Course Objectives and Themes
This course analyzes the process of U.S. national security-the principles, practices, and participants in the development and implementation of national security strategy and policy. It applies theories and models to the bureaucratic policymaking structure of the Executive Branch, looks at the roles of other governmental participants, and evaluates the many constraints that limit decision-making. It assesses the impact of non-governmental forces such as the media, interest groups, and public opinion, and considers the effect on the process of changing domestic factors. Finally, it prepares students to be knowledgeable and effective participants in the process and presents them with a practitioner's framework for policymaking.
The course objectives are:
a. To comprehend the national security policy process.
b. To illustrate the original intent and the underlying principles of the U.S. Constitutional system of separate governmental institutions sharing power.
c. To analyze the bureaucratic interagency process in which national security decisions are made, particularly the constitutionally mandated checks and balances of the legislative and executive branches.
Two themes integrate the topics in this course:
1. The U.S. Constitution established a federal government of separate institutions sharing powers, a system of checks and balances that has resulted in tension among the branches of government.
2. National security decisions are best understood by considering the bureaucratic context in which they are made within the Executive Branch and the interaction of governmental and non-governmental participants.
In theory, decisions should flow from a rational calculation of interests and objectives, with a conscious calibration of means and ends. In practice, decision-makers encounter many additional factors. Executive Branch organizations involved in making and implementing national security decisions may structure their decision-making activities in ways that reflect institutional procedures; but other forces such as individual priorities, congressional politics, interest groups, and public opinion may sharply influence the process. A formal decision-making structure is important, but not conclusive in determining who has power and how the process works. Participants should anticipate the likely input of all potential players, and consider the effect of relevant constitutional, statutory, directory, electoral, and preceding authorities. Since observers define policy as what a nation does, not only what it says, decision-makers have to consider the input of all factors when engaging in policy making.
The course uses a variety of instructional techniques including lectures, seminars, guest seminars, staff visits, papers, and case studies.
Course Paper
This course requires the preparation by each student of a paper of 8 to 10 double-spaced pages (font 12) that should be designed to answer a how or why question about the national security process. The paper should analyze all factors that affected the decision-maker or influenced the outcome.
Examples of Issues for Analysis:
-How has Congress used the authorization/appropriation cycle or the confirmation process to influence specific presidential policies?
-Why did the current Administration's policy on gays and lesbians in the U.S. military end up the way it did?
-How does the Chairman influence presidential budget requests for defense? Should the Service Chiefs have budget control or should it be centralized in a higher authority within SECDEF?
-How might the intelligence community evade congressional oversight?
-How should DOD deal with media access to combat zones?
-Why did Congress add funds, not requested by the Administration, for additional procurement of a weapons program or for foreign assistance to specific countries?
The answer to the question should be derived from an analysis of appropriate data, not just opinions. Relevant information should be based on public documents, periodicals, and personal interviews, using Turabian's A Manual for Writers where relevant.
Alternatively, students could take the practitioner's framework presented in Topic 3, as modified during the course, and apply it to an actual or potential national security decision. For example, in August 1998, the President ordered pre-emptive strikes into Afghanistan and Sudan consistent with Constitutional and statutory authority, and the national interest. Describe the decision with reference to the framework.
Or, students could provide an analysis of how the USG should undertake decision making in the area of complex contingency operations, including such homeland defense issues as critical infrastructure protection. Evaluate the current Executive Branch arrangements to address these challenges. Suggest alternative decision making structures to accomplish the intent of PDD56 and PDD63. Be specific as to agencies and level of participation. Determine what role Congress should play, if any.
An outline for the paper should include:
- -A statement of the process question or issue.
-A statement of the tentative answer, in the form of a short hypothesis, to be confirmed through research. For example: Congress added funds for additional B-2 bombers because Members with B-2 jobs in their districts joined with contractor lobbyists and Executive Branch advocates to prevail over diffuse opposition.
-A statement of the scope and sources of the analysis.
Due Dates:
- -Prospectus: 24 November
-Outline: 1 December
-Paper: 13 December
Acknowledgements: Gratitude is due to several faculty members, particularly Bruce Gregory, Jim Williams, and Bob Levine, who made substantive contributions and suggested useful readings, and to Joyce Whiting for multiple versions of the draft, as well as Michael Ellis in the Support Center.
 |
 |