Case Study

timer Asked: Oct 18th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $25

Question Description


For this final unit, you will prepare a four- to five-page paper, excluding the title and reference pages, examining U.S. security strategies and foreign policy as it relates to the country of your choice (excluding the United States). This paper should be written as if you are the U.S. Secretary of State and preparing a report on the country to determine U.S. policy and action.

You will need to discuss the impact of globalization and how it affects your target country, its partners, and its enemies. You should also address the following:

  • The relationship between foreign policy decisions and security operations;
  • How potential policy decisions might impact international politics;
  • Your recommendations, as U.S. Secretary of State, for future interactions, policy, and security.

Feel free to incorporate other political science concepts and ideas from other units in the course. Your paper may utilize any resource used in the course. You may also reference news articles if you desire. All references must be properly cited in APA format.

Textbook: Parsons, C. (2017). Introduction to political science: How to think for yourself about politics. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL 354.61.077.6(73) Scientific article REVIEW OF THE PROCESS OF MAKING DECISIONS IN THE US NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY Oliver STOJANOSKI1 Abstract:The process of making political and national decisions regarding security has a distinct meaning concerning the management of this process. In cases when the US President gives statements related to foreign and security policy, he meets with other presidents of states or holds press conferences concerning national security, his words present a detailed product of his administration. The US President is supported by an interagency process of making decisions since the First World War. The current interagency process of making decisions includes a routine of consultations among senior departments in the administration and officials from the agencies, which was not the practice before 1947. Key words: National security, foreign policy, United States National Security Council, National Security Strategy. Introduction The optimism, in relation to world peace, the economic development and the general welfare, which ruled in the world upon the end of the Cold War, has been ruined with the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001.2 The United States started a general war against terrorism, or more precisely a war with those who replace their religion with radicalism. It could be assumed that this situation shall continue in the future, and the United States shall continue to take the central spot in the world in relation to dealing with global terrorism, especially with the security problems in the Middle East, when talking about the world and homeland security.3 This paper, through a historic retrospective, reviews the policies of several administrations of the United States in order to understand the organization of the government bodies when making the national security policy. The author works on his doctorate at the Institute for Security, Defense and Peace in Skopje. Employed in the Ministry of Defense, Army of the Republic of Macedonia, officer. 2 Sam C. Sarkesian, John Allen Williams, Stephen J. Cimbala, “US National Security, Policymakers, Processes & Politics”, fifth edition, USA, 2012. Pp.1. 3 Jentleson, W. Bruse, “American foreign policy: The dynamics of choices in the 21st centuries – 4th”, USA, 2012 1 CONTEMPORARY MACEDONIAN DEFENCE 121 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL Review of the events related to the process of decision making after World War II and during the Cold War At the end of the Second World War, the Congress started the process of reorganization of the national security agencies, so that the United States would be secured from sudden attacks, as an example is the attack on Pearl Harbor.4 The first who supported this reorganization is the US President at that time, Harry S. Truman. In one of his statements, he underlined that “if we had all the information about the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941 in one place, maybe we could foresee what would happen”.5 In context to this, the reaction of president Truman at that time is believed to be justified in 2001 after the terrorist attacks in the United States, when the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks6 confirmed the need of larger interagency connectivity and information exchange.7 During his term of office, Harry S. Truman had supported the Congress on forming a permanent, central agency for intelligence and reforming the Department of Defence. Apart from this, the Congress also supported the idea on forming an agency or executive branch within the Government for the purpose of integration and coordination among the administration’s agencies. As a result of the Pearl Harbor attacks, and the reaction of President Theodore Roosevelt during the Second World War, the Congress had adopted the formation of a new structure for national security by the 1947 National Security Act. The Congress believed that a body had been formed for improving the interagency connectivity in relation to coordination and better advising the President during the process of making important decisions. At that time, President Harry S. Truman agreed regarding the intelligence and defence aspects of reorganization and forming an advisory group, but was against forming any other organizations in the process of making decisions of the administration.8 Truman wished the administration to maintain the entire control in relation to the national security issues, whereas the President to have a discreet right to decide in relation to any other decision of the National Security Council or the Congress. At that time, Truman rarely attended the Security Council meetings; the Secretary of State was in charge, which showed to be quite ineffective in the process of making important political decisions. 