Lesson 2 notes

.docx

School

Air University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

ISS601

Subject

Political Science

Date

Jun 6, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

15

Uploaded by TAMMYNEFFRN

Growing competition and a long list of potential flashpoints among the great powers are placing greater demands on the United States national security apparatus. If the United States is to respond appropriately, it must accurately analyze the strategic environment and feasibly balance a variety of military and non-military forms of "security." This is the realm of national security and the topic of this lesson. Using a top-down methodology, you will explore how the United States develops responses to national security threats. This means the consideration of interests, policies, and strategies; their formation, articulation, and relationship to each other. Next, you will review how strategies are executed in terms of power (diplomatic, informational, military, economic), and consider how various governmental agencies might be involved in whole-of-government responses to national security challenges. Finally, you will examine the roles of national security guidance documents and the national security council in matters of national security. This lesson's thorough examination of America's national security apparatus and its influence on the global stage will equip you to understand and analyze matters of great power competition. THINKING ABOUT INTERESTS, POLICIES, AND STRATEGIES The United States has to consider various interests, policies, and strategies when facing security challenges. In most cases, there are many viable response options, making a comprehensive understanding of these elements essential to sound decision-making. Taken together, they provide critical information regarding potential applications of the instruments of power, interagency actions, and the development of strategic-level guidance. What Are Interests, Policies, and Strategies? Interests, policies, and strategies form the backbone of comprehensive approaches to security challenges. While each of these terms has generic meanings that can easily overlap in purpose,
they have very specific definitions and relationships in the context of national security policy development. Understanding what they are is the first step in verifying their importance. In the context of national security and international relations, the terms interests, policies, and strategies, have specific and related meanings. Interests   are desired end-states. They provide political entities with goals and a structured hierarchy to guide and prioritize their actions. Policies   are the expressions of national interests . They delineate what must be accomplished to support national interests, and they are codified through statements, guidelines, and procedures. Strategies are holistic approaches to the use of national power to achieve national policies. Consisting of ends, ways, means, and risk, they must carefully account for policy (and other higher-level guidance), as well as the expected domestic and international environments. The triad of interests, policies, and strategies is a cornerstone of national security. Together, these elements ultimately guide whether, or how, the instruments of national power might be applied. Interests serve the critical function of helping decision-makers determine if a national security challenge is important enough to act upon. Policies, ranging from domestic to international in scope, provide documented guidance, at times enforceable by law or regulation, that helps inform strategy development. Strategies, while often complex and resource-demanding, are indispensable national security elements, as they provide comprehensive approaches to contentious security situations. INTERESTS National interests are essential to any national security conversation. At a fundamental level, they provide a hierarchical value system for the United States to gauge its investments in national security issues. In this value system, an interest's importance positively correlates with the degree of response to a security issue. That is, as the importance of an interest increases, so does the likelihood that America's national   security apparatus   will invest resources to promote or defend that interest. At a more advanced level, interests help guide the development of subsequent policies and strategies. Following the end of the Cold War and disintegration of the USSR in 1991, developing effective interest-based responses to national security issues became more difficult. Prior to this, the United States had maintained an overwhelming focus on containing the Soviet Union and stopping the spread of communism. After the Cold War, responses to national security issues required careful consideration of myriad regions, actors, and issues. The key to navigating these competing and overlapping considerations fell on the act of identifying carefully defined national
interests. In 1999, to promote this effort, the   Commission on America's National Interests   emphasized a hierarchical system of interests based on both traditional interests and American values. Together, these expressions of what the United States values have supported decision-makers in developing the most effective interest-based responses to national security issues. Since the 1999 Commission, the concept of hierarchical national interests has taken root across government agencies. While there are variations from the model presented above, the foundational concepts established in this approach provide a valuable way to conceptualize interests and their relationship to United States security responses. POLICIES Clearly prioritized national interests enable decision-makers to generate appropriate domestic and foreign policies. While these two categories of policy are distinct in name, they are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they intersect in a variety of consequential ways. Having acknowledged this, the focus of this lesson is on national security, so the information presented is primarily directed toward foreign policy. Additionally, while the term "policy" is often conflated with concepts of  strategy  