National Security Directive (NSC)

There have been many changes to the National Security Council (NSC) since 1949, but the creation of the Deputies Committee (DC) with the National Security Directive (NSD) 1 reorganization in 1989 resulted in a national security system commonly recognized as the “Gold Standard.” The driving force behind this reorganization stems from lessons learned during the Iran-Contra affair and from recognition of a poorly functioning crisis management system. This change incorporated new mechanisms to handle crises and inspired trust among members of the system. The DC has become a vital addition of the national security system and plays a key role in the formation of national security policy today.
In order to discuss the changes incorporated with
These changes have normally been driven by some key world event or failure within the system. In 1986, the Iran-Contra affair was a devastating blow to the Reagan administration and his NSC. When reports came to light that this secret operation was being driven by the NSC from within the White House, it was evident that changes needed to be made. This drove the creation of the Policy Review Groups (PRGs) which were designed to help review and coordinate policy positions for the President. When President George H.W. Bush took office, he eliminated these PRGs in his NSC system. When the administration was faced with the next major crisis, the Panamanian leader General Manuel Noriega in 1989, it became clear that the crisis-management process was still broken. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) at the time, Gen Powell, observed the crisis-planning in action and assessed that the elimination of the PRGs was a mistake. In coordination with Brent Scowcroft, the National Security Advisor at the time, the PRG was re-implemented in the form of the
There are several good historical examples of how the DC has contributed to policy formation during crisis management. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the DC was intricately involved in the planning process. The meeting schedule during this crisis began each day with a meeting of internal State Department members, followed by a meeting of the PCCs. Subsequent to those meetings were a minimum of three DC meetings to discuss the crisis. The DC was constantly prepared to provide direction and guidance as needed. Another example of the DC involvement during a crisis can be seen in the days following 9/11. When President Bush was faced with the challenge of determining a course of action following the attacks, the DC met and prepared multiple actions and strategies for the President’s consideration. These are just two examples of the important role that the DC has played in the national security process throughout the