Presidents and Their National Security Council

Under each presidency, there are changes made to the National Security Council (NSC) and sometimes even the structure of the National Security Community. The NSC has many responsibilities to list a few: It is in charge of coordinating security policy across federal agencies as well as managing the flow of information between the president and different departments. The NSC is reflective of each president’s personalities and comfort levels. An example of that is Eisenhower vs. Kennedy. President Eisenhower came to the Presidency after a long military career. He graduated from West Point in 1915 and served until his retirement from active service in 1952 as a 5-star general. His military career carried over to how he organized his National Security Council. According to the 2011, National Security Enterprise by Roger Geroge and Harvey Shishkoff President Eisenhower set up a 4 stage NCS system that was both structured and systematic but still allowed for vigorous discussion. Comparatively, President Kennedy entered his presidency with a much different background than President Eisenhower. President Kennedy wanted and had a much less formal NSC. Instead of a 4 stage approach to the NSC, President Kennedy favored private informal conversation with a variety of diverse staff. President Kennedy did not want his information to bound by bureaucratic protocol. Just like those before him, President Trump’s personality has played a large role in shaping his NSC. President Trump has had a non-traditional approach towards his time in the Oval Office and that has carried over to his NSC. What is especially unique about President Trump’s NSC is the number of people that have come and gone from it. President Trump is currently looking for his 4th National Security Advisor after John Bolton’s recent departure and 2017 saw the departure of the Senior Director for Africa, Senior Director for Middle East and North Africa, and Senior Director for intelligence programs, just to list a few. The National Security Council was created with the intention of creating stability and order; however, under the Trump administration, it has been more so a source of conflict. Hopefully, President Trump’s next National Security Advisor will be able to create a more stable National Security Council for the Trump administration.

Would Kennan Support Trump's Foreign Policy?

George Kennan was a realist who understood the limits of American power. He crafted his containment policy in the famous Long Telegram to keep ends proportionate with means, and therefore prescribed broad elements of national power to be applied to areas of key strategic interests. Kennan emphasized that all tools of foreign policy should be equally utilized to achieve the policy goals of the U.S.—not just military might.

In the present-day context, Trump has made some unconventional and sporadic foreign policy choices, however in many ways his approach falls in line with the strategic thinking of Kennan. In 1949, the debate concerned whether or not the U.S. should pursue a limited strategy that would ease Europe away from its dependence upon the U.S. while addressing Soviet assertiveness in the region, or to remain a strong presence in the region to ensure it would not fall to Soviet influence. In the end, military intervention and sustained influence won over, and this has remained the dominant policy approach until very recently.

While controversial, Trump’s foreign policy has taken an “America first” mentality that seeks to dissuade allies from using the U.S. as a cheaper alternative to forming their own security measures. Trump has stated he is tired of footing the bill abroad and wants the focus to be more domestic. This has meant threatening to decrease NATO funding, in addition to floating potential troop withdrawals from both Afghanistan and Syria. Trump has in many ways utilized fear to encourage allies to become more independent from the U.S.—something that Kennan also supported. Kennan believed the U.S. had a responsibility to help its allies get back on their feet for a period of time because it also benefited the U.S. to have strong allies–but with the condition that support would be withdrawn as quickly as possible.

While it is true that some aspects of Trump’s foreign policy mirror the recommendations of George Kennan, it must also be taken into account that the nature of the international community has changed significantly since the Cold War. The move toward globalization and the rapid spread of technology and information has meant more global involvement across the board—its no longer a tenable stance to be isolationist because it puts the U.S. at a distinct disadvantage. While there are still Kennan-esque arguments to be made concerning the degree to which the U.S. should focus on military intervention, it would be irresponsible to continue Trump’s “America first” foreign policy approach.

Is the Military-Industrial Complex Unpatriotic?

Originalists would say yes. In Washington’s farewell address, he cautioned against many dangers to the new country, specifically listing “overgrown military establishments” as a threat to liberty. This cautionary parting was not heeded for long, as the United States became a global power and had to increase our readiness to respond to events in our corner of the world. That corner kept expanding, however, and so did the role of the military and its connection to American industry. Eisenhower, centuries later, acknowledged the necessity of the military-industrial complex to keep up with the demand of the U.S. as a global superpower but reiterated Washington’s concern that extensive military influence on policy and commerce decisions would undermine democratic values and individual liberties, both at home and abroad. He accurately predicted the unending and evolving global ideological threats that the U.S. would face, but held fast that the ultimate goals of U.S. foreign policy should be peace and “human betterment.” This sort of policy double-think, where the military-industrial complex is seen as the most essential tool to achieving world peace, has grown in its influence on U.S. leadership and national security policy-making. The paranoia and pervasive focus on containment during the Cold War conflated the issues of liberty and human betterment with security. And while the Cold War ended almost twenty years ago, the impact of that intertwining of previously competing interests has had a lasting impact on foreign policy and national security. Newer strategic goals reject Washington’s preferred isolationist stance in favor of interventionism. This interventionist strategy has fallen into the trap Eisenhower also warned us of, where our arrogance and lack of preparedness for certain threats hurt us more than the actual enemy. While no one can dispute that the world we live in today is radically different from the world of our founding fathers, it would be a good exercise for evaluating current national security strategy to examine policy and goals through the lens of the originalists. Washington did not make any concerted effort to predict the future or lay down inviolable rules for strategy, but instead hoped that his remarks, “...may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism…”