Security

"What is it in our interest to prevent? What should we seek to accomplish?" 1 So wrote Henry Kissinger over two decades ago, before becoming Assistant to President Nixon for National Security Affairs. The same questions continue to challenge policymakers, scholars, and elected officials today. The answers were elusive under the Nixon Administration and have remained so for every U.S. administration since. Why is this so? Don't Americans know what is in their national interest? At first glance the answer sems relatively simple: the purpose of American national interest is to promote American values; to promote these values means to protect them by establishing and implementing effective national security policy. Upon close examination, however, these answers are inadequate, and they raise a number of further questions. What are American values? How are they reflected in national interests? What is the relationship between national interests and national security? What is national security? How should U.S. national security policy be implemented? For the past three decades these questions have been addressed by many American politicians and scholars. If there is anything that they agree on—it is that there is no agreement. Each generation of Americans seeks to interpret the issues of national values, national interest, and national security in terms of its own perspectives and mind-sets. Although there is agreement regarding the core elements, such as protection of the American homeland, interpretations differ about the meaning of national security, the nature of external threats, and the best course for conduct of security policy. Combined with significant changes in the world environment, the dynamics of the questions posed by Kissinger remain as mercurial today as they were in 1969. It is to be expected that in an open system such as that of the United States, in which there are multiple power centers and shifting focal points, there will be a variety of interpretations and power clusters advocating one or 3

4

Introduction

the other national security posture. Recognizing that these matters are rarely resolved by one-time solutions, and that they are, at best, ambiguous in character, this chapter will explore the concepts of national values, national interest, and national security. In the process, a framework for studying and analyzing national security will be designed. First, we will study the nature and character of American values and their relevance to the external world. Second, an examination will be made of the concept of national interest, its relationship to American values, and how these value and interests "play" in the international environment. Third, we will study national security to determine its general meaning and develop a systematic way to study it. As the necessary starting point for this exploration, it must be understood that regardless of the variety of interpretations and views of these matters, the United States is in the world to stay. Whether Americans like it or not, they cannot withdraw from external responsibilities, nor can they retreat to the isolation of the early twentieth century. Regardless of the policies of any administration, the United States has links to most parts of the world, politically, economically, culturally, and psychologically. What the United States does or does not do has an impact on international politics.

N A T I O N A L VALUES

The collapse of the old order in Europe following World War I set the stage for the evolution of democratic systems on the one hand and tyrannical and Marxist-Leninist systems on the other. Until that time, "Pax Britannica" had provided a sense of stability and order to European affairs as well as to the United States and its relationships with Europe. Americans had been accustomed to a world dominated by a European order, compatible—more or less—with the general nature of American values and national interests. Although this was an imperfect order, it did not threaten what Americans felt was their own value system. There seemed to be little need to translate these values for use in the external world. America's interest only rarely extended beyond its own shores. Yet it was also in the beginning of the twentieth century that the United States became a world power with its acquisition of territory from the Spanish-American War. A decade later, involvement in World War I was seen as a way of making the world safe for democracy and subduing a tyrannical old world power. In the aftermath, most Americans were glad to see their government distance itself from the old world again and focus on internal domestic matters. "It's their problem, not ours," was a common American attitude with respect to the outside world. Most Americans assumed that American interests were also world interests; American values were morally

