[1] 50 U.S.C. 402, (Title I of the National Security Act of 1947). [2] The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Brigadier General Michael Hayden, USAF, in providing insights on the preparation of the 1990 and 1991 reports, Colonel Jeff Jones, USA, on the 1993 report, and Dr. Peter Feaver on the report of the Clinton administration. All judgements in this paper remain, of course, solely the responsibility of the author. [3] Even though much of the reform literature, such as the 1985 Report of the Senate Armed Services Committee, "Organization of the Department of Defense-The Need for Change," discusses needed reforms in both the executive and legislative branches, Congress chose only to pursue reform within DOD. Since Congress was not reforming itself, it was not in a position to lean directly on the Executive Office of the President for reforms. [4] Report of the President's Special Review Board, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987, also available as The Tower Commission Report by several publishers. Of particular interest to the context of this paper are Part II, "Organizing for National Security," and Part V, "Recommendations." [5] For an example of the benefits to the new Bush administration as the political appointees executed a strategic review, see Don M. Snider, Strategy, Forces, and Budgets: Dominant Influences in Executive Decision-making, Post-Cold War, 1989-1991, Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 1993, pp. 18-20. [6] National Security Strategy of the United States, January 1987, p. 40. [7] For a case study on the development of security strategy within the Bush administration, see Snider, Ibid. [8] Les Aspin, Report of the Bottom-Up Review, Department of Defense, October 1993. [9] Jonathan Rauch, Demosclerosis: The Silent Killer of American Government, Random House, Inc., 1994. [10] For example, see Aaron Friedberg, "Is the United States Capable of Acting Strategically?", The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter 1991, pp. 15-20. [11] David C. Kozak, "The Bureaucratic Politics Approach: The Evolution of the Paradigm," Bureaucratic Politics and National Security, David Kozak and James Keagle, eds., Rienner Publishers, 1988, pp. 3-15. [12] John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment, Oxford University Press, 1982, pp. 89-127, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Power and Principle, McGraw Hill, 1983, pp. 51-52. [13] Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy, Discriminate Deterrence, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989. [14] Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Bound to Lead. The Changing Nature of American Power, Basic Books, 1990, pp. 200,227; and Catherine McArdle Kelleher, "US Foreign Policy and Europe, 1990-2000," Brookings Review, Vol. 8, No. 4, Fall 1990, pp. 8-10. [15] Samuel Huntington, "America's Changing Strategic Interests," Survival, Vol. 33, No. 1, January/February 1991, pp. 8-16; and Robert Hormats, "The Roots of American Power," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 70, No. 3, Summer 1991, pp. 130-135. [16] Hormats, p. 130. Back to Table of Contents The National Security Strategy Back to SSI List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1995 by US Army War College. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com