This blog will comment occasionally on the Project on National Security Reform, an initiative of the Center for the Study of the Presidency (links in Resources). It would be difficult to imagine anything in greater need of reform than the U.S. national security apparatus. Still, it is essential in these circumstances to accept that the word "reform" itself is socially and situationally constructed and has little meaning outside the true intentions of the reformers. Politicians have foisted on the public all manner of stupidity in the name of "tax reform," "regulatory reform" and "immigration reform." Anyone for "reform reform"?
Happily, PNSR appears to be led by men and women of exceptional intellect and character who seem truly interested in repairing and improving national security. One hopes their talent composition enables new voices to be heard throughout the process, however, since many of the "old hands" populating this effort are products and beneficiaries of the status quo.
The Project is right on target in arguing that we must move well beyond a system still largely built on the National Security Act of 1947. While some Goldwater-Nichols reforms of the 1980s seem to be effective, such as the strengthened role of the Joint Chiefs Chairman, future historians may well charge that the post-9/11 reforms creating the Homeland Security Department were a disaster. The most important PNSR reform is also the most politically volatile, however, ensuring in the future that the United States only enters into just and necessary wars and prosecutes them capably and competently.
In its own words, PNSR is "conducting a rigorous examination of the origins, history, and performance of the national security system. Based on this analysis, PNSR will identify alternative solutions and propose recommendations for improving the national security system to include a draft new National Security Act." The initiative is organized into working groups - Strategy, Structure, Knowledge Management and Human Capital to name four - that appear to be working quite well. Their use of historical case studies is to be commended, as well, as among the few methods for guarding against repeated foolishness. This initiative is well worth watching and appears to be in very good hands. Of course, and as always, it risks being cherry-picked by future Presidents and Congresses whose key players will probably never read it. But for now, so far so good!
Happily, PNSR appears to be led by men and women of exceptional intellect and character who seem truly interested in repairing and improving national security. One hopes their talent composition enables new voices to be heard throughout the process, however, since many of the "old hands" populating this effort are products and beneficiaries of the status quo.
The Project is right on target in arguing that we must move well beyond a system still largely built on the National Security Act of 1947. While some Goldwater-Nichols reforms of the 1980s seem to be effective, such as the strengthened role of the Joint Chiefs Chairman, future historians may well charge that the post-9/11 reforms creating the Homeland Security Department were a disaster. The most important PNSR reform is also the most politically volatile, however, ensuring in the future that the United States only enters into just and necessary wars and prosecutes them capably and competently.
In its own words, PNSR is "conducting a rigorous examination of the origins, history, and performance of the national security system. Based on this analysis, PNSR will identify alternative solutions and propose recommendations for improving the national security system to include a draft new National Security Act." The initiative is organized into working groups - Strategy, Structure, Knowledge Management and Human Capital to name four - that appear to be working quite well. Their use of historical case studies is to be commended, as well, as among the few methods for guarding against repeated foolishness. This initiative is well worth watching and appears to be in very good hands. Of course, and as always, it risks being cherry-picked by future Presidents and Congresses whose key players will probably never read it. But for now, so far so good!