The role of interest groups cannot be underestimated in shaping the policy in the United States. In that regard, such a role can be extended to national security issues and the decision–making process within the National Security Council. In that regard, the present paper argues that the National Security Council is susceptible to the influence of interest groups, where the nature of this influence will be explained in the following paragraphs.
In order to understand the direction of the influence and for whom such influence is concerned in National Security Council, the latter should be defined in terms of members and purpose. National Security Council can be defined as a form of a national security establishment, i.e. a descriptive term referring to a set of actors and processes that produce security policy outcomes. In the case of US national security outcomes, the set of political actors include different advisors represented through the heads, counsels, and assistants of different security and intelligence departments, all governed by the President of the United States of America. As stated by Leon Panetta – the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Council is a tool to develop approaches for the President. Such actors can be described as the power cluster in the national security system. The security outcomes, in that regard, are concerned with providing information to the chairman of the council, i.e. the president of the United States, advising him, and assisting him in the decision-making process on national security issues. Thus, it can be stated that the influence is directed mostly toward the decisions that the president might make in the council.
In general, it stated that such influence is very difficult to conduct, where for example, if taking the members of Congress as a one the interest groups, it is very difficult for them “to force a president to change direction in national security policies if he is sufficiently committed to a course of action—even in the case of the long war that has become unpopular”. Nevertheless, there are some ways interest groups might influence the council. One example can be seen through different human rights groups operating through the media. In a speech by Leon Panetta, an example of such influence can be seen through questions asked about US drones in Pakistan and the way they might be operating for the benefit of the Pakistani government, rather than for the national interest of the United States.
Bringing the attention to the issue it can be stated that the National Security Council will be alerted on the issue and the way it brings the attention of the public, so it can be assumed that some decision will be made about it. Special Interest groups are part of the National Security System, and thus, they influence the power cluster in that system. Not by large, but nevertheless, it can be assumed that there is an impact of such influence. One example can be seen also through a question asked to Panetta, on the way the priorities are shaped in terms of enemies and allies, in global coverage. It is understood from the answers that the main factor in setting those priorities is related to national security and counter-terrorism, but it is also implied that economic relationships with different countries, e.g. China, and accordingly, the different interest groups benefitting from such relations might influence the National Security Council on setting the priorities on such countries.
References
Panetta, Leon, “The CIA: Preparing for Tomorrow’s Challenges”, Speech. Web.
Sarkesian, Sam C., John Allen Williams, and Stephen J. Cimbala. Us National Security : Policymakers, Processes, and Politics. 4th ed. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008.