DB4uF

The Presidency, Bureaucracy and Foreign Policy

Course

Institution Affiliation

Date

The Presidency, Bureaucracy and Foreign Policy

Introduction

The National Security Council is one of the most critical decisions a president-elect must make (NSC). It is imperative that the organization's principal, important job be re-evaluated today. It has become more like an agency than a presidential staff as the NSC has increased in size. It's buried in policy minutiae and mostly concerned with the here and now. Because of its lack of focus, it cannot fulfill the crucial role that it alone can accomplish organizing the policy process so that, at the same time, agencies receive a fair hearing while the president can make clear foreign policy decisions in a timely fashion. President-elect Trump has a responsibility to guarantee that this vital role is reinstated (Viveash 2020). Cut the NSC's size, streamline its structure, and increase its seniority in order to accomplish this.

Foreign policy's objective is to manage the country's relationships with other countries throughout the world. Rather than being the result of a single action or decision, the policy is the outcome of a course of action or a long-term pattern of behavior. Numerous presidents, as well as cabinet secretaries, members of the House and Senate, and workers of foreign policy agencies, have all played a role in developing US policy toward Russia. In other words, policymaking is not accidental; rather, it is purpose-driven (Harrington 2017). The United States is justified in entering into an international agreement with another country on a specific issue, such as free trade or nuclear disarmament (Harrington 2017). After establishing a broad understanding of policy, we'll turn our attention to US foreign policy.

Challenges that President faces in working with NSC in implementing foreign policy programs.

Challenge 1: NSC is a bureaucracy that cannot be easily moved and would influence executive power.

The NSC was introduced in order to offer advisory services to the executive concerning issues of security and foreign policies. The NSC has undergone various transformations that include being empowered and increased staffing is experienced. The National Security Council is composed of three components: an advisory body, a national security advisor, and a professional staff. The 1947 Act established the National Security Council to advise the president on integrating domestic, international, and military policies affecting all facets of national security (Harrington 2017). The Presidents found it difficult to deal with the NSC since it has policies and procedures that have an effect on executive power. The NSC has undergone four phases before the President Trump administration, and this is when it altered the manner in which foreign policy problems come to the president.

A scenario like the one of President Trump's administration is an indication that the powers of the president in the executive have been affected and this is what contributes to presidents finding it challenging working with NSC. Experience has taught presidents that bureaucracies cannot be easily removed and the moment they get the power and influence it needs then the presidents in power have no option but to follow them as stated. Presidents have been forced to think outside the existing bureaucracies that are in place in coming up with other organizations that give them the power to lead. Truman believed that the president has the power to make foreign policy decisions, but it was not the case, the president’s power is influenced by the NSC. Eisenhower maintained the National Security Council's institutionalization and inclusion in policymaking by establishing a Planning Board to provide policy recommendations to the president and an Operations Coordinating Board to oversee the implementation of national security decisions. Eisenhower also established the position of assistant for national security affairs (commonly referred to as the president's national security advisor) to facilitate the coordination of national security policy decisions. This NSC system was never designed to function properly. Rather than generating sound policy recommendations, the lowest common denominator of the agreement was used to make decisions. Rather than broadening presidential possibilities, it actually reduced them. Policy implementation continued to be governed by departmental objectives and problem definitions, rather than by presidential objectives and perspectives.

The presidents have been seeking power and influence on the executive powers and influence of the foreign policies and decisions that are likely to be undermined by the bureaucracy brought by NSC. There was a challenge before about the decisions that the presidents made about the foreign policy and a good example is a scenario where President Obama developed a foreign policy on immigrants that the courts termed unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision. The president finds it difficult to rely on the NSC on important decisions like a foreign policy where a minor misadvise would ruin their legacy. The presidents have a short period of time making decisions under the 100 days in office and they cannot give the mandate to NSC to make the foreign policy decisions and advice that would take time and fails to meet the presidents’ expectations.

Challenge 2: Misunderstanding the mandates of NSC and the Defense Department

Presidents find it challenging in making the decision about who to work with within the executive because there is the Department of Defense and the NSC that have the mandate on the matter of national security and the moment the president relies on one body creates disagreements (Menshikova 2019). There are scenarios where Presidents find it successful working with the different bodies and maintaining a good relationship. Despite some critics' assertions that Condoleezza Rice allowed the Defense Department to dominate policymaking during President Bush's first term, the majority of people agree that she had a positive working relationship with the President and was an effective public spokesperson during that time period. Hadley made few public appearances when questioned about the NSC staff's role in overseeing NSC decisions. Additionally, he has been credited for orchestrating a review of Iraqi policy that resulted in significant changes, as previously indicated.

It works well when the president performs well and has a positive connection with the National Security Council, but when there are misunderstandings; productivity suffers (Roele 2017). Brzezinski's rivalry with Secretary of State Cyrus Vance was not publicly apparent during the Carter Administration's first year; however, as senior Administration officials recommended divergent responses to issues such as Soviet and Cuban activities in Africa and the Iranian hostage crisis, reports of tensions between the two men increased in the second year.

Differences between Vance and Brzezinski at the end of the administration were largely regarded to have contributed to poor and vacillating policymaking. Henry Kissinger, the National Security Adviser under President Nixon, and the Secretaries of State and Defense had previously battled. As a result of Nixon's preference for Kissinger's counsel, the foreign policy never stalled, and new ideas were developed. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, was torn between Brzezinski and Vance, and the two were frequently in opposition to one another (Roele 2017). Senator Edmund Muskie succeeded Vance in April 1980, following Vance's resignation for his opposition to the ill-fated Iranian hostage rescue operation. After Brzezinski's public involvement in policymaking became a source of contention, calls for Senate confirmation of National Security Council advisers and tighter legislative oversight arose. There were also reports of infighting on the National Security Council personnel between Carter loyalists and those who worked for Vice President Walter Mondale, who had been assigned a key policy position.

Challenge 3: Presidents finds it difficult to take NSC advice that is against their campaign promises.

There are scenarios that the NSC decisions about foreign policies are different from what the presidents believe that they deserve to be implemented and have promised the public. The president finds that the NSEC is pressuring them to implement policies that they do not support and failing to consider advice led to negative criticism of the president's decisions. An example is the scenario of President Trump's decision about Russian foreign policy. Retired General Michael Flynn resigned as a security advisor, after just twenty-four days on the job as the first advisor in Trump’s administration. Gen. H. R. McMaster, who succeeded Flynn, rapidly reorganized the National Security Council by eliminating "flintstones" and chief strategist Stephen Bannon from the NSC's cabinet-level Principles Committee (Böller and Herr 2019).

Though he did not have McMaster's access, Bannon did retain walk-in rights to chat with the president; Trump's original vision for the National Security Council (NSC) included a separate Homeland Security Council, which McMaster successfully reintegrated into the NSC. McMaster was well-known for his bold and uncompromising thinking (Jotzo, Depledge, and Winkler 2018). Mattis and Kelly were two of the high-ranking officials that McMaster frequently clashed with. On top of that, he frequently differed with Trump, most notably on Russia, which resulted in his dismissal after less than a year in office. Despite Trump's repeated calls for cooperation with Russia, McMaster accused the government of failing to respond adequately to Russia's "traditional and new forms of aggression" in public statements following his dismissal from the White House (Böller and Herr 2019). The issue is an indication that the Presidents find it challenging that their decisions at some points are challenged by strong NSC officials especially the advisors and this is a feeling that makes the NSC structured regularly. There are many presidents that came to power and restructured the NSC, and an example is Obama that combined it with Homeland security and other agencies in order to work collaboratively and avoid disagreements.

Bibliography

Böller, Florian, and Lukas D. Herr. "From Washington Without Love: Congressional Foreign Policy Making And US-Russian Relations Under President Trump". Contemporary Politics 26, no. 1 (2019): 17-37. doi:10.1080/13569775.2019.1617655.

Harrington, Kent. "Commentary: The Biggest Challenge For The National Security Council Isn’T North Korea Or Russia. It’S Trump.". U.S., Last modified 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-national-security-council-commentary-idUSKBN1711ZN.

Jotzo, Frank, Joanna Depledge, and Harald Winkler. "US And International Climate Policy Under President Trump". Climate Policy 18, no. 7 (2018): 813-817. doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1490051.

Menshikova, Anna. "Priorities Of Foreign-Economic D. Trump&Apos;S Policy: Stated Goals And Reached Results". Russia And America In The 21St Century, 2019, 0. doi:10.18254/s207054760005323-2.

Roele, Isobel mname. "Security Council Working Methods: Working Together For Collective Security". SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3097166.

Viveash, David. "Has President Trump Killed The Middle East Peace Process?". Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 27, no. 1 (2020): 49-61. doi:10.1080/11926422.2020.1842219.

2