Project on National Security Reform Cites Need for Restructuring of U.S. National Security System
Download this News Release
Download the Preliminary Findings Report
Tuesday
July 29, 2008
WASHINGTON - The national security
system created by the U.S.
government in 1947 that served the nation throughout the Cold War is outdated
and needs a massive restructuring to better protect the American people from
terrorism, rogue states and other 21st century dangers, according to a study
issued today by the Project on National Security Reform (PNSR).
The Preliminary Findings Report – based on research and
analysis by more than 300 national security experts from think tanks,
universities, federal agencies, law firms and corporations – is a
congressionally mandated study that paints a portrait of a national security
system plagued by serious problems, despite reforms made since the Sept. 11,
2001 terrorist attacks.
The problems the report identifies in the national security
system include:
·
Frequent feuding and jurisdictional disputes
between cabinet secretaries and other agency heads that force the president to spend
too much time settling internal fights, waste time and money on duplicative and
inefficient actions, and slow down government responses to crises.
·
Too much focus by the president and his top
advisers on day-to-day crisis management rather than long-term planning,
allowing problems to escape presidential attention until they worsen and reach
the crisis level.
·
An increasing number of political appointees who
serve only briefly in top national security posts.
·
A budget oversight process in Congress focused
on individual agencies, crippling efforts to move quickly to fund emergency
operations by multiple agencies.
·
A Congress increasingly polarized along political
party lines on vital national security issues.
PNSR is funded by Congress, foundations and corporations to
carry out one of the most comprehensive studies of the U.S.
national security system in American history. It is located within the Center
for the Study of the Presidency, which is a nonpartisan and nonprofit
organization that was a cosponsor of the Iraq Study Group.
The project is directed by a 24-member Guiding Coalition
that includes former senior federal officials with extensive national security
experience. A complete list of Guiding Coalition members and the Preliminary
Findings Report can be found at www.pnsr.org
Guiding Coalition Member Thomas R. Pickering – who served as
under secretary of state, ambassador to the United Nations and in other top
posts in the State Department for decades – said the PNSR findings will be
valuable to whoever becomes the next president and to Congress.
“Our national security system is broken and needs fixing,” Pickering
said. “Agencies need to cooperate rather than compete with each other as they
work to protect the United States from a broad range of new dangers never
imagined when the National Security Act of 1947 was signed into law. This isn’t
a Democratic or a Republican issue, but a challenge facing our country that
must be met by America’s
leaders on a bipartisan basis.”
PNSR is scheduled to issue a Final Report in October recommending
actions by Congress and the next president. The project is expected to prepare
draft presidential directives and a new National Security Act to replace many
of the provisions of the one enacted 61 years ago.
“Our study deals with issues vital to the protection of
every American family,” said James R. Locher III, executive director of PNSR.
“How will America
respond to another major terrorist attack, even a nuclear one? How will we deal
with future natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina at home and conflicts
abroad? The way our national security system is structured plays an enormous
role in the answers to these questions.”
The PNSR report emphasizes the importance of approaching
national security challenges as multiple risks – such as the possibility of
nuclear or bioterrorism – that may never occur but need to be managed and minimized,
rather than as an overriding threat that can be eliminated.
This view forces the federal government to make hard choices
about how to best spend limited funds to protect the nation. It also encourages
agencies in the U.S.
government, state and local governments, the private sector and foreign governments to
work together to come up with long-term plans to anticipate and reduce risks.
David M. Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of
the Presidency, said: “We need a 21st century national security
system that will marshal all elements of our national power to shape rather
than just react, and anticipate as well as innovate in order to further our
national interests.”
A recurring theme in the report is the need to get the
disparate parts of the national security system to work together as a team,
rather than looking out for their own bureaucratic interests.
Too often, the president himself is forced to settle disputes
between cabinet secretaries, taking up his valuable time and preventing him
from engaging in the broader policymaking and leadership that should be his
central focus, according to the study.
One example of the problems federal agencies have working
with each other is their difficulty in sharing information.
Agencies label some information as “classified” and some as
“sensitive but unclassified” – keeping it out of the hands of other agencies.
Some agencies have computer systems that don’t talk to those at other agencies.
And some federal agencies don’t share enough information with state and local
governments, which can be a problem in an area such as working to prevent
terrorist attacks in the United States.
In addition to infighting within the Executive Branch,
national security is adversely affected by committees in Congress with
overlapping jurisdictions that oversee different parts of the national security
system, according to the PNSR report.
“Protection of turf and power occurs in the committees of
both houses of Congress,” the report says. “The process for multiple committee
consideration of multi-agency matters is difficult, confused, and inconsistent
between chambers.”
The report also finds that the federal government needs to
do more to develop the leadership abilities of civilian officials in the
national security system. While leadership development is emphasized in the
military, “civilian agencies involved in national security have traditionally
valued specialization and expertise over leadership and management skills.”
Part of the problem standing in the way of leadership
development for career federal employees is the increasing number of political
appointees getting high-level jobs in national security positions, the study
says. This makes it harder to recruit and retain career employees who aspire to
leadership roles, because they realize fewer top jobs are open to them.
The study points out that in today’s changing and
unpredictable world, the United States
needs a national security system that can rapidly adapt and reconfigure itself
to respond to new crises, such as the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or Hurricane
Katrina.
The State and Defense Departments, National Security
Council, intelligence community, Homeland Security Department and Homeland
Security Council are central players in the current national security system.
Other departments such as Energy, Treasury and Commerce have more recently
become important players as well. Additional agencies become part of the
national security system when specific issues arise.
|