Thesis-In-Progress on American National Security

[AmericanPride]

The following is a thesis-in-progress I have for my national security course I'm taking through AMU. The paper is to be between 15-20 pages. As always, the community's commentary is welcome.

TO THE VICTOR GOES THE SPOILS:

Neo-Elite Realism and the American National Security Establishment

In March of 2003, President Bush committed the United States to war in Iraq. Surrounded in controversy regarding the justifications and intentions of the war, the subsequent military operations have since severely divided the American public. These sharp divisions, previously revealed during the presidential elections of 2000, called into question the legitimacy of America’s national security establishment and its capacity to make decisions on behalf of the public, particularly in regards to the causes of the Iraq War. However, these upheavals in public opinion have only revealed the fundamental nature of power: that a loose network of political, military and business elites make decisions for the whole by virtue of their positions in society. This network has significant influence in the national security establishment due in part to its natural insulation from public inquiry. However, division also exists within that network as various factions jockey for advantageous political positions. The insulation of the national security establishment from the American public as well as competition among factions within the body politic ensures that grand strategy decisions will be made within the context of domestic power politics and for the benefit of the victor in such struggles.

1. Analytical Framework: Neo-Elite Realism (Classical Realism, Elite Theory, and Marxism)

2. The Insulation of the National Security Establishment from the American Public

3. Factional Competition Among America’s Elites

4. Defining National Security in the Context of Factional Competition

5. Consequences for National Security: Politicizing Strategy, Inconsistent Policies, Half-Hearted Efforts, and Narrow Benefits

Note: I coined the term "Neo-Elite Realism" to avoid using Marxism since the word tends to be understood differently depending on the prisms it's seen through. Basically, a society is made up of factions. These factions compete with one another, and some of those factions manage to come out on top and in control of the state and its resources.

[John T. Fishel]

Interesting approach AP. Is this the AMU thesis or a paper for an AMU course (and which one if I may ask)?

There is much evidence for all the points you raise in both the IR and Am Politics literature with the exception of the isolation of the national security elite. There, the evidence cuts both in favor and against. After all, it was popular as well as elite opinion that forece the end of the American committment in Vietnam and almost derailed the "surge." So, you have a first task of operationally defining "isolation of the national security elite" in such a way that it can be empirically tested. Then you need to test the validity of your construct. After tha, you can proceed with the rest of your research.

Sounds like fun!

Cheers

JohnT

[AmericanPride]

Originally Posted by John Fishel

Is this the AMU thesis or a paper for an AMU course (and which one if I may ask)?

It's for NSEC503, US National Security.

Originally Posted by John Fishel

So, you have a first task of operationally defining "isolation of the national security elite" in such a way that it can be empirically tested.

I intend to create two categories: 'natural' and 'artificial' insulation. The former is simply a consequence of natural security itself; protecting state secrets, bureaucratic specialization, and general American disinterest in most questions about foreign affairs. The latter waxes and wanes depending who is in charge; transparency and responsiveness to the public, appointments of key officials, and policy implementation.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

The following is a thesis-in-progress I have for my national security course I'm taking through AMU. The paper is to be between 15-20 pages. As always, the community's commentary is welcome.



Note: I coined the term "Neo-Elite Realism" to avoid using Marxism since the word tends to be understood differently depending on the prisms it's seen through. Basically, a society is made up of factions. These factions compete with one another, and some of those factions manage to come out on top and in control of the state and its resources.

AP--

Rather than coining a new term (a practice that can lead to a ton of "What do you mean?" type-questions that distract the reader), may I suggest that there may be established scholars who have a similar interpretative approaches and that you might be able to use their works to your benefit.

Within the historiography of American foreign relations, there's an established (and controversial) trajectory of inquiry that emphasizes the themes you present in your brief overview. A profitable starting point may be Walter LaFeber's The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860-1898 (ISBN 13: 9780801485954). If you do consult LaFeber, you might also profit from a contrasting view offered in James A. Field, "American Imperialism: The Worst Chapter in Almost Any Book," American Historical Review 83 (June 1978): 644-668. Note that Field's article is part of an AHR forum that includes comments by LaFeber.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting you go on an Easter egg hunt on my say so. I'm just suggesting that there may be published works that can spare you from re-inventing wheels that are already on the road. HTH.