National Interests

& National Security

5

unassailable and therefore to be sought by the rest of the world. National security was primarily the protection of the American homeland, which required only minimal armed forces and limited strategies. There was little need to struggle with issues of American values and how to protect them in the external world (except occasionally in terms of international economics). World War II changed all of that. Regardless of America's desire to return to its earlier isolation, in the aftermath of World War II, the United States was in the world to stay. It became clear that American responsibilities now extended beyond the nation's borders. It was also becoming clear that democracy and American values could not be nurtured and expanded by simply "staying at home." Democracy made political and moral demands that required its nurturing in all parts of the world. With this change came the problem of America's purpose in the world. Beyond protection of the homeland and survival, what did America stand for? And how did it intend to achieve these goals, whatever they were? T h e Nature of American Values When we speak of American values, we refer to what is esteemed as the philosophical, legal, and moral basis for the continuation of the American system—those essential principles from which the U.S. political system and social order derive their innate character. At least six fundamental values are particularly relevant to U.S. national interests and their role in the international world:2 First is the right of self-determination. This is the assumption that each nation-state has the right to determine its own policy and to govern itself as it sees fit. An important corollary is that the people within that nation-state also have the right of self-determination. This means that, through free and fair elections, people within each nation-state have the right to determine how and by whom they will be ruled, with the option of replacing their rulers, within a system of laws and peaceful change. Second, it follows that there is an inherent worth to any individual in his or her relationship to others, to the political system, and to the social order. Every person is intrinsically a moral, legal, and political entity to which the system must respond. Each individual has the right to achieve all that he or she can without encumbrance, other than what is necessary to protect other individuals and the homeland. Individual worth must be reflected in the economic, political, and legal systems. Third, those who have been selected to rule owe their power and are accountable to the people—the people are the final authority regarding who should rule. The right of the people to change governors is absolute. The furthering of individual worth necessitates limited government with no absolute or permanent focal point of power. To ensure this, rule and

6

Introduction

governance must be open. In the main, this requires that decisions and policies be arrived at openly with input from a variety of groups. The system of rule must be accessible to the people and their representatives. This is the essence of open systems. Fourth, policies and changes in the international environment must be based on the first three values. Thus, peaceful change brought about by rational discourse between nation-states is a fundamental value. Resort to war can only be acceptable if it is clearly based on protection of the homeland—and this only if all other means have failed. Diplomacy and stateto-state relationships must be based on mutually acceptable rules of the game. Fifth, systems professing these values must be protected and nurtured. Further, nation-states whose values are compatible with those of the United States are thought to be best served by an international order based on the same values. Sixth, there is a moral underpinning to American values that owes its inception to the Judeo-Christian heritage. For many Americans this instills a sense of "humanity," a sensitivity to the plight and status of individuals, and a search for divine guidance. This adds a dimension to what is seen to be proper and just (although considered by many to be beyond the legal definition of government).

Values and the Political System These values are not perfectly embodied in the American system, and there are many historical examples of value distortions. Further, American values are not necessarily shared by the rest of the world; and since World War II the interpretation of these values and their translation to external policy have rarely been shared by all Americans. Nonetheless, these values are esteemed, and are embodied in the political-social system; the system of rule and character of the political system have institutionalized these values; and they are those that American presidents since World War II have tried to follow and include in designing foreign and national security policy. The expectations of Americans and their assessment of other states are in no small measure an application of these values.

NATIONAL INTERESTS American national interests are expressions of American values projected into the international arena. The purpose of these interests includes the creation and perpetuation of an international environment that is not inimical to the peaceful pursuit of these values. It follows that such interests are those that nurture and expand democracy and open systems. Conversely, these interests

National

Interests

& National

Security

7

are those that prevent the expansion of closed systems by the use of force or indirect aggressive means. In more specific terms, at the core of American national interests is the survival of the homeland and U.S. political order. But survival cannot be limited to the final defense of the homeland. In light of today's weapons technology and ideological imperatives, the concept of survival of the homeland means more than retreating to the borders of the United States and threatening total destruction to any who attack. If national interests are invoked only in those cases in which the homeland is directly threatened and its survival is at stake, then the concept is of little use—indeed, waiting until then may be too late. If the concept of national security is to have any meaning in terms of policy and strategy, then it must mean something more than survival of the homeland. It is the interpretation and application of this broader view that trigger a great deal of debate between the executive and legislative branches of government and among a variety of groups in the U.S. political arena, often including the media. The National Security Establishment and those involved in the policy process rarely have the luxury of endless debate, or even all of the necessary facts. But policy must be made and strategy options examined and implemented nonetheless. Before that can be done, U.S. national interests for that particular situation must be identified and articulated. At the same time, national interests over the long range must be considered, which custom and constitutional powers have usually entitled the President to articulate. Although in the contemporary period some Americans may challenge this notion, initiatives in foreign and national security policy usually rest with the President. To be sure, Congress has an important role in these matters, but the President must take the lead and is the only legal representative of the United States in relations with foreign countries. For better or for worse, it is the President who articulates the national interest and Congress that responds. In summary: (1) American values as they apply to the external world are at the core of national interests. (2) National interests do not mean that U.S. strategy is limited to the immediate homeland of the United States—these may require power projection into various parts of the world. (3) The President is the focal point in defining and articulating U.S. national interest.

