Mohsen ROSTAMI, PhD^

Abstract. The present article is focused on a pathological review of issues related to the formation of national security strategy in different countries. It clarifies the regulation and implementation of security strategies from various aspects, such as decision-making, optimal use of favorable instruments, strategy clarification, and security methodology. After providing a definition of different terminologies and concepts, as well as, presenting principles and regulations prevalent in clarification of national security theories, the present article deals with different areas of the pathology of strategy regulation process of national security by focusing on two structural and organizational criteria and strategic approaches. It draws its conclusions based on a contextual understanding and analytical method.

Keywords: pathology; national security interests; decision-making; strategy in national security; and security policy

INTRODUCTION

Security strategy reveals each country’s objectives and purposes in the field of national security. It can be a reaction to international threats and pressures. It can be the consequence of reacting towards opposition groups. Security strategy can be formulated for achieving national security objectives and interests. It might specifically urge countries to identify their national security interests and control their own domestic and international conditions. Through analysis of resources and security-making potentials of the country for ever-increasing access to power, the statesmen define their favorite strategy plan for taking advantage of country’s potentials in order to cope with national security destabilization factors. Therefore, elites try to present a conceptual framework of requirements of “being” and “remaining” based on decision-making models. They provide specific criteria and standards for decision-makers so that they can include national security objectives and interests in their decisions and formulate their strategies. Hence, they can identify any diversion from accepted principles and control, as well as, manage the situation.

Weak decisions in the field of national security can endanger territorial integrity, socio-political order, cultural heritage, and the political philosophy of the system. It can change and disturb the literature which is prevalent in economic welfare, power, and prestige, as basic values in national security of a state. Sometimes, proper iden-tification of national security objectives is very vague and we can not easily distinguish any relationship between security policy-making of states and their national security interests. As a result, contradictory perceptions about this notion are common. However, this does not mean that we can consider ourselves as immune from vulnerabilities of strategic decision-making.

DESCRIBING THE ISSUE

Strategy regulation is essentially dependent on answering many questions and removing numerous ambiguities in this regard. These questions and ambiguities are never homogenous, because each of them is targeting a special aspect of the subject. For instance, what is the basis and nature of the strategic literature? What is the relationship between national strategy and national security strategies? Are all strategies affected by the national strategy or are independent from it? How is the process of national security strategy implementation? What are prevalent patterns in the formulation of national security strategy? In other word, what are the national security strategies? What national security strategy is more appropriate to follow? What is the relationship between national security and politics? How can we assess the success of a security policy?

Obviously, there are different answers to these questions, because each person provides his/her own answers based on scientific-experimental backgrounds in this field. There are significant obstacles and problems for materializing national security objectives. These obstacles increase complexities of national security and its implemen–tation instrument. Security and defense policies of countries require multi-dimensional speculations, dimensions, and judgments.

Some describe national security as a failure and some consider it as relatively successful. Some people consider national security as lacking the necessary potentials; others define it as an extensively potential approach. Some raise doubts about the existence of strategy in a country and others are susceptible towards materialization of national security objectives. Some describe its implementation and decision-making policies as ideologically horrible and others associate it with national interests. Some people consider it as revolutionary and radical; others define it as cautious and conservative. Some describe it as principled and integrated; some others depict it as segregated and disrupted. Nevertheless, a comprehensive pathology of formulation procedure of national security strategy in each country is associated with providing answers to above-mentioned questions, recognizing the existing capabilities, understanding the complicated process of decision-making, precise assessment of prevalent principles and sub-principles, practicing power and policy, and analyzing various defects and weaknesses. It needs a comprehensive research without which we will be faced with vulnerability or disruption in materialization of objectives.

