Introduction
The U.S. national security strategy can only be viewed from two perspectives, the international strategic environment and the domestic political environment. The international strategic environment particularly identifies threats to U.S interests and exploitable opportunities that will enable the U.S achieve its interests.1
The domestic political environment consists of the US democratic institutions and other domestic political contexts such as the media, interest groups and the public opinion. The national security planning is mainly the responsibility of the executive branch under the chairmanship of the president, The National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The defense of the nation still requires a well planed policy and collaboration between the president and congress. As much as the planning process has improved in recent years, still further reforms are required to clear out issues on national security planning and budgeting, relating military operation with available resources and stabilizing the military budgets process.2
This paper discuses the division of labor between the president and congress in formulation and conduct of U.S national security policy, looking into the current balance of power between the two branches and how the power has shifted since 9/11.
Division of labor between the president and congress in the formulation and conduct of U.S. national security policy
The constitutional framework as regards to national security process balances out power across the two institutions. The legislative and executives are envisioned as two coequal institutions. Each has been empowered equally to prevent any of the branches dominating over the other.
These constitutional foundations are what empower the president and congress. These two key democratic institutions work together to formulate and carry out national security policy.3
There are two main tools that shape the executive branches output to a more functioning administration. These include the use of appointing authority and the White House staff. In Article II, Section 2, the president is empowered to appoint the departmental and agency heads with the federal government.4 The presence of these political appointees results into a significant influence throughout many policy making processes.5
Roles and functions of each branch
The president being the diplomatic in chief and primary foreign policy maker of the United States, he is held responsible for defining the security policies and ensuring the national security of the nation. The constitution empowers the president to wage wars as a commander in chief while the congress has the power to declare wars and fund them.
The congress has constitutional mandate to as well as political interest in national security matters. The public together with the congress look to the president for leadership in issues of national security.6
The president is the central focus of attention and power in national security issues. The president’s function is to lead formulation of the national security policies through assessing threats and resources and providing strategy to meet those threats.7
The institutional framework between the two institutions reflects a clear understanding on their institutional competencies. The congress has been granted important powers to ensure it has a significant role in the conduct of national security policy. Its institutional framework prevents it from moving more quickly on matters pertaining to national security.8
The legislation plays a critical role of clearing what has been agreed between the house and senate after each body has been subjected to the media and the public’s opinion. Congress as a branch of the government remains to be more accountable to the public.
The executive branch is designed to make speedy actions that at most ties should be secretly conducted without much public and media intervention on foreign and security policy. The institution is designed to act decisively in a crisis situation.9
Share of power
As per the constitutional provision, the main purpose of the congress is to make laws. The executive branch enforces the laws through the president and various executive offices. The president and the congress have to work together in order to ensure proper policies are put in place and correctly affected.
The constitution of the United States divides the war power of the federal government between the executive and legislative branches. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces while congress has the power to declare war and rise and support the armed forces.10
The war powers resolution offers well laid procedures that define the extent to which the president or the congress can deploy U.S armed forces into hostile areas abroad.11
Current overall balance of power between the two branches
As much as the executive plays a leading role in the federal bureaucracy, the intensive design of the various departments and agencies are defined in the congregational statute. As much as this is not mentioned in the constitution, congress plays an oversight role, continuously checking on the executive. The congress keenly watches the administration ensuring that all laws are properly interpreted and executed.
However, the congress has a significant say in war related issues. There are clear directions that split the power to declare war from the power to direct military forces during war to ensure that the president is not able to make war alone.12
How the balance shifted since 9/11
Since the 9/11 attacks on the Unite States, the definition of national security has been expanded and now encompasses threat to terrorism and cyberspace. As much as the policies being implemented currently don’t feature in the constitution, it is assumed that the president has the general responsibility of the national security.
Since 9/11, the country has been forced to review many of its traditional processes of national governance.13 The new security environment which is majorly defined by war on terrorism calls for reexamination of congress war powers.14
Conclusion
The conflict between the congress and the president on who has the power to commission a war can only be defined according to the constitution. The president being the chair of the executive plays a leading role in the policy making process and should act in his position as commander in chief as stipulated by the constitution but still under watch by the congress.
Bibliography
Born, Hans. International intelligence corporation and accountability. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.
Borone, Andrew. The U.S. intelligence community. New York: ABA Publishers, 2010.
Kiefer, Geofrey, and Ellis Jason. Combating proliferation: Strategic intelligence and security policy. Maryland: JHU Press, 2008.
Lahneman, William. Keeping U.S intelligence effective. London: Scarecrow Press Inc, 2011.
Lowenthal, Mark. Intelligence – from secrets to policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2011.
Murdock, Clark. Improving the practice of national security strategy – A new approach for the post-Cold War. New York: CSIS, 2004.
Richelson, Jeffrey. The US intelligence community. London: West view Press, 2010.
Shackelford, Colins, Bolt, Paul, and Damon Coletta. American defense policy. Maryland: JHU Press, 2010.
Sam, Sarkesian, John, Williams, and Stephen Cimbala. US national security – policy makers, processes, & politics. New York: University of Michigan, 2008.
Zegat, Army. Spying blind: the CIA, the FBI and the origins of 9/11. Oxford shire: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Footnotes
1 Shackelford, Colins, Bolt Paul and Damon Coletta, American defense policy (Maryland: JHU Press, 2010).
2 Zegat Army, Spying blind: the CIA, the FBI and the origins of 9/11 (Oxford shire: Princeton University Press, 2009), 71.
3 Richelson Jeffrey, The US intelligence community (London: West view Press, 2010), 123.
4 Zegat Army, Spying blind: the CIA, the FBI and the origins of 9/11 (Oxford shire: Princeton University Press, 2009), 75.
5 Borone Andrew, The U.S. intelligence community (New York: ABA Publishers, 2010), 117.
6 Lowenthal Mark, Intelligence – from secrets to policy (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2011), 147.
7 Zegat Army, Spying blind: the CIA, the FBI and the origins of 9/11 (Oxford shire: Princeton University Press, 2009), 75.
8 Lowenthal, opt.cit. 149
9 Born Hans, International intelligence corporation and accountability (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011), 167.
10 Murdock Clark, Improving the practice of national security strategy – A new approach for the post-Cold War (New York: CSIS, 2004), 33.
11 Born, opt.cit. 167
12 Zegat Army, Spying blind: the CIA, the FBI and the origins of 9/11 (Oxford shire: Princeton University Press, 2009), 75.
13 Kiefer Geofrey and Ellis Jason, Combating proliferation: Strategic intelligence and security policy (Maryland: JHU Press, 2008), 27.
14 Murdock Clark, Improving the practice of national security strategy – A new approach for the post-Cold War (New York: CSIS, 2004), 33.