NATIONAL SECURITY All of the issues surrounding the meaning of American values and national interests are crystallized in the concept of national security, and here disagreements regarding values and the meaning of the national interest are

8

Introduction

magnified. This is true whether national security is examined as a concept, a field of study, or as policy. These problems are well summed up by one expert: No formal definition of national security as a field has been generally accepted; none may be possible. In general, it is the study of the security problems faced by nations, of the policies and programs by which these problems are addressed, and also of the governmental processes through which the policies and programs are decided upon and carried out. 3

Recognizing the inherent problems, a preliminary definition of national security is offered: National security is the confidence held by the great majority of the nation's people that the nation has the military capability and effective policy to prevent its adversaries from effectively using force in preventing the nation's pursuit of its national interests. Two dimensions are part of this definition: physical and psychological. In the first instance, there is an objective measure based on the physical strength and military capacity of the nation to successfully challenge adversaries, including going to war if necessary. The latter is subjective, reflecting the opinion of the majority of the people of the nation's ability to remain secure relative to the external world. National security must be seen in the context of foreign policy. Foreign policy is that policy of a nation that encompasses all official relations with other countries. The purpose of foreign policy is multidimensional. In the United States, the purpose of foreign policy is to pursue national interests, prevent conditions detrimental to the United States, and maintain relations with other countries in order to create conditions favorable to U.S. national interests. The instruments of foreign policy are primarily diplomatic and secondarily economic and psychological. National Security and Foreign Policy National security differs from foreign policy in at least two respects: (1) National security purposes are more narrow and focused on security and safety of the nation. (2) National security is primarily concerned with actual and potential adversaries and their use of force—this means that there is a military emphasis that is not usually the case in matters of foreign policy. However, national security policy overlaps with foreign policy—indeed, sometimes they are almost indistinguishable. American values cannot be imposed on other states except for reasons that are clearly matters of survival. Thus, much of national security policy

National Interests & National Security

9

requires compromise, negotiation, and the dynamics of give-and-take—all technique and subtlety associated with traditional diplomacy. This kind of work then becomes a matter for foreign policy and the Department of State, with long-range implications for national security policy. These relationships are shown in Figure 1.1. These observations are the basis for defining national security policy, expanding on the concept of national security: National security policy is that part of government policy primarily concerned with formulating and implementing national strategy to create a favorable military environment for U.S. national interests. An integral part of this is to prevent the effective use of military force by the nation's adversaries or potential adversaries in obstructing U.S. ability to pursue its national interests. National security is a concept that encompasses psychological and physical components. The actions and goals of government and its strategy to achieve and ensure the psychological and physical demands of national security comprise national security policy. National Security Policy and Priorities Short of clear threats to the territory of the United States, Americans usually disagree over priorities. Even when there is agreement on priorities, there is disagreement regarding resource commitment and strategy. Nonetheless, a system of priorities provides a way of identifying levels of threat, and helps in designing strategies—all of which must be guided by national security and its conceptual dimensions. There are two overriding priorities: (1) the protection of the American homeland and the survival of its political system; and (2) the maintenance, nurturing, and expansion of open systems, which generally means democratic systems. (The concept of "open systems" is used here because there are various forms of democracy—indeed, there may be socialist systems that have established openness and are nonthreatening to neighbors and to world peace.) Priorities can be listed as follows: First Order: Vital Interests. Protection of the homeland, and issues directly affecting this interest. This requires a total military mobilization and total national resource commitment. Second Order: Critical Interests. These are issues that do not directly affect America's survival, but in the long run have a high propensity for becoming first order priorities, and in the short run, have a direct influence on first order interests. Second order interests are measured