NECESSITY AND IMPORTANCE

Pathology is not a mechanism for negative thoughts, finding others red-handed, criticizing other individuals, or weakening the people. Rather, it is a necessity for refining and decorating the policy-making process in national security perception. It is a requirement for the practicing process of national security strategy and is considered as essentially important. National security pathology is getting more important in the current atmosphere of the world in which spectacular developments are experienced. Our current world is associated with global economy and trade, recession periods, erosion and scarcity of national resources, information revolution, and mass-media expansion. Trans-boundary laws, unilateral and hegemonic policies, economic sanctions, and rascal offensive behaviors have played down the importance of international institutions; they have transformed the concept of national security and have focused the attention of all powerful elites on strengthening and elevation of national security strategy. National and international security arena is associated with the expansion of poverty, dangerous epidemic and trans-boundary diseases, environmental pollutions, neo-colonial cultural assaults, organized crimes, human and narcotics trafficking, weapons of mass destruction, and different kinds of migration. These issues indicate that complexities of national security strategy have increased vulnerabilities of this field. Therefore, it is necessary to pay serious attention to critical outlooks in order to stand against challenges of strategic decision-making in the field of national security.

THE OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH

Pathology of decision-making processes that is carried out in the context of national security strategy tries to present an approach in order to oblige related organizations to observe following consideration in every security decision-making of national security strategy. The most important considerations are as follows: First, identification of security threats and challenges that the country and its political system are faced with. Second, understanding national security opportunities and getting prepared for taking advantage of them. Third, trying to formulate a comprehensive strategic program, which urges the country to adopt a proper orientation and direct its national security resources and potentials. Fourth, proper utilization of national security instruments through embarking on best possible practices.

In other words, this research recommends the establishment of a conceptual procedure in the country which leads to the positive process of security orientation in the nation-state matrix and directs national security considerations towards comprehensive and institutionalized scientific management.

References

1. 1. Viewer, Elly, “Securitization and De-securitization”, Moradali Sadoghi (trans.), The Culture of Thought Periodical, Nos. 3 & 4, 2001.Ranjbar, Maghsoud, “Security Concerns in IR of Iran’s Foreign Policy”, Tehran, Strategic Studies Institute, 1999.

   2. Kazemi, Ali Asghar, Management of International Crises, Tehran, Office of International and Political Studies, 1986.

   3. Orum, Anthony, “Introduction to Political Sociology”, The Social Anatomy of Body Politic, New Jersey, Prentice Hall Inc., 1989.

   4. Mitchil, William, “System Analysis: Political System”, International Encyclopedia of the Social Science, edited by David L. Sills, USA, Crowel and McMillan Inc., 1968.

   5. Neison, Barbara, “Public Policy and Administration”, A New Handbook of Political Science, edited by Robert G. Goodin, New York, Oxford University Press, 1996.

   6. Pierson Christopher, The Modern State, London and New York, Routledge, 1996.

   7. Robinson, James, “Decision-making: Political Aspects”, International Encyclopedia of the Social Science, edited by David L. Sills, USA Crowell and McMillan Inc., 1968.

   8. Held, David, Models of Democracy, Abbass Mokhber (trans.), Tehran, Roshangran Publications, 1989.

   9. Professional Policy-making for the 21^st century, reported by strategic policy-making team, Cabinet Office, 1999.

   10. Azghandi, Alireza and Roshandel Hassan, Contemporary Military and Strategic Issues (2^nd edition), Qom: SAMT Publication, 1999.

   11. Khalili, Reza, “Factors and Phases of Formulation, Implementation, and Evaluation of National Security Strategy”, Rahbord Periodical, No. 28, 2002.

   12. Rezaei, Akbar, “Evaluation of Iranian Foreign Policy Strategy”, Viewpoints and Analysis Monthly, No. 143.

   13. Weldo, Dwight, “Public Administration”, International Encyclopedia of the Social Science, edited by David L. Sills, USA Crowell and McMillan Inc., 1968.

   14. Several Problems of Setting up the National Security, by Naruhiko Ueda, 1998.

   15. Anderson James A., David W. Brady, Charles S. Bullok, and Joseph Stewart, Public Ploicy and Politics in America, Montery, Calfornia: Book/Cole Publishing Company, 1984.

   16. Dye, Thomas, Understanding Public Policy, Englewood, Cliffs, NJ Printice Hall, 1981.

   17. Eroman, Lewis, “Public Policy”, International Encyclopedia of the Social Science, edited by David L. Sills, USA Crowell and McMillan Inc., 1968.

