National Security Advisor in the US

National security advisors deal with sensitive issues. They work in the dark, out of the public eye. We don’t know their names and we haven’t seen their faces either. Who they are and what they do is what we’re going to see right here, right now.

Introduction

Today, I want to speak to you about national security advisors. We know they exist because all US Presidents have this staff to deal with security issues. However, their activities are under secret, and they are anonymous individuals for the public. Besides, their position makes them develop critical functions for the working of the government, and the survival of the State.

So, on this occasion, I want to discuss several aspects of these officials. First, what they do. That makes necessary some clarifications about their functions in the national security complex. Although I spoke recently about the National Security Council, I want to go over some aspects that will help grasp of what they do. Furthermore, I’ll address the mindset of this power elite. It’s essential to know how they see the world and what logic they apply to their activities. All of this makes sense when we put it in a broader context and see how the policymaking process works in the realm of national security.

What is the realm of these advisors? It’s national security. This field involves sensitive issues for the nation, and we usually call it high politics. National security has to do with the national interest, and it’s something I spoke on another occasion. I don’t want to go into it here again.

Before moving on, it’s essential to make some clarifications. The first one is about the concept I’m discussing here. The national security advisor is a specific post in the federal government. The official name is the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. However, when we talk about national security advisors, we also may refer to the members of staff that are part of the National Security Council or take part in the policymaking process. I think it’s necessary to say something about the post, but I’m going to devote more time to the staff and their activities.

The National Security Advisor

This officer is a personal aide to the President. For this reason, they must enjoy the President’s full trust and confidence because they support him in the management of national security affairs. In general, this officer develops the donkey work in coordinating agencies and the high-rank national security complex staff. In this way, this person facilitates the President addressing those matters that agencies and officials bring to him for his consideration.

To fulfill this task, he ensures that issues are clearly presented to the President. That involves putting forward all reasonable options, together with an analysis of their drawbacks and risks for the President’s attention. In addition to this, this official provides advice unalloyed by institutional responsibilities and biases. Unlike other high-rank officials who are responsible for substantial organizations, the President is this advisor’s only constituency.

In case of a crisis, this advisor assumes a special role to face the rapid pace of developments in these situations. It includes a more active role of advising the President on the implications for the national security of unfolding events. In this regard, he also provides a quick and coordinated action under Presidential control, and in communicating Presidential directives to the departments and agencies of the executive branch.

In a normal situation, this advisor oversees the actions of the executive departments in the implementation of national security policies. Moreover, he questions whether these actions are consistent with Presidential decisions. He also keeps the President informed about international events and developments in Congress and the executive branch that affect the national security policies and priorities.

Depending on the President’s preferences for managing national security affairs, the role of this advisor changes from administration to administration. Aside from that, the primary duties of this official are the coordination of several high-rank officers and assisting the President in the decision-making process. Moreover, he advances the President’s national security policy agenda and oversees the effective operation of the interagency system.

This advisor works as a filter for President insofar as he brings to him only those issues that require his level of involvement. This is a delicate management problem to not usurp the President’s authority on lower level matters, while, at the same time, not consume his limited time on issues that others have been delegated the authority to decide. The national security advisor has more factual powers than many people imagine. Insofar as the President depends on his work, his capacity to influence the policymaking process is critical. In this respect, this official manages the demands of visiting dignitaries and modern telecommunications that allow foreign governments, US ambassadors, military commanders, and other officials throughout the world to communicate directly with the White House. So, he is a gatekeeper by determining who has access to the President to discuss national security matters.

Despite his importance in the national security realm, this officer doesn’t work alone and has to deal with a broad range of different high-rank officials and numerous foreign leaders and ministers. I mean that he is part of a team. As such, he has the function of managing a series of complex interrelationships inside the national security complex. In this way, his mission is to articulate and coordinate different views and interests by promoting cooperation rather than competition in the welfare of the national interest. So, he has to deal with the interrelationships between principals of the departments and agencies involved in national security matters, substantive experts in the bureaucracy, and so on, to facilitate the policymaking process. That leads us to the next point, the broader national security community, its staff, and activities.

The national security staff

The national security staff constitutes the driving force of the national security complex. Here, I’m going to discuss what and how they work. After that, I’ll address the mindset of this sort of officials to understand the way they see the world.

The development of the federal government since 1947, when the National Security Act came to force, has transformed the amount and type of individuals that are part of the national security complex. In general, we’re talking about the principals of different agencies and departments. Some of them are part of the National Security Council by statutory. Others are regular attendees or are part of the council by the appointment of the President.

Aside from these particularities, their members play a key role in policy development and recommendations due to their direct relationship with the President. Historical events also can limit or expand the roles taken on by the national security staff. In a crisis, the staff increases its involvement in policymaking up to the point of leading it. That happened with the 9/11 attacks or the US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What does the national security staff do? They develop a series of functions aimed to coordinate the interagency activities in this realm, as well as to articulate the national security policy by assisting and supporting the President. Usually, they operate as liaison with foreign governments, and coordinate summit meetings and overseas travel by the President. Besides, they support the President during telephone conversations with foreign leaders, and also in crisis management. So, you already know there is always someone else listening to the President’s phone conversations.