10

Introduction

Figure 1.1

National Security and Foreign Policy Pre-World War H Relationship (non crisis)

Foreign Policy

^ National Security Policy

Superpower Era (noncrisis) Foreign Policy

—

National Security Policy

Crises National Security Policy Foreign Policy Note: The gap between foreign policy and national security policy indicates the relative degree of "closeness" between foreign and national security policy. The arrows indicate the relative degree of overlap. During times of crisis, the gap between foreign and national security policy is minimal or nonexistent. Adapted from Col. William J. Taylor, Jr., "Interdependence, Specialization, and National Security: Problems for Diplomats, Soldiers, and Scholars," in Air University Review, July-August 1979, vol. XXX, no. 5, pp. 17-26.

primarily by the degree to which they maintain, nurture, and expand open systems. Third Order: Serious Interests. These are issues that affect first and second order interests. U.S. efforts are focused on creating favorable conditions to affect second order interests. Unfavorable conditions serve as a signal that second order interests are likely to be threatened. All other interests are placed on a "watch" list. This means they have no immediate impact on any order of interest, but should be watched in case events elevate them to a higher order. In the meantime, these peripheral interests require little if any U.S. resources. A category of priorities such as this can be used not only as a framework for systematic assessment of national interests and national security, but as a way of distinguishing immediate from long-range security issues. Such a framework can provide a basis for rational and systematic debate of U.S. national security posture within the National Security Establishment and is useful in the study of national security. Equating priorities to geopolitical boundaries of core, contiguous, and outer areas is shown in Figure 1.2.

National

Figure 1.2

Interests

& National

Security

11

U.S. National Security Priorities

CORE (First Order)

CONTIGUOUS (Second Order)

OUTER AREAS (Third Order)

Scope of Strategic Options

L

The conccpt of national security obviously encompasses the concepts of "nation" and "security," and such an interpretation requires a system of priorities. If every use of an adversary's force were seen as vital to the United States, the country would become seriously depleted. Trying to respond to everything would dissipate resources, energy, and effort, leaving the United States unable to respond to anything, and the concept of national security policy and strategy would become meaningless. The difficulties of determining with clarity U.S. national interests and establishing national security priorities are compounded by the link between national security and domestic policy. (This link is fairly recent in U.S. history.) The domestic economic impact of certain national security policies (such as economic sanctions, an embargo on agriculture exports to the Soviet Union, diminished foreign oil sources, or the export of technologically advanced industrial products) links U.S. domestic interests and policies to the international security arena. For some scholars, this issue is viewed as "intermestic" politics and policies. 4 National Power The ability to successfully carry out national security policy is a direct result of the power the nation possesses and its ability to use that power effectively. Here again we are faced with problems of definition. "National power" can be seen in two ways: in universal terms, or with respect to power in any given situation. In the first instance, national power can be measured by a variety of indicators, ranging from the total number in the armed forces and the ability of the nation to mobilize for war, to the nation's economic capacity. By such standards, only relatively large states with large populations and resources can become powerful. But in any given situation, large states may not have usable and effective power; smaller states may have power based on other considerations. For example, many argued that the United States did not have usable power to bring the Vietnam War to a