4 The need of reorganization of the national security was a long process. Between 1921 and 1945, more than 50 proposals have been presented at the Congress for reorganization of the army and the navy. None of these proposals was accepted. 5 Clark Clifford, “The workings of the national security system: past, present and future”, SAIS Review, Winter-Spring 1988, interview Philip Geyelin, p.19-21. 6 More at: 7 Group of authors: “The National Security Policy Process”, The National Security Council and Interagency System, Annual Update, August, 2011. Pp.6. Available at: national-security-policy-process-2011.pdf 8 Clark Clifford, “The workings of the national security system: past, present and future”, SAIS Review, Winter-Spring 1988, interview with Philip Geyelin, p.19-21. 122 CONTEMPORARY MACEDONIAN DEFENCE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL In 1950, with the beginning of the war with Korea, Truman recognized the mistake and understood the role of the National Security Council as a valuable body in making decisions. He initiated the practice and the legal obligation to attend the meetings in order to have development, discussion and coordination of policies related to the war. Truman increased the use of the National Security Council as the only body for making decisions and political options regarding specific regional and functional issues for the purpose of assisting and giving proposals to the President.9 The importance, the scope and the responsibilities of the National Security Council increased when Dwight D. Eisenhower became the President of the United States. The experience of Eisenhower proved to be quite important by the establishing of the new intelligence military structure, and through the Planning Board and the Operations Coordinating Board, responsible for policy implementation. In 1953, Eisenhower designated a position for a Special Assistant to the President regarding national security issues, nowadays called the National Security Advisor. President John F. Kennedy was not satisfied with the system of his predecessor Eisenhower and he adapted a new system of direct communication of the President with the agencies’ officials responsible for security within the administration. More precisely, at that time there were 12 experts for national security, including the President himself, a system was established for direct communication with all the national security agencies, the US Embassies and the military command posts.10 Supporting Kennedy’s idea, the new President Lyndon B. Johnson continued the same practice, but by adapting a new system of decision making. A system in charge of which was the National Security Advisor, with a small number of members and “trusted friends”. Johnson also formed a discussion group called “Thursday Lunch”, whose members were the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defence, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Chief of Staff of the US Army. The central control of the interagency in the process of national security, and the domination of the development and the execution of the foreign policy, was supported by President Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford as well. Nixon wanted to grant the White House the entire control over the national policy of the United States. The National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger increased the staff of the National Security Council to up to 80 people, responsible for collecting information in their domain, and as a product they submitted reports to the President. President Ford generally inherited the same structure in the further evolution of the national security system, with certain changes granting Henry Kissinger a double function, as a National Security Advisor and as a Secretary of State. In the following 9 “National Security Council, History”, U.S. Government White House Website, Retrieved July 2011: Available at: 10 “National Security Council, History”, U.S. Government White House Website, Retrieved July 2011: Available at: CONTEMPORARY MACEDONIAN DEFENCE 123 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL period, Ford considered the fact that Kissinger had too much authority, therefore appointing General Brent Scowcroft as an Advisor. As Secretary of State, Kissinger continued his role as Senior Political Advisor to the President, and Brent continued the role of a coordination analyst among several governmental bodies. During his term of office, President Jimmy Carter demanded more diversity in the political options and greater balance in the contribution, as well as the process of making important political decisions. In other words, the interagency process was structured with bigger authorizations of the State Department. Carter was worried that there is only one responsible person for decisions regarding foreign policy (such as Kissinger), and therefore he appointed the independent Zbigniew Brzezinski as a National Security Advisor, thinking he would contribute with alternative interpretations of issues related to the security of the United States.11 As the administration developed, Brzezinski at one point