Creating the National Security State

Historical Institutionalism and Foreign Policy Analysis: The Origins of the National Security Council Revisited

“…May’s account (though possibly a bit too deterministic in charting the legacy) shows the evolution toward an increased political‐military consultation, which should be seen as a form of civil‐military relations, had been around for some time, but never made possible (c.f. Stuart 2008a: esp. chapter 1).…”

“…As John Lewis Gaddis (1987:21–22) notes, “this [new] sense of vulnerability is basic to an understanding of how Americans perceived their interests—and potential threats to them—in the postwar world.” Prior to the sense of vulnerability created by the Pearl Harbor attack, the United States had sought security through the protection of the Americas from external influences, a legacy of the “isolationism” of earlier leaders, but also borne of experiences from the interwar period: the inward looking nature of economic development and of economic recovery (Gaddis 1987:22). Stuart goes as far as referring to the institutions created by the National Security Act as the “Pearl Harbor system” (Stuart 2008a), pointing to Pearl Harbor as the key “trigger event” (Stuart 2008b) that allowed for a redefinition of American national security (c.f. Gaddis 2004: chapter 3).…”

“…Finally, the overall success of the civilian‐led coordination of the war, in political‐economic terms, certainly meant an easing into a permanent coordinating role for the state (and indeed the national security state) was not entirely unprecedented (Sherry 1997; c.f. Friedberg 2000; Koistinen 2004; Stuart 2008a: chapter 2). In fact, the role of business elites in the war‐time coordination bodies, such as the War Production Board, had a lasting effect on American government, as many of those involved went on to become major players in the national security state.…”

“…On July 26, 1947, President Truman signed the National Security Act, ending years of debate about the unification of the US armed forces. The Act inaugurated not only an unheralded change in the bureaucracy of the federal government but also formally institutionalized a new set of relationships regarding civil‐military coordination, mainly seen in the creation of the National Security Council (NSC), and (in 1949) the Department of Defense, that are key parts of what can be called the “national security state” (Yergin 1977; Hogan 1998; Stuart 2008a). On the face of it, explaining such a change should be straightforward in terms of conventional approaches in International Relations (IR) and its subfield of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA): such a change was necessary to better provide for the national security and represented at best a rational (instrumental) solution to a present problem, or at worst a political compromise to deal with a clash of interested parties.…”

Declining US Hegemony and Rising Chinese Power: A Formula for Conflict?

“…On the national security state, seeStuart (2008).10 On the dying empire, seeShor (2010).11 For one such analysis of the persistent commitment of the US political elite to global dominance, see Bacevich (2010).…”