In sum, the priority of this personnel is the development of coordinated interagency strategic national security policy. How do they work? This is more complicated to explain because we face two problems. On the one hand, legal limitations related to each department and the agencies’ responsibilities. On the other hand, the need for coordinating the national security policymaking across the branches of the executive. Insofar as departmental quarrels may affect the ability to develop coordinated policy, the staff can take on operational roles. That involves carrying out activities under secrecy, and without noticing other departments and agencies, as well as cabinet officials who have to inform the Congress.

We can’t deny that depending on each President’s style and preferences, the role of the national security members of staff may change. When Presidents are willing to delegate authority for managing specific issues to the national security advisor, it might result, as it happened in the past, that the staff assumes broader responsibility both for policy planning and execution. Indeed, this scenario ends up being more usual if we pay attention to the way the staff works. I refer to the principals and deputies committees and how they run the policy process.

The Principals Committee acts as the President’s senior-level policy review and coordination group. This committee is the same as the National Security Council without the President and Vice President. Its mission is to ensure policy decisions brought to the President reflect a consensus within the departments and agencies. In this way, the President receives a series of policy recommendations for his consideration. At the same time, it saves the President’s time, who doesn’t have to coordinate departments’ proposals. So, the President focuses on those issues on which departments and agencies couldn’t reach a consensus.

The Deputies Committee reviews Interagency Policy Committees’ recommendations and deliberates issues on which these interagency committees couldn’t reach a consensus. It also decides what matters should be forwarded to the Principals Committee. These issues include a range of policy options, any consensus policy recommendations made at the Deputies Committee and Interagency Policy Committees level, and identification of policy issues on which there is no interagency consensus at these levels. So, there is a flow of paperwork and meetings inside this bureaucracy. It looks for solving disagreements on specific matters and conducts the whole national security policy by forwarding recommendations at top-level officials that shape big decisions.

Interagency Policy Committees (IPC) focus on planning at the political and strategic level. They develop the donkey work in analyzing policy issues and developing policy options and recommendations that provide policy-makers with flexibility and a range of options that are politically acceptable and minimize the risk of failure. Their work contributes to reducing the complexity of policy decisions. They carry out this task by cooperating between agencies, and it reflects on an informal policy consensus across these institutions in dealing with routine matters.

After this process in which the work of bureaucracy is advanced, the President receives pre-cooked decisions for his final consideration. He lacks much autonomy at this point in the process, and he only has the authority to solve disagreements of the bureaucracy on specific issues.

So, what we see here is a bureaucracy that articulates through meetings, conversations, paperwork, and so on, to decide on critical issues. In that way, it has the flexibility to address crisis and to adjust the security policy to the national interest.

The national security culture

We have a general idea about what national security bureaucrats do. Now, we need to address their mindset.

These officials not only constitute the US national security network, but they sit at the pinnacle of the national security culture. They spent most of their professional lives immersed in bureaucratic matters, and writing reports, recommendations, and so on. When they reach the top levels of the national security complex, they end up signing reports, suggestions, and guidelines. They seldom appear on TV and seek neither celebrity nor wealth. High school class trips don’t visit their offices. When they’re awake at night, they think about the implications of the next security issues. They know success depends on being in the big meeting, reading the key memo, and, in brief, being part of the big decision. They draw little overt attention but wield immense and unnoticed power.

Members of the national security staff are not part of big decisions because of wealth, family connections, or an elite education. Indeed, most have no assured financial or social safety net to save them should they slip. They are in because they are smart, hard-working, and reliable, which means unlikely to embarrass their superiors. They also are efficient because they can move quickly. Besides, they are concise summarizers because they know their superiors have as little time as they do and need predigested ideas. They enjoyed technical superiority compared to other institutions that lack the same mobility and flexibility.

Despite paperwork and internal disagreements, this network isn’t made up of partisans. Its members are mostly rationalists. They appear at all costs sound, responsible, serious, and disinterested, never extreme or sentimental, never too far ahead of policy or too far behind it. They also are creative, but not too much, and never boringly predictable. Above all, they are never naïf.

Pragmatism guides their actions behind the scenes. They are like fish in the water out of the public eye. Secrecy is part of their routine, and they arrange everything to keep national security matters away from the spotlight. While actors on the political stage play their roles and come back and forth, these bureaucrats direct the scene from the backstage by writing the script and cueing every performer. That’s the magic of politics, in which a few people conduct the future of the whole nation by pulling strings in secret.

Question of the day

Question of the day! Well, forget it. Draw your own conclusions and post your opinion in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.

Bibliography used:

Strayer, Joseph, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State

Strayer, Joseph, Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives of History

Gilbert, Felix (ed.), The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze

Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European States: AD 990-1992

Mann, Michael, The Sources of Social Power

Poggi, Gianfranco, The Development of the Modern State

Anderson, M. S., The Origins of the Modern European State System 1494-1618

Spruyt, Hendrik, The Sovereign State and its Competitors

Le Goff, Jacques, La Baja Edad Media

Giddens, Anthony, The Nation-State and violence

Disclosure: Some of these links are affiliate links where I’ll earn a small commission if you make a purchase at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.