was in a role of a supporter of the wider public for political decisions, instead of a person responsible only for coordination of the agencies. Several times, Brzezinski even created considerable tension in the Government and the agencies, due to his support of the public opinion concerning the foreign political decisions. The administration of Ronald Reagan practiced more a fellowship approach towards the decision-making process. The National Security Advisor was degraded with decreased function. The fellowship among the powerful chiefs of governmental departments was not always in a positive ambience, therefore resulting in misunderstandings, especially between the government and the Department of Defence. As a result of this chaotic situation, Reagan’s administration implemented changes by appointing 6 national security advisors, each with a mandate of up to 2 years. President George H. W. Bush (Senior) defined new ideas for what should the national security policy be organized like, as well as the decision-making process. First, he appointed the retired General Brent Scowcroft as a National Security Advisor, known for his excellent organizational skills. President Bush reorganized the National Security Council by forming the Principals Committee, Deputies Committee and other eight coordination divisions. Similar to his predecessors, President Bill Clinton supported the idea of fellowship in the interagency decision-making process. Still, the biggest accent of this administration was the economy as a key element of national policy. In the National Security Council, a Secretary of the Treasury and Assistant to the President regarding economic issues was appointed, who also executed the function of a Chairman of the Economic Council, formed by Clinton. This Economic Council was formed in order to manage the foreign and domestic economic issues, same as the National Security Council, whose main task was coordination of diplomatic and security issues. George W. Bush (Junior) defined the duties of the National Security Council, as a coordination body of departments and agencies towards effective development 11 124 Ibid. CONTEMPORARY MACEDONIAN DEFENCE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL and implementation of the national security policies.12 However, the terrorist attacks of the United States in 2001 resulted with numerous changes in the structure of the administration’ departments, which were responsible for security issues. One of the more significant is the formation of a changed Homeland Security Council within the National Security Department. These institutions contributed towards new responsibilities, as well as a new perspective in relation to the issues of national security. The increased concern for the domestic and the foreign terrorist threats became America’s triviality, manifesting through the global war against terrorism. The period after 9/11, brought operational changes in the political process and several structural changes in the National Security Council. Right after the attacks and the military intervention over Afghanistan and Iraq, several of the decisions made for these interventions had close correlation in the process of making decisions between the National Security Council and the President. The organizational changes in the Council, for the first time included the Department for fighting terrorism with an executive director, who also was an Assistant to the President for fighting terrorism. When the military intervention reached its momentum for a longer period, the administration in its second mandate needed a new structure in order to respond to the operational demands of the policy. One of the larger interventions in the administration of George Bush was also the introduction of a Special Advisor for Strategic Planning and Institutional Reform, as well as a Special Advisor for Policy Implementation in 2005. Other changes in the Council are also the new positions, such as the Advisor to the President for Iraq and Afghanistan.13 Usually these new functions, i.e. the people directly under the President who had the authority for coordination of the strategy and the policy of their departments, acted on a daily basis in assisting his executive policies. Review of the events related to the decision-making process of Barack Obama’s Administration In the administration of Barack Obama, according to the Presidential Policy Directive-1,14 among the already mentioned members, in the organization of the National Security Council, the following were also included: The Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the US representative in the UN and the Assistant to the President for issues in the area of national security or the National Security Advisor. 12 Presidential Policy Directive-1 (February 13, 2009). Available at: direct.htm The White House, Office of the Press Secretary May 15, 2007 Fact Sheet: Lieutenant General Douglas E. Lute: Experience and Authority. Available at: 14 More at: Presidential Policy Directive-1 (February 13, 2009). Retrieved July 2011. Federation of American Scientists website: direct.htm 13 CONTEMPORARY MACEDONIAN DEFENCE 125 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL The National Security Advisor is also the President’ Personal Advisor, responsible for daily management of all issues in the area of national security, who provides advice for the President, and is also responsible for coordination and development of interagency policies. The President himself decides on issues of national security; however, the Advisor is responsible to provide all the necessary information, possible course of action, eventual