Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages To Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
NSC Structure Comparison
National Security Council (NSC) structure is imperative in advising and assisting the ruling president in making decisions on national and foreign security policies. The structures differ from one another as per the president’s preferences. This can be seen in the case of the structure during Trump’s administration and President Bush;s administration. Defense strategies, intelligence, and coordination are considered in the policymaking procedures carried out after analyses of expected and current threats. Recommendations presented by the advisory through the presidents are formed from the intelligence of various security committees. The paper will examine the National Security Council structures during Trump’s and Bush’s administrations’ similarities and differences. In addition, the strengths and weaknesses of each structure will be reviewed. The development of a proposed structure for the POTUS will also be included. Global Security Council structures are significant to evade crises and threats.
Similarities
Both structures in the countries depend on interagency systems. Intelligence obtained from the systems is combined, as reported by the committee heads and secretaries. The National Security Advisor appointed to lead the advisory board in coordinating and advising the president (Bell, 2019). In addition, the agencies have to cooperate and liaise with each other for clarity of intelligence, enabling the advisory process to be effective. Both leaders uphold consultations from the agency systems on National Security affairs. Even during crises, interagency coordination is highly considered in the policy development processes (Bell, 2019). For example, the defense secretary, homeland security, foreign secretary, Central Intelligence Agency, and Trade secretary have to be involved from the agencies and ministries. The president with other statutory attendees such as the secretary of defense, treasury, state, and vice president form the committee (Bolton, 2017). The committee serves as the right hand in the coordination of security policies in conjunction with other security agencies.
A National Security Advisor is appointed in the structures to provide expert advice. Additionally, the advisor is responsible for coordinating policies and initiatives among ministries and agencies (Hardley, 2016). This is imperative in enabling a sense of agency in the interagency processes, as advocated for by the executives. Intelligence obtained from the agencies plays a significant role in obtaining an understanding and support of policies presented to the security council and how the council heads will support the policies (Hardley, 2016). This is determined by the coordination of the agencies and ministries and their input when relaying information on policy matters. Emergency coordination bodies also are as enabled by the advisor during policies and resource allocation support from the executives in dealing with national threats. This increases the ability of the executive to make decisions and policies which observe unity and the high authority (Bolton, 2017).
Strategies in both security structures follow priorities, threats, resource allocation, and response on defence positions increasing the national preparedness. This is imperative in ensuring that both current and anticipated threats have developed contingency plans (Thomson & Blagden, 2018). Security reviews carried out not only improve on the policies already developed but also new policies that are coherent in improving the overall security policymaking process. This is because the decisions are made through joint assessment through oversight and intelligence from the agencies. Further, the strategies have a military balance in which security forces heads provide an overview of the strategies (Thomson & Blagden, 2018). This ensures that strategies consider senior military intelligence in the advisory committee influencing National Security Structures. Principals, policy coordination, and deputies committees review and monitor policies as attained from the interagency systems (Bell, 2019).
Both President Trump and Bush administration considered the separate roles of Homeland security and the National Security Council. With the NSC foreseeing international security threats and issues, the Homeland Security Council is concerned with the domestic threats and priorities as per the CSR report (2017). In addition, the NSC can integrate domestic and military policies on matters pertaining to international security. This led to changes in who has authority on both entities. In both administrations, the Assistant to the president in matters concerning national security has authority over the two entities according to the CSR report (2017).
Differences
A political advisor in Trump’s administration has been included in the structure as a regular and permanent attendee. This is in comparison with Bush’s administration in which a political strategist was a regular attendee (McInnis & Rollins, 2017). The political advisor has to regularly attend the council meetings and offer his advice on policies from a political point of view. This is especially imperative in policies and strategies regarding international security threats. The advisor also bears positive strategies in respect with the president being a chief strategist to the president (McInnis & Rollins, 2017). The changes also reduced the secretary of energy to become an irregular attendee to the council meetings. During Bush’s tenure, the secretary of energy was a statutory member of the council.
Trump’s NSC structure is observed to have increased congress input as compared to Bush’s structure during his presidency. For instance, the appropriation of subcommittees and staff personnel influences the operations micromanagement as per the CSR report (2017). The limited congress numbers of individuals in the policymaking processes have increased due to the separation of Homeland and National Security councils compared to Bush’s tenure. This has been due to the organization of the security staff from the executive office and other government agencies. This also has a consideration of the attendees and participants that the current structure approach that has been undertaken by President Trump. According to the CSR report (2017), the revised security organization changed the roles some of the directors had in order to remain as permanent attendees, such as the Director of National Intelligence.
Strengths
Trump’s structure has been able to address and appreciate its American Dream strengths. This has been through the implementation, alignment, and coordination of defense policies for military strategy, competition, and economic advancement (Strange, 2018). This is significant to the nation for both domestic and international growth through the political advisor’s advice. Assessment of the council objectives, commitments, and risks concerning policies ensures that the president makes decisions that carry out government policies. Also, the structure boasts of containment of threat and crisis capabilities through cooperation and intelligence operations (Strange, 2018). This articulates the responsibilities of the executive branch of the government to been performed with effectiveness as expected by the public.
Both Trump’s and Bush’s structures have integrated the Homeland Security Council and the National Security Council as separate entities. This has enabled the effectiveness of security functions and coordination (McInnis & Rollins, 2017). With Homeland Security increasing its focus on internal domestic security defense, the National Security Council focuses more on international and transnational security issues. This subjected the councils to obtain concrete intelligence on the threats increasing the effectiveness of the policies. This has created a balance on policies held in addressing inconsistencies with the increased risk of terror activities.
