ndupress.ndu.edu SF No. 293 1
T
here are few issues of greater intrinsic importance to the United States
than national security reform—or one riper for resolution. Twenty
years ago most senior leaders were skeptical of allegations that the
national security system was “broken”; they believed the system functioned well
enough to manage the Nation’s most pressing problems. Since then numerous
prominent experts have been sounding the alarm from inside the system and
from without.
1
No fewer than nine blue-ribbon groups have argued in favor of
system reforms (see tables 1 and 2).
2
e overwhelming majority of scholars
publishing independently on the issue favor reform.
3
During the 2008 Presiden-
tial election, the momentum in favor of national security reform was so strong
that many thought it was inevitable. is presumption was reinforced when
President Barack Obama appointed well-known proponents of reform to senior
positions in the National Security Council sta, Department of State, Depart-
ment of Defense (DOD), and Intelligence Community.
4
Yet reform did not take
place during the Obama administration, and so far it has not been an issue in the
2016 Presidential race, either. is paper examines why reform was sidetracked,
whether it could emerge as a campaign issue during the 2016 Presidential elec-
tion, and why it is in candidates’ and the Nation’s interest that it does.
The Case for Reform
Before identifying reform obstacles, it helps to provide context by explaining
the scope and denition of the topic and summarizing the arguments in favor of
reform. e term national security system means the group of interacting, interre-
lated, and interdependent U.S. national security institutions that form a complex
whole to provide critical security functions, including strategic warning, strategy,
resource allocation, issue management, capability-building, system management,
and performance oversight from the President and Congress down to personnel
National Security Reform and
the 2016 Election
By Christopher J. Lamb and Joseph C. Bond
STRATEGIC FORUM
National Defense University
About the Authors
Christopher J. Lamb is Director of
the Center for Strategic Research
(CSR), Institute for National Strategic
Studies, at the National Defense
University. He is also the former Study
Director for the Project on National
Security Reform. Joseph C. Bond was
a Research Assistant in CSR and holds
a Master of Arts in Government from
Regent University.
Key Points
Over the past 20 years, there has
been a sea change in senior leader
views on national security reform
from skepticism to support. Nine
major studies argue the national
security system cannot generate or
integrate the capabilities needed
to manage security problems well.
The system is “broken.”
Yet there are major obstacles to re-
form. Inexperienced U.S. Presidents
discover system limitations too
late, when it is politically difcult to
correct them; experts who have not
studied system behaviors underes-
timate their liabilities; and leaders
in the Department of Defense are
more likely to favor reform than
their counterparts in other depart-
ments, which creates a bureaucratic
backlash against reform.
However, two key prerequisites
for success are in place: galvaniz-
ing cases of unsustainable per-
formance, and in-depth problem
analysis that reveals the origins of
the same. A third prerequisite is
committed leadership. With that in
mind, the authors identify several
reasons why Presidential candi-
dates should embrace national
security reform during the 2016
campaign.
March 2016
CENTER FOR STRATEGIC RESEARCH