12

Introduction

successful conclusion. The minor state of North Vietnam had more effective power in that particular case and was able to prevail. It may very well be that the Soviet Union faced a similar power relationship in Afghanistan in 1988. At any rate, it is clear that there are a number of important elements of national power that a nation must possess if it is to pursue its national interests on a global scale. One expert on the subject provides this comprehensive statement: National power . . . is a mix of strategic, military, economic, and political strengths and weaknesses. It is determined in part by the military forces and the military establishment of a country but even more by the size and location of territory, the nature of frontiers, the population, the raw-material resources, the economic structure, the technological development, the financial strength, the ethnic mix, the social cohesiveness, the stability of political processes and decision-making, and, finally, the intangible quantity usually described as national spirit.5

National power is based on four major elements: military power, geostrategic importance, national character, and psychological sustenance. 1. Military power is a measure of the total physical attributes of the armed forces of a country. This includes such indicators as the quality and quantity of equipment, mobility, and combat effectiveness. 2. Geostrategic importance refers to the location of the country in terms of international economy, international security, and the national security of other states. For example, the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf is of geostrategic importance because it is the principal waterway to Middle East oil resources. Geostrategic importance includes the availability of important resources within the country and the nature of its climate and terrain. 3. National character is another important consideration. Some discount its relevance to national power, but it is important in providing insights into the nation's political processes and cohesiveness. National character is measured by such things as homogeneity of the population, national size and growth, level of education and skills, economic system and capability, degree of commitment to the political system, and legitimacy and efficiency of the governing structures. 4. Psychological sustenance is a subtle part of national power. This is an obviously subjective dimension and therefore the most difficult to measure. But all the elements of national power may be useless if the people of a nation are unwilling to use them. Moreover, if other states perceive a nation with power as hesitant to use it and its people divided over the proper courses of military action, then those states will ultimately view it as a "paper tiger," whose power is based solely on rhetoric.

National

Interests

& National Security

13

Similarly, even when a nation has all of the other elements of power, if its own people perceive such power as useless, the nation's real power is diminished. It is with national will and staying power that the United States, as an open system, has the most difficult problems. This is particularly true when national interests and national security must deal with issues outside the homeland (some second order and all third order interests). Measuring national power is even more complex than consideration of each of these elements individually suggests. Measurement becomes extremely difficult when trying to link these elements, determine their relationships, and identify their total impact on other states. Yet attention to national power does provide a sense of the relative power of the country. It also focuses attention on the need to translate national power into usable power and link it through the National Security Establishment and the policy process to the pursuit of national interests. National Strategy There is a great deal of confusion in the use of the terms "policy" and "strategy." Many use these terms synonymously, but there is an important difference, particularly when used in the study of national security. "Policy" refers to the major objectives of the state, whether in foreign policy or national security. "Strategy," however, refers to the methods and means used to achieve these purposes. In the words of one authority: The term "strategy," derived from the ancient Greek, originally pertained to the art of generalship or high command. In modern times, "grand strategy" has come into use to describe the overall defense plans of a nation or coalition of nations. Since the midtwentieth century, "national strategy" has attained wide usage, meaning the coordinated employment of the total resources of a nation to achieve its national objectives. 6

Grand strategy is the usual label for the way a state intends to pursue its national security goals. From grand strategy are derived a number of other strategies that focus on specific regions or issues: thus, military strategy, economic strategy, political strategy, psychological strategy, strategies for the Middle East and for other parts of the world—no wonder there is confusion in using terms such as strategy, policy, and doctrine! Writing in the nineteenth century, the renowned General Carl von Clausewitz concluded that "strategy borders on politics and statesmanship or rather it becomes both itself. . . . In strategy everything is simple, but not on that account very easy."7 The term "strategy," as used here, refers primarily to national strategy. From time to time references will be made to what some call national

14

Introduction

military strategy, focusing on "the generation of military power and its employment in state to state relationships." 8