Weaknesses
Weaknesses seen in Trump’s structure are the increased inability to consider the advice of the council. This can be due to the inclusion of the political advisor to the committee. The political advisor may have limited expertise in global security affairs, which in turn influences the council’s advice to the president during policymaking decisions (Montanaro, 2017). This creates loopholes when political agendas are prioritized as compared to the prioritization of domestic and foreign security threats. This can limit the professionalism that the administration takes when employing expert advice on national matters.
During Bush’s administration, a weakness could be seen in integrating statutory advisors to the council to attend the principals meetings. This could impact the decision-making processes in cases where responsibilities and expertise opinions differed in discussions (McInnis & Rollins, 2017). The current administration changed the roles and participation of some regular members in the security meetings. This would ensure that end decisions and policies were in respect to the chair of the joint chiefs of staff. Also, Bush’s administration’s weakness in the intentions of the security meetings participations could influence the advice given to the head of the state.
POTUS Proposed structure
A proposal on the removal of the political advisor from the current National Security would be applicable. This would reduce the notion that the political agenda of the president is higher as compared to security of the nation. The political advisor’s role could instead be taken by the Director of Intelligence becoming a permanent participant of the principals committee. The current changes in the structure could also involve the secretary of energy. This is because the secretary plays a huge role in the production of military power through energy. Nuclear weapons production and distribution, for instance, require the input of the secretary to ensure safety and deterrence during use. In addition, the secretary would offer oversight on the governance of nuclear energy towards combating security threats and the impact it can have on domestic threats.
Conclusion
National Security Council structures are as designed and modeled by the current ruling presidents as per their preferences. Trump’s and Bush’s presidency tenure are articulated to have a lot of similarities as compared to differences. For instance, both presidents chose to treat Homeland Security and the National Security Councils as different entities. This increased focus on intelligence regarding policies on domestic and foreign threats, respectively. Major differences are observed on the organization and the inclusion of council participants. The inclusion of a political advisor during Trump’s administration increases the notion prioritization of political agendas as compared to national security and defense. This has created a huge controversy on the strengths of the adopted structure. Despite this, both Bush and Trump tenures have facilitated national security policies to meet the purpose of the nation. The protection and safety of the citizens have been held within the structures as per the statutory foundations. This has ensured consistency in facing significant challenges and threats in the past and in the future, from domestic and foreign domains.
References
Bell, M. (2019). DoD in the interagency system. Preparing senior staff officers for joint strategic assignments.
Bolton, L. (2017). National Security Office responsibilities and functions. Institute of development studies.
Hadley, J. (2016). The role and importance of the National Security Advisor. Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs. http://defense360.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Scowcroft-Paper-1_Hadley_The-Rolland-Importance-of-the-NSA.pdf
McInnis, K. & Rollins, J. (2017). Trump Administration changes to the National Security Council: frequently asked questions. CSR insight. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IN10640.pdf
Montanaro, D. (2017). Spin aside, Trump’s National Security Council has a very big change. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2017/01/30/512489785/fact-check-spin-aside-trumps-national-security-council-has-a-very-big-change
Strange, L. (2018). The National Security Council: A tool for decision. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-national-security-council-a-tool-for-decision/
The CSR report. (2017). The National Security Council: Background and issues for congress. Retrieved from https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44828.html
Thomson, c. & Blagden, D. (2018). A very British National Security state: Formal and informal institutiona in the design of UK security policy. The British journal of politics and international relations 20(3).
There appears to be unnecessary extra line spacing above this paragraph. APA formatting requires paragraphs to be double-spaced with no extra line spacing between paragraphs or before or after headings, and indented 0.5.” Using MS Word’s “Home” “Paragraph” makes formatting easier. Change the spacing before and after to “0” (APA 2.21). Apply throughout.
Resource: APA Format Quick Guide
Apostrophes should be used for the possessive form (“Jacob’s use of apostrophes is correct”), with few exceptions. It is incorrect to use the singular form to indicate possession (“Jacob use of singular is incorrect”). Apply throughout.
Resource: Apostrophe Use
Your sentence here may be difficult for your reader to follow in its current form. Careful word choice and proper punctuation can help to increase your reader’s understanding of the points you’re trying to convey.
Wordiness. It seems that you may have used more words here than necessary to make your point. Graduate level writing is to be clear and concise. Consider revising.
Please see the helpful resource on the OWC website at: https://www.liberty.edu/casas/academic-success-center/wp-content/uploads/sites/28/2019/04/On_Writing_Concisely.pdf
When referencing an online pdf file, the general format is: Author’s last name, Author’s first and middle initials. (Publication year). Title of pdf. Retrieved from URL.
For example: Goodwin, A.C. (2005) (APA 10.4). Reevaluation of short-term recognition studies. http://ojs.lib.swin.edu/cognition.
Resource: Comprehensive APA 7 Reference List
When referencing a website, the general format is: Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year of publication). Title of webpage. Name of website. URL (APA 10.16). Apply throughout.
For example:
Harwood, W. (2020, May 17). Atlas 5 rocket launches Pentagon spaceplane on mission shrouded in secrecy. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/atlas-5-rocket-launches-pentagon-spaceplane-on-secrecy-shrouded-mission/
When a web page has no author, use name of the organization or agency as the author. For example:
American Psychological Association. (2000). Addictions among adolescents. http://apa.org/topics/addiction/index.aspx
Resource: Citing Webpages
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. The can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!