Long Term National Security Policy

(Michales) The Russian Defense Ministry said that a training camp and ammo depot were destroyed by bombings near the Islamic State’s defector capital in Syria, Raqqa. The countries of France, Turkey, the United States, Germany, Britain, Qutar, and Saudi Arabia; all say that Russia’s actions will “only fuel more radicalization and extremism.” (Michales) Russia’s airstrikes complicate U.S. efforts to build a moderate opposition in Syria, designed to counter the Islamic State there. (Michales) Pentagon efforts to train and deploy forces stalled before Russia’s airstrikes, but any future recruitment could be difficult if the Pentagon doesn’t provide U.S- backed rebels with guarantee of protection if they come under Russian attack. (Michales) Iraq is accepting help from both the United States and Russia is an ally to the Shiite- dominated government, Iraqi leaders will follow them, while the U.S has been trying to force the Iraqis to compromise with the Sunnis. Nonetheless, when the time comes, Iraq will pick Russia for help to fight

I am writing to you today as a student at the College of William and Mary. I am in an International Security class and recently we studied the events occurring in Syria. As you are well aware, the situation in Syria has been dramatically deteriorating in recent months with the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the recent entrance of Russia into the conflict. Syria, meanwhile, has been in the midst of a ravaging civil war since the early spring of 2011. Currently, the government of Syria is led by President Bashar al-Assad, a member of the Syrian Ba’ath Party, a branch of the same Ba’ath Party that Saddam Hussein was also a member of. This similarity may lead some to think that Syria will end up like Iraq, with a

america’s involvement in syria raises complex ethical arguments. what are the challenges surrounding the moral, ethical, societal and sovereign decisions of this involvement?

From the fledgling beginnings in the history of the United States, the populace of the newly formed republic were concerned with protecting into perpetuity their hard-won independence. To ensure that democracy would rein unchallenged, a formalized guarantee, the Constitution, spelled out whom would comprise the actors and what processes were to be made available for governance. Distinct roles were drafted for both the president and Congress for the purposes of evenly distributing power and preventing any single entity from wielding their power arbitrarily (Jordan et al, 2009, p. 103). Though these roles are complementary, they have also at times been conflicting. This push and pull has also been sewn into the historical

The Constitution grants Congress the power raise and maintain the armed forces, establish rules that govern those forces, and above all – declare war. The Framers of the Constitution intentionally designed Congress to have a collective control over war, thus granting the legislature authroity over offensive campaigns. In comparision, the president, as commander in chief, has the ability to use force to protect American sovergneity and American lives. Consequently, the U.S. national security policy process includes countless opportunities to delay or block action.

In the past 25 years the nation has experienced numerous terrorist attacks. These attacks are designed to put fear in the average American’s hearts and minds. Citizen’s safety has been placed in the spotlight so much more now than before September 11th 2001. Although these attacks are on domestic soil, they often begin with planning and recruiting in places all around the world. Terrorism has just recently become an issue for America. Foreign policy needs to be tailored to this new type of combat.

Moreover, the State Department has been using Secretary of State John Kerry’s hint that the administration might be open to negotiating with the Iranian aligned Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad (Patten). Even though the U.S. is capable of destroying ISIS and rolling back the Tehran regime at the same time, Washington needs to prepare a plan to sanction the foreign policies with a convergent approach to defeating ISIS but not through fighting a war. ISIS is a dangerous pro-state that engages in enslaving and forcing people to take them under their control. They seem powerful at the point, whereas U.S. administration should be ready and build an effective global wide political organization to help clarify the situation on the ground. The U.S. Air force is more advanced and capable of gaining an early winning through an advance attack, if needed.

If it is accepted then, that Washington should have taken stronger action earlier in the conflict, the question becomes whether there are any practical, more decisive approaches that could have been employed earlier in the war to greater success. This essay examines three alternative measures that could have been adopted by the US at the outset of the conflict, in light of existing commitments, foreign policy and attitudes. The most controversial option is direct military intervention. Current American-led airstrikes have exclusively focused on ISIS, however, the current Russian intervention can provide clues as to whether earlier American air strikes against Assad would have impacted the conflict. Russia intervened on the basis of creating “new realities” upon which to build a political settlement, but the true effect of these measures is to essentially keep the Assad regime from collapsing (ACRPS, 2015). This intervention has helped “turn the tides” of the conflict for the regime (Heistein, 2016). There are questions as to whether, at the outset of the conflict, The Administration could have realistically engaged in airstrikes. Even those who advocated a more “muscular” policy early in the war such as Hilary Clinton, Leon Panetta and David Patraeus, were not proposing any where near the kind of military involvement that would have been large enough to re-shape the conflict or even provide enough leverage to negotiate a settlement (Miller, 2016). However, it can be

