Strategy formulation within the United States is a difficult and messy process that can differ substantially from administration to administration. The president’s flexibility within the National Security Council system enables frequent changes to its process and influence as the nation’s primary strategy-making device. This variance, in turn, makes it difficult to ensure long-term, inter-administration strategic consistency. Furthermore, even within individual administrations, strategy is not the result of a monolithic policy machine, but of multiple sub-optimized positions informed by a variety of security perspectives and moderated by organizational equities.
The United States National Security Council Needs an Information Warfare Directorate
President Eisenhower believed the National Security Council was the right coordinating body for senior United States policy and military officials to discuss and generate the most practical solutions to America’s most pressing security issues—independent of the department or agency they represent. Given today’s complex operating environment, what is required is an inclusive information warfare directorate, led by the National Security Council that identifies the appropriate means to protect the United States public and allies in an increasingly chaotic and dangerous era.
#Reviewing "The Strategist"
Sparrow’s account of Scowcroft is full of insight and surprises. Readers will take pleasure in Sparrow’s depiction of the NSC debates, executive-level relationships, and the nuanced recollections of a consummate strategist. Anyone interested in understanding the unique role of the NSC in foreign policy and executive-level decision-making during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or first Bush administrations will be interested Sparrow’s work. This book also has practical use for journalists, political scientists, as well as students of U.S. security strategy, foreign policy, and American government.