THE STUDY OF NATIONAL SECURITY How can national security be studied? What are the fundamental principles that are the bases for U.S. national security policy and strategy? T h e three major approaches to the study of national security (the concentric-circle approach, elite versus participatory policymaking, and systems analysis) all concentrate on the manner in which policy is made. These must be distinguished from studies that examine particular issues, such as what U.S. nuclear strategy should be or what U.S. policy should be in the Middle East. Furthermore, they must also be distinguished from studies of government institutions. T h e concentric-circle approach (see Figure 1.3) assumes that the President is at the center of the national security policy process. The President's staff and the National Security Establishment provide advice and implement national security policy. This approach shows the degree of importance of various groups as primary objects of national security policy. For example, a major objective is to influence the behavior and policies of allies and adversaries. At the same time, Congress, the public, and the media have important roles in the national security policy process. But they are not the primary "objects" of policy. Increasingly wider circles represent other government structures and agencies, constituencies, and the media. The further from the center, the less their importance as "objects" o f national security policy. The problem with this approach is its oversimplification of the national security policy process. The elite versus participatory policymaking approach (Figure 1.4) is based on the view that a basic dilemma of democracy lies in the policy process. National security policy is made by an elite within the National Security Establishment, but the elite in turn must develop support for such a policy in the broader public. On the one hand, the elite has the skill and access to information to formulate national security policy, in contrast to an uninformed public. On the other hand, for national security policy to be successful in the long run, there must be some degree of participation by the wider public. The elite model sees national security policy being made by a small circle that includes the President, his staff, key members of Congress, the military, and the business community. The assumption is that this is a cohesive elite, whose own interests override other concerns. The participatory model assumes the existence of a variety o f elites who represent various segments of the public, interest groups, and officials. In this model, the same elites rarely control all aspects of national security policy. Coalitions are

National

Figure 1 J

Conccntric Circle Approach

Figure 1.4

Elite and Participatory Models

Interests

& National

Security

15

Policymaking Process

formed for particular issues, then are reformed for other issues. This approach struggles to reconcile the expertise of the elite with the demands of participatory democracy. The systems-analysis approach (Figure 1.5) holds that many different inputs go into the policy process. These inputs create political dynamics within the policymaking machinery, which must reconcile a number of competing interests and design a policy acceptable to most. In turn, the impact of policy must be measured by feedback, both in terms of policy effectiveness and how it is perceived by those affected. All of these approaches, as well as their variations, are useful in the study of national security policy. This study of national security incorporates something of all these approaches. We examine the formal National Security Establishment based on the assumption that the President and several government structures and agencies established by law form that

16

Introduction

Figure 1.5 Systems-Analysis Approach to Policymaking Hie Political Environment Inputs t

Policymaking Machineiy

Outputs

Feedback

1

Establishment and are at the center of the policy process—the concentriccircle approach. We examine the National Security Council and the Department of Defense partly from the concentric-circle approach and partly from the elite versus participatory approach. Finally, when we focus on the formal policy process, most of the attention is given to the national security network—a systems-analysis approach that considers the many power clusters within the governmental structure, the political system, and the international environment that have impact on the National Security Establishment and the policymaking process. The National Security Establishment, created by law and designed to provide the President an advisory and operational instrument, is a formal policymaking instrument, and an instrument for implementing national security policy. Often, however, the character and personality of the President lead to the creation of informal and parallel structures and processes for developing national security policy. This sets up a series of policy power clusters driving the National Security Establishment and the formal policymaking process. The relationship between and within these power clusters and their power are dependent upon the way the President exercises his leadership and his views on how the National Security Establishment should function. There are three major clusters, whose powers are almost comparable: (1) The "policy triad," consisting of the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Advisor to the President; (2) the Director of the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (particularly the Chairman); and (3) the White House Chief of Staff and Counselor to the President. These three power clusters are extremely important in shaping national security policy (see Figure 1.6). Equally important, they represent critical parts of the National Security Establishment, but operate in ways that reflect presidential leadership style and the mind-sets of those within the three power clusters. As such, these may or may not be compatible with the rest of the formal National Security Establishment. In other words, the National Security Establishment is much more fluid and dynamic than is suggested by the formal structure. Similarly, the policymaking process is not as rational and systematic as may be suggested by the formal policy process.

National

Interests