[John T. Fishel]

suggestion and whether you accept or reject it let your prof know it was considered. Still, remember that your field is closer to political science than it is to history and what you propose is well within the acceptable approaches to the field.

Thank you for clarifying elite isolation. But you still haven't defined it in operational terms. Or, if you have, then you are excluding the reportes and columnists of the NYT, WP, WSJ and other national media including such new ones as blogs like SWJ. Do you mean to exclued all of this? If not, then how are you defining elite? What I am saying is that there are research and analysis implications to how you define your terms and the problem.

Cheers

JohnT

PS email or PM me with who is teaching the course - just curious.

[Abu Suleyman]

Pride,

I don't want to rain on your parade too much, but there is a fairly large body of scholarship along these lines already, especially in political science. That is not to say that you cannot put this in a framework that is completely valuable and unique, but you need to do an extensive literature review. You don't want to accidentally plagiarize someone else's already published idea. The person who first comes to mind is Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, who is more famous for his predictive algorithms, and game theory, but who also predicates all of his work on the idea that it is individuals within governments who are seeking their own interests that decide policy.

If you know the literature well, you will write a much better thesis regardless of what topic you choose. THere is a lot to be said for bringing two areas of scholarship into dialogue with each other, as well.

[outletclock]

AmericanPride:

You might want to take a look at the following for domestic politics and coalitions in the making of foreign policy.

1) Jack Snyder, Myths of Empire
2) Peter Trubowitz, Defining the National Interest
3) Kevin Narizny, The Political Economy of Grand Strategy

I *might* (or might not) also take a look at Robert Keohane and Judith Goldstein, Ideas and Foreign Policy.

To the extent you're looking at how civil-military relations influences (or influenced) policy choices, you *might* (or might not) also take a look at Risa Brooks, Shaping Strategy.

Best
OC

[outletclock]

The insulation of the national security establishment from the American public

conjoined with

as well as competition among factions within the body politic

1) If the national security establishment is insulated from the American public/body politic, then competition within factions (parties, classes, groups?) really shouldn't impact the national security establishment, should it? I'd think in terms of mass/elite models of decision-making. I think a literature review of, say, the American Political Science Review or American Journal of Political Science would cover (or maybe not) whether such a distinction is valid.

ensures that grand strategy decisions will be made within the context of domestic power politics

what does "within the context of domestic power politics" mean? Again, how can that be the case if the national security establishment is "insulated?" Finally, can grand strategy decisions ever be made *outside* the context of domestic power politics?

and for the benefit of the victor in such struggles.

as opposed to the benefit of the loser? :-)

My question would be, and I think I'm echoing John Fishel here: is this an exploratory hypothesis, meant to be tested, or something you've decided is the case, and have decided to document? I hope that doesn't come off as too mean, but I'd ponder it a bit.

OC

[Tukhachevskii]

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

Basically, a society is made up of factions. These factions compete with one another, and some of those factions manage to come out on top and in control of the state and its resources.

So, in essence, what you are talking about are hegemonic blocs (or blocco storico in Gramsci's original formulation). I am afraid that I concur with most of the above comments regarding the fact that arguments along the lines proposed by you above have been made already. For an approach that explicitly uses Gramscian ideas see R. W. Cox's magisterial, Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History (methodologically the approach is best described as International Political Economy with an admixture of other means). Alternatively see his shorter articles in Approaches to World Order one of which, the title momentarily escapes me, explained the factional/bloc/elite approach as developed by Gramsci. Good luck nonetheless.

[AmericanPride]

Originally Posted by Fishel

Or, if you have, then you are excluding the reportes and columnists of the NYT, WP, WSJ and other national media including such new ones as blogs like SWJ. Do you mean to exclued all of this? If not, then how are you defining elite

Right now I'm seeking a way to define 'elites'. I do not consider the media as part of society's elite, though the staff members at the publications you named could be considered the elite of the media community. Much of my categorizations comes from my previous project discussed here. The 'elites' are those persons and groups of persons closet to America's sources of power and there are multiple sources of power, with wealth in the broad sense being one of the primary ones (wealth in the narrow sense is a reflection of elite status).