and/or  law , it has precise intent in the context of national security. National security policies address strategic-level concerns and reflect government-wide assessments of national security issues. Developing policy involves an assortment of participating government agencies that provide varied expertise across defense, foreign, economic, and other skillsets. National security policy is a framework  for describing how a government provides security for both the state and its citizens. Traditionally, the national security policy of a state appears as a single integrated document. According to the Geneva Centre for Democratic Control of Armed Forces, there are five necessary topic areas for a national security policy: Threat analysis . A thorough analysis of all threats, both internal and external. Unity . Unify and harmonize the various levels of security actors (national, state, and local security actors). Process with guidance . A centralized process with policy guidance to optimize resources and avoid redundancy and deficiency.
Broad ownership . Broad ownership of security policy uniting professional, departmental, and party factions into a unified framework. Coherence and transparency . Provide a coherent and transparent policy that may be easily understood by international partners and organizations. A published national security policy often eases the anxiety of neighboring states and fosters understanding and cooperation.   Policy, especially a national security policy, is a complex and important element of national security. As you will see in the following pages of this lesson, it is carried out, or implemented, through a variety of strategies. What Are the Characteristics of Policy? According to Ali Ibrahim Jili'ow, in his 2017 paper " Policy, Difference between Policy and Procedure, Types of Policy, Characteristics of Policy, Policy Analysis Approaches, Stages of Policy Cycle & Policy Making Process, " national security policies, in a general sense, exhibit certain characteristics: are clear, simple statements of how an organization intends to conduct actions and achieve objectives;       provide a set of guiding principles to help aid in decision-making while also providing the ways in which objectives will be achieved;       include guidelines, rules, and procedures as supporting efforts in the achievement of objectives;       may be viewed as "statements of intent" or "commitments"       STRATEGIES Strategy, in its simplest terms, is a proactive effort to achieve the objectives of policy. At its core, it is about achieving future results, and It does this by providing a framework to promote effective decision-making.  Joint Doctrine Note (JDN) 2-19   provides a working definition for the term "strategy:" The objective of strategy, in the modern sense, is to serve policy – the positions of governments and others cooperating, competing, or waging war in a complex environment. National policy articulates national objectives. National policy is broad guidance statements adopted by national governments in pursuit of national
objectives. The ultimate goal of strategy is to achieve policy objectives by maintaining or modifying elements of the strategic environment to serve those interests.   (JDN 2- 19, 2019) While the concept of strategy, especially at the national level, is incredibly complex, at its core strategy is about determining what needs to be accomplished, developing the methods for accomplishing it, and identifying the resources that will be required. JDN 2- 19 stresses that a strategy must answer four questions: Credit: "Defining Military Strategy = E + W + M" 1) What are the desired   ends ? 2) What are the   ways   to get there? 3) What are the   means   or resources available? 4) What are the   risks   associated with the strategy? In addition to answering these fundamental questions, a strategy must also weigh the strategic environment , which includes elements such as geography, relationship of political entities, interests, and resources. Furthermore, a strategy must balance norms (international and/or domestic) and remain within the constraints levied by higher authorities. Finally, perhaps the most significant requisite is fluidity . A slew of unanticipated external factors may change during a strategy's execution, requiring subsequent revisions. Why Have a National Security Strategy?
Having a prime national security strategy document may seem like a given. However, many states have no such coalescing document or approach to national security. This begs the question: What is the point of having a formal document titled,  National Security Strategy of the United States of America? The United States Department of Defense arranges strategies in a hierarchy, with each lower level adding constraints. At the pinnacle, United States grand strategy is framed in the National Security Strategy. Next is the guidance of the National Defense Strategy (NDS), followed by the National Military Strategy (NMS), Combatant Command Strategies, and Institutional (military service) Strategies. These strategies are directed toward the United States Armed Forces. The United States government is larger than the Department of Defense, and every governmental agency—as well as each special interest area—has their own strategy, directed toward its area of responsibility. Strategic guidance is addressed in greater detail later in the lesson. For now, recall that the purpose of strategy is to achieve policy objectives; like other elements of statecraft, they are arranged in a hierarchical system; and they must be dynamic and flexible. INSTRUMENTS OF POWER MODELS Interests, policies, and strategies are leveraged by the instruments of power (IOP)—the nation's diplomatic, informational, military, and economic resources. The IOP are how the United States responds to national security challenges. Often, executing these responses involves the use of various instruments of power. For example, the diplomatic arm may apply a policy to mitigate a security threat, while the military arm is simultaneously formulating a plan. IOP can be categorized in different ways, including according to the DIME, DIMEFIL, and MIDFIELD models.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help