The foundation of the U.S. National Security Policy is on the Goldwater-Nichols Act. 1947, signed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan after the World War II, encouraging a restructure of the military through the National Security Act of 1947. The Department of War and the Department of Navy was unified into the National Military Establishment (NME), then renamed to Department of Defense with the purpose to have Army, Navy and Air Force into a unified structure. President Truman signed the National Security Act Amendment of 1949 in reflection to strategic changes to the Cold War facts. This paper explores the book review, performed by Robert B. McCalla and Melvin A. Goodman, of Richard J. Stoll’s “U.S. National Security Policy and the Soviet

Throughout the twenty-first century, the global balance of political, economic, and military power underwent several paradigm shifts. Each of these transitions defined the security policy of the United States and changed the course of America’s grand strategy for advancing its interests and defending its territory. At the beginning of the century, the United States tried to avoid being drawn into two major European military conflicts yet found itself emerging victorious and relatively composed and powerful. World War II effectively ended a multipolar world with several great powers and replaced it with a bipolar international environment with only two superpowers. For more than five decades, the United States faced only one true rival, the Soviet Union, which not only mirrored the United States in military power but also opposed it ideologically, creating a high risk of major power war. Throughout the Cold War, United States security policy had but two key

The National Security Council is a forum for the president to consider issues of national security and foreign policy with his national security advisers and senior cabinet officials. The problem of national security strategy is that it causes many conflicts and arguments. There are many definitions of concepts of national security. Traditionally security means, first, as the physical survival of the state, protection and preservation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity, the ability to react adequately to potential and real external threats. The date September 11, 2001 has changed the way the world began to perceive their own security threats and related to these threats. As for security and US approach, the White House has released its new "National Security Strategy" in 2002 establishing a pattern for eventual war against terrorism. ("The Whitehouse National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace.". Network Security2002, no. 10 (2002): 2-3. doi:10.1016/s1353-4858(02)10002-x). The argument presented here today will hopefully answer the question “Why is it so difficult to develop and implement a successful national security strategy”? This paper is an analysis of the strategy plan of national security of the United States specifically after the attacks of Sept. 11. The National Security Strategy is poor, especially in relation to national warfare threats.

American foreign policy has forever been a controversial topic in international discussions. Questions regarding America’s military presence, intent and use of force have long been centers of controversy and debate. Recent American involvements in the Syrian Civil War and the conflict with ISIS have raised questions about the ethics of US involvement and her justifications for force. As ISIS began to grow stronger and the list of crimes it committed began to augment, America began to use force to combat ISIS’s growth citing legal American precedents and humanitarian urgency as the major justifications for involvement. However, critics of American involvement contend that America’s involvement violates both American and international law,

The United States of America irrefutably remains a superpower in the current era. The country is capable of influencing, to some degree, every part of the world. It is also afforded a myriad of political avenues in which to shape this influence. Those avenues can be broken down into 4 categories; Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic (DIME) means. Effectively using these means, either separately or in combination, is a calculated effort driven by the highest levels of American government in pursuit of goals laid out in the National Security Strategy (NSS). The incorrect use of DIME elements to achieve those goals can render the overall effort ineffective, or in some cases, counterproductive. The May 2010 NSS includes

National security in any country is necessary to maintain the safety of citizens from foreign and domestic threats. America has seen changes in security policy as a result of devastating events such as the September 11 attacks. After the tragic terrorist attacks in Paris, France will definitely make changes to policies to secure the safety of French citizens. However, improving security can tread on the privacy rights of the individual; the key is to heighten security to a point, yet have minimal interference with the rights already given to citizens. The most effective way to make successful policies for the future is to look at current policies and understand why they failed or succeeded. For instance, government surveillance has expanded

As if Israelis did not have enough headaches, the recent agteement reached between Russians and Americans to create the safe zones in Southern Syria placed 2000 Russian troops, made up from Ingush Muslim minority out of Caucuses region, to police the area. In addition the Iranian sponsored Shia Militias will be free to operate just within a few miles from Israeli border. Mr Putin assured Bibi Netanyahu, who was initially asking for a sixty mile buffer zone, that they can control the cituation but it's doubtful that his promises eased an Israeli Prime Minister's anxiety because he knows full well that in the Middle East there is no such thing as controlled cituation.