Originally Posted by Abu

who also predicates all of his work on the idea that it is individuals within governments who are seeking their own interests that decide policy

I'll have to more look more deeply into de Mesquita's work, but I do not agree that it is "individuals within governments" that decide policy. Rather, it is the competition between political factions, some formal and some informal, some official and some unofficial, that determines policy. The competition originates from the existence of multiple elite factions who draw power from different sources (some exclusive, some complementary).

Originally Posted by outletclock

If the national security establishment is insulated from the American public/body politic, then competition within factions (parties, classes, groups?) really shouldn't impact the national security establishment, should it?

This is where definitions become important. There is a category of elites. But in my framework, classes are determined by their relationship to a society's sources of power. Since there are potentially multiple sources of power, there are also multiple classes of elites. The classes then form factions according to their own interests resulting in elite competition. The general public is largely uninvolved in this process.

Originally Posted by outletclock

what does "within the context of domestic power politics" mean?

My definition of political life is very narrow. Political life is defined by one's access, relationship, and pursuit of power rather than participation in the formal political system. Thus the elites who compete with one another for political power are engaged in domestic power politics while everyone else watches it on the news. The same elites in competition also generate national security policy.

Originally Posted by outletclock

Finally, can grand strategy decisions ever be made *outside* the context of domestic power politics?

Theoretically in a system in which the professional soldier, diplomat, or analyst determined policy. These individuals would be making national security decisions as a function of their employment rather than an extension of their interests.

Originally Posted by outletclock

as opposed to the benefit of the loser?

And the general public.

Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii

So, in essence, what you are talking about are hegemonic blocs

Not entirely. I disagree with what he argues to be the origins and interests of these groups, though I agree with much of the general characterizations.

[Abu Suleyman]

If I may offer up some more unsolicited advice, it seems that you actually have a pretty good opening here, although perhaps not what you originally thought. Although most people are saying that this topic has been done already, they are all pointing to different traditions. I brought up the considerations from an IR perspective, but I am seeing references to (I believe) anthropology, and comparative politics. If you could just sync up those different views you would have a great paper. If you synced them and clarify them, you would be even better.

[J Wolfsberger]

I agree with Abu S.; I think you're on track for a good paper. However,

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

The insulation of the national security establishment from the American public as well as competition among factions within the body politic ensures that grand strategy decisions will be made within the context of domestic power politics and for the benefit of the victor in such struggles.

"...insulation of the national security establishment from the American public..." seems to me to contradict "...grand strategy decisions will be made within the context of domestic power politics..." It strikes me that there is strong appeal to the American public to establish the power base required for domestic political advantage.

[marct]

Hi JW,

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

"...insulation of the national security establishment from the American public..." seems to me to contradict "...grand strategy decisions will be made within the context of domestic power politics..." It strikes me that there is strong appeal to the American public to establish the power base required for domestic political advantage.

I've been thinking about this for a bit (otherwise I would have posted earlier), but I'm now pretty sure that the two are not necessarily exclusive. It is quite possible to have a bureaucratic apparatus that is both insulated from the public and controlling of the perceptions of risk while, at the same time, ensuring that public debates are contextualized domestically. The only thing that is required is that you have a fairly stable political elite within a fairly restrictive (in terms of access) political system; both of which are apparent in the current US political scene.

[John T. Fishel]

How are you defining "fairly restricted (in terms of access)"? ie what do you mean?

Note that I always take you seriously but here I just don't quite see where you are coming from so I can neither agree nor disagree with you.

Cheers

JohnT

[AmericanPride]

You'll be happy (or not! ) to hear that I received an 'A' on the paper. I'll make it available to anyone who is interested in reading it. Thanks everyone for your input.

[marct]

Hi AP,

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

You'll be happy (or not! ) to hear that I received an 'A' on the paper. I'll make it available to anyone who is interested in reading it. Thanks everyone for your input.

Great news! I'd certainly like to take a look at it and see how it came out.

Cheers,

Marc