CP NEG NSS TIA 30 - WNDI 2010 Tia & Tony 1 NSS CP *NSS...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
WNDI 2010 1 NSS CP ***NSS CP***
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Text: The President should mandate and amendment be made to the National Security Strategy including a statement that adopting a policy
Background image of page 2
WNDI 2010 3 NSS CP NSS CP 1NC Shell The CP competes, it is only a recommended action not legally binding Sharon L. Caudle , “National security strategies: security from what, for whom, and by what means.” http://www.astrid-online.it/Sicurezza-/Studi--ric/Caudle_Journal-of-Homeland- security_06_2009.pdf . 2009 Third, it is unclear who is to ensure that implementation occurs and there is accountability for results. The national strategies are not legal documents with mandates and sanctions . Their goals and actions cut across levels of government and sectors, and involve a large number of organizations and entities, including international and nongovernmental , each with their own priorities – planned or mandated. The authority and capacity of public and private organizations to direct, implement, and be held accountable for the strategies varies: Who is in charge? Who should be? Who should pay? Under what authority? With what partners? In the United States’ system of government and arrangement of public and private spheres, no one central entity or process has “control” of implementation, accountability, oversight, and coordination. Cornish (2008) might argue, however, that a national strategy should not be a policy blueprint to replace senior leadership experience and judgment. Moreover, a national strategy clearly means cross-governmental action that could run counter to departmental independence. A NSS will effectively mold the instruments of American foreign policy Lawrence Korb , Sean Duggan , and Laura Conley . “Preparing for the National Security Threats of the 21st Century.” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/pdf/integrating_security.pdf . 11-01- 09 President Barack Obama and his administration face a national security landscape that is greatly different from the one the U nited S tates confronted at the end of the previous cen- tury . Fragile states, weak governments, extremist non-state actors, hostile nuclear armed regimes, dynamic rising powers, and economic and environmental threats are but some of the most serious challenges facing the new administration. The complex and intercon- nected nature of these threats means that pursuing U.S. national security objectives will require a strong investment in diplomatic development, homeland security, and intelli- gence skills to complement our military strength . The Obama administration understands the need to integrate and coordinate all instru- ments of American foreign policy to confront these threats. What’s more, the administra- tion has begun to lay the groundwork for this unified effort through strategic planning in three key executive agencies. The first of these efforts is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s initiative to create a strategic planning guidance for the
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 32

CP NEG NSS TIA 30 - WNDI 2010 Tia & Tony 1 NSS CP *NSS...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online