risks, legal regulations, recommendations and everything else related to the implementation of a certain policy. President Obama appoints the National Security Advisor to attend and manage the meeting in his absence. The persons working directly for the President, and under the leadership of the National Security Advisor, form the staff of national security. According to the Presidential Policy Directive - 1, the National Security Council is defined as “a body responsible for developing procedures and assisting the President in relation to issues of national security”.15 According to the same Directive, the staff from the Department of Homeland Security is included and joined within the staff of national security. The work of the Council reflects in a proactive and rigorous process through the Interagency Policy Committee, which is responsible for collecting data from relevant institutions and agencies included in the process of national security. The National Security Staff includes other experts from different areas and high representatives from the executive branch and military officers, as well as staff with vast experience that have worked abroad on foreign policy issues. The entire staff in the administration of Barack Obama implements management of national security issues on a daily basis and currently it counts approximately 320 staff members, with 175 positions in the White House Room and 70 operatives (technicians, communication experts, etc.). President Barack Obama holds formal meetings on a daily basis through the administration, but at the same time emphasizes the need of calling the former members of the Council with wider experience for discussions in the area of larger political issues.16 All press releases from the White House are done by Barack Obama usually with the closest members from the national security team. The administration also uses the state-of-the-art technology (protected video conference connection), when some of the members are out of the US, and this case has been confirmed during the arrest action for Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. In many cases, the President and the Vice President do not take part in the regular meetings of the National Security Council. In practice, a Principals Committee has been established, which is presided by the National Security Advisor, and the remaining members are the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defence, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary of Energy, Ibid. Group of authors: “The National Security Policy Process”, The National Security Council and Interagency System, Annual Update, August, 2011. Pp. 14 Available at: 15 16 126 CONTEMPORARY MACEDONIAN DEFENCE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL the National Security Advisor, the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the US Representative in the United Nations, the Chief of Staff and the Director of the National Intelligence Agency.17 Obama’s administration, through the Principals Committee meets at least once a week and discusses the current and future issues of national security, as well as the development and coordination of policies proposed by the interagency process. The main task of the Principals Committee is giving directions for implementation of a certain policy, often under the leadership of the US Vice President. The remaining key officials from the executive branch can be called in for the meetings of the Principals Committee, when their areas of responsibility are in question. They regularly call the Chief of Staff, the President Advisor and the Assistant to the Vice President for issues of national security. When discussing homeland security, as well as terrorism, the Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs is regularly called. Under the Principals Committee is the Deputies Committee, the mission of which is to direct and c ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

School: University of Virginia

Whats up buddy?😀 I completed the assignment and I used APA style for formatting and referencing.😎 Everything should be clear but if you have any questions..hit me up and I will explain..😇 Otherwise if the work is satisfactory, go ahead to complete and review the question below..👇

U.S. Security Strategies and Foreign Policy
The relationship between foreign policy decisions and security operations of U.S. and
How potential policy decisions might impact international politics in the U.S. and China
Recommendations for future interactions, policy, and security between the U.S. and China


U.S. Security Strategies and Foreign Policy
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation




U.S. Security Strategies and Foreign Policy
The United States takes the security of its citizens and the country seriously. America
interacts and associates with other countries in good faith with the aim of creating a good
rapport among the nations of interaction and association. Thus, the United States government,
under the ministry of foreign affairs, has various foreign policies employed in every
Additionally, the United States requires maintaining top security throughout its
transactions. For instance, the U.S. government has international relations with the Chinese
government. The U.S. - China relations dated back many years ago. The two countries are
superpowers with significant influence in the world and the global market. The American
government has developed various U.S. security strategies and foreign policy regarding its

flag Report DMCA

Top quality work from this guy! I'll be back!

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors