The United States has undoubtedly shaped its national security policies on issues presented in the global stage. Global factors are commonly examined to determine how U.S. national security policies are affected. By themselves, these factors are inadequate in explaining the direction that these multifaceted national security policies will take. Determining the direction of United States’ national security policies involves not only global factors, but domestic factors as well. This paper will examine the effects domestic factors have on the shaping of national security policies. First, it will use various arguments from a select number of previous literature to examine how domestic institutional structures, public opinion, budget politics, and leadership traits play a role in these policies. Next, it will use these arguments to in the context of American politics by presenting several examples found domestically. Lastly, this paper will examine these domestic factors to illustrate how it has misaligned U.S. security policy from actual security threats.
The contours of the American government plays a large role in determining national security policy. Bueno de Mesquita and Smith (2012) discusses domestic international structures as the spectrum between inclusivity and exclusivity of governance and the extent to which the government is held accountable and transparent or personalist and opaque. They argue that these two structures determine the extent to which national security policy can be swayed. Governments that are more accountable to its constituency would be more cognizant of the direction its national security policies take.
Powell’s (1993) guns-and-butter model reflects the degree to which public opinion has an effe...
... middle of paper ...
..." Political Psychology 25 (3): 441-463.
Haney, Patrick J. 2005. "Foreign-Policy Advising: Models and Mysteries from the Bush Administration." Presidential Studies Quarterly 35 (2): 289-301.
Hildebrandt, Timothy, Courtney Hillebrecht, Peter M. Holm, and Jon Pevehouse. 2013. "The Domestic Politics of Humanitarian Intervention: Public Opinion, Partisanship, and Ideology." Foreign Policy Analsys 243-66.
Powell, Richard. 1993. "Guns, Butter, and Anarchy." American Political Science Review 87 (1): 115-32.
Sullivan, Patricia L., Brock F. Tessman, and Xiaojun Li. 2011. "US Military Aid and Recipient State Cooperation." Foreign Policy Analysis 7: 275-94.
Taydas, Zeynep, Cigdem Kentmen, and Laura R. Olson. 2012. "Faith Matters: Religious Affiliation and Public Opinion About Barack Obama's Foreign Policy and the "Greater" Middle East." Social Science Quarterly 93 (5): 1218-42.
Bose, M.. (1998). Shaping and Signaling Presidential policy; the National Security Decision Making of Eisenhower and Kennedy. College Station: Texas A&M University Press
The 65-year evolution of the National Security Advisor (NSA) and the National Security Council (NSC) staff into an influential shaper of US foreign policy reflects an acceptance by successive iterations of national leadership that America’s place in the world necessitates a small, yet decisive body capable of producing viable options to deal with a complex world. Although its prominence has ebbed and flowed from administration to administration (and even within individual terms of office), the overall assessment remains that the NSC staff, and by extent the NSA, stand as “attractive tool[s]” for presidential political and policy maneuverings. Their importance is also rooted in historical reasons as well.
Barnet, Richard J. “The Ideology of the National Security State”. The Massachusetts Review, Vol. 26, No. 4. 1985, pp. 483-500
...al religious journey provides a powerful narrative to support his ideas, and explains some of his beliefs regarding the role of religion in politics, such as the idea that religion can provide unique solutions to difficult problems. However, his failure to approach the public role of religion with the same uncompromising commitment as his personal beliefs leads to contradiction, which raises doubts concerning the effectiveness of his approach of compromise and calls into question the strength of his beliefs as a Christian. Furthermore, a closer examination of Obama's vision unveils the fundamental uncompromising nature of Obama's religion, which is incompatible with his idea of a pluralistic democracy. Because of these contradictions, Obama's vision of a democracy in which religion and politics are connected and function effectively together is ultimately impossible
Cross-agency cliques: Much has been written about the role of the founding members of the Project for a New American Century, the Center for Security Policy, and the American Enterprise Institute and their new positions in the Bush administration. Certainly, appointees sharing particular viewpoints are expected to congregate, and that an overwhelming number of these appointees have such organizational ties is neither conspiratorial nor unusual. What is unusual is the way this network operates solely with its membership across the various agencies - in particular the State Department, the National Security Council, and the Office of the Vice President.
When the constitution of the United States was formed, the framers specifically designed the American Government structure to have checks and balances and democracy. To avoid autocracy the President was give power to preside over the executive branch of the government and as commander –in –chief, in which a clause was put into place to give the president the power to appeal any sudden attacks against America, without waiting for a vote from congress. While the president presides over the executive branch there has been ongoing debate over the role of the president in regards to foreign policy. Should foreign policy issues be an executive function by the president or should congress play a much greater role? With the sluggishness of our democracy, foreign policy issues most times need quicker response compared to how domestic policy is decided in the United States. Many believe to maintain openness and democracy both the president and congress need to agree on how the United States handles issue abroad. Although the president has been given much power, his or her power and decisions are sometimes limited based on decisions by congress and challenged and shaped by various bureaucracies throughout the government system. I shall discuss the Presidents role and the role of governmental bureaucracies (Department of Defense, Department of State and the National Security Council) that work together and sometimes not together to shape and implement American foreign Policy.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: a Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-14002-1.
In view of Guantanamo Bay, the existing population stands low. However, still open are the special military courts and camp. The Obama administration continues to retain broad programs on National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance, as well as formulating only modest reforms. On the same, the justice system shows great focus on cracking down on leakers of government secrets, while it clearly guards against court reviews of these secrets. For instance, the current administration has placed a ban on harsh interrogation, similarly to Bush administration. Conversely, the Obama administration under the arm of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) upheld the increase on drone strikes. Savage explores the process of policy continuation, with a broader insight into the underlying causes. The practical approach by the Obama administration on addressing threats, and resistance from congress and the Republican sides becomes unclear as pertains to the reasons for the current misunderstanding on policy formulations. A clear fact remains: both parties play a major role in the emergent policy frameworks under Obama administration. The current American government has created a philosophical strategy to reform that show sustenance of a variety of controversial decisions from past administrations,
Nojeim, Michael, and David Killroy. Days of Decision:Turning Points in US Foreign Policy. N.p.: Potomac Books, 2011. Print.
Should the government decrease military spending or should it increase military spending? This is a question that many Americans wrestle with, and politically speaking, is a point of great contention since to many, military might evokes a sense of security. However, when considering this question from a foreign policy standpoint, does current military spending really match the current level of threats faced by the United States, or are too many dollars being allocated for an unnecessary level of military strength? There are certainly cons in making the decision to drastically lower military spending, but they are minimal when compared to the positive ramifications such a decision would have. This paper aims to explore these pros and cons
Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security. Cambridge: President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. 71-81. Print.
Without understanding the importance of foreign relations the American people’s way of life could be at stake. Not only could the economic strength of the U.S. diminish, but the military might of the U.S. could also be compromised. Mead argues that without the centrality of foreign policy being evident in American politics the happiness of the world is at risk. “Since the United States has become the central power in a worldwide system of finance, communications, and trade, it is not only the American people whose happiness and security will be greatly affected by the quality of American foreign policy in coming years (Mead 176). I contend that without a strong emphasis on foreign policy, we could begin to see the end of American
Balaam, David. Introduction to International Political Economy, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Education, 2005.
Endicott, John E.; Johnson, Loch K.; Papp, Daniel S. (2005) American foreign policy: history, politics and policy. N.Y.: Pearson.
Sobel, R. (2001). "The Impact of Public Opinion on U.S foreign Policy since Vietnam." Oxford University Press.