Friday, December 12, 2008

Restructuring the National Security Process Further ...

I've jotted down in two recent essays in NI online my thoughts on how the incoming administration might want to redistribute responsibilities around the cabinet and presidential staff less in terms of formal job descriptions and more in terms of expertise and who they best "liaison with" in the international and domestic political systems. I think, for instance, that the energy czar needs to have both ends of the climate change account--domestic and international. You can't have U.S. politicians at international events making statements while other politicians are devising regulations at home and expect synergy.

Perhaps another heretical thought--making presidential envoys responsible to the president and either the National Security Council or what PNSR has proposed in its report, a presidential security council? And finding a way to better align the State Department and DOD's combatant commands would be useful too--perhaps each COCOM has a liaison to the Security Council (not someone who votes, but is the link)?

Just some thoughts for the day.

I think your thoughts are indicative of the symptoms of a systemic maladay in USG.

Over the last 30 years we have add ad-hoc creations such as Drug Czar, Intelligence Czar, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Homeland Security, (Special) Presidential Envoy etc.

Now you are suggesting a PNSR as well an NSC.

I think this approach is fundamentally wrong since it, just like the Congress's creation of DoHS, only adds bureaucratic layers to an already problematic govbernment structure.

I think it will be a good idea to follow in Truman's footsetps and seriously investigate reorganizing US government structures.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?