   18. K.J. Holsti, International Politics, Englewood, Cliffs, NJ Printice Hall, 1988.

   19. Gilbert, Chances E., “Welfare Policy”, Handbook of Political Science, Policies, and Policy-making, edited by Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, Volume 6, California: Addison Wesely Publishing co., 1975.

   20. ADDENDA

       RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

       By describing and evaluating pressures of strategy regulating environment and assessing the requirements of understanding vulnerabilities in a country’s security and general strategies, the present research tries to follow up its objectives through a qualitative research methodology. Accordingly, it is assumed that:

       “Interests that are originated from natural security are the main motivation and guideline for the behavior of all countries in the field of national security. Vulnerabilities of this field can disintegrate security principles which are meaningful in association with other principles, such as the Constitution, the prevalence of values, and general recommendations and measurements in the field of defense-security. It also can increase the risk of research and its follow-up initiatives and prevent a general understanding of domestic and international conditions. It helps us to find our security-oriented real self and present a measurement for distinguishing our selfhood and non-selfhood in both internal and external environments.”

       THE RESEARCH QUESTION

       Power and interests have tremendous mental and abstract aspects which have been amalgamated with values. Therefore, it has hardly been possible to find out general and quantitative criteria for their assessment and evaluation because of the fact that not all authorities and officials associated with national security strategy of the country have identical outlooks towards this issue. Therefore, the question of the present research can be raised as follows:

       “What is the appropriate approach for controlling and reducing decision-making vulnerabilities in the national security strategy?”

       THE RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

       Security decision-making pathology is the assessment and evaluation of the process, procedure, and outcomes that a political system has adopted for its interaction with the security environment or understanding national security needs. Therefore, the hypothesis of the present research is as follows:

       Unless a proper knowledge of challenges, threats, and opportunities is obtained through a logical context of decision-making, we can not witness an active or assuring security.

       THE RESEARCH LITERATURE

       Many thinkers interpret national security as the art and potential of directing the power-generating resources towards creating the feeling of tranquility and rejecting the threat. National security is formed according to following variables:

       1. Strategy-creating perceptions related to national security, which, in fact, determine the orientation and objectives of national power. (125:15)

       2. Prevalent values in a country which are the basis of national survival literature in a country. (8: 321)

       3. Environmental pressures that are effective in creating the feeling of insecurity and can lead to pay further attention to regulating the security-generating behavior in countries. (9: 121)

       4. Power, potentials, and restrictions of countries that, classically speaking, can be integrated with elements of population, natural resources, geography, military force, and ideological power, which, consequently ends in the emergence of the feeling of security. (10: 109)

       5. Policy-making system of a country which is essentially dependent on, and contributing to, the decision-making system of that country. (11: 47)

       A general assessment of nature of national security in the modern world indicates that this perception is more extensive than traditional outlooks towards strategy and its responsibilities are materialized in following forms:

       1. Extending the feeling of stability which includes the clarification and strengthening of national policies through tranquility-creating and threat-reduction mechanisms.

       2. Foundation of, or preparation for, national power follow-up policies at various levels.

       Therefore, strategic decision-making in national security is a process that prepares the proper context of specific decision-makings for official authorities. However, both official and unofficial authorities are generally playing roles in this process. But decision-making is an output that is officially announced by accredited authorities. For instance, we can enumerate these factors in the structure of security policy-making of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

       A. Official Factors

       1. The Supreme Leader, based on article 110 of the Constitution;

       2. The President, based on articles 121 and 113 of the Constitution;

       3. Expediency Council, based on paragraph 1 of the article 110 of the Constitution;

       4. Supreme National Security Council, based on article 176 of the Constitution;

       5. Majlis, based on articles 67, 71, 76, 77, and 78 of the Constitution;

       It should be pointed out that each administrative organization and ministry, the judicial system, and military forces play very significant roles in security decision-making structure of the country.

       B. Unofficial Factors

       1. Political parties, factions, groups, and personalities;

       2. Public opinion and different walks of life;

       3. Mass media;

       4. NGOs;

       5. Religious seminaries, universities, and academic circles;

       6. Various industrial, labor, and trade guilds. (10: 174)