While some national security advisers have eschewed the Scowcroft Model and sought to 'operationalize' the NSC or pursue their own policy agendas without regard to the cabinet, the president and the country are best served by the NSC's adherence to its intended 'honest broker' advisory role.
While the statutory members of the NSC, in some cases, run departments that execute foreign policy, the NSC staff at the White House was intended to coordinate policy rather than run it.
What the Agency [CIA] does is ordered by the President and the NSC [National Security Council]. The Agency neither makes decisions on policy nor acts on its own account. It is an instrument of the President.
The National Security Council assists the president by ensuring that he receives the best views and options from the various departments and agencies on any given issue. The ultimate policies are, as they should be, then decided upon by the president - not by the NSC staff or the national security adviser.
The 'Scowcroft Model' recognizes - and embraces - the unique but necessarily modest place the National Security Council and the national security adviser occupy in the American national security architecture.
Bannon should never have had a permanent seat on the NSC, as he is a political operative, and the NSC has traditionally been a place where American interests are considered rather than narrow Republican or Democratic interests.
President Barack Obama benefits from the shared experience and wisdom of top national security and foreign policy advisers, many of them career professionals.
We've always had a dual role in the region - friend of Israel, and honest broker. We've given up the honest broker role completely.
Ever since the end of the Cold War, it has been our paramount interest in Europe to strengthen NATO and to extend it - an effort I was part of when I served in the State Department and the NSC in two administrations.
The senior director at the NSC for the Middle East is retired Col. Derek Harvey, an Arabic-speaking intelligence officer with a Ph.D. who served as the head of the U.S. military cell examining the insurgency in Iraq in 2003.
The fact that some former national security officials challenge the policy wisdom of the order, while other national security officials - most notably those of this [Donald Trump's] administration - support it, merely demonstrates that these are policy disputes that the judiciary is both ill-equipped and constitutionally barred from arbitrating.
We have a media that goes along with the government by parroting phrases intended to provoke a certain emotional response - for example, "national security." Everyone says "national security" to the point that we now must use the term "national security." But it is not national security that they're concerned with; it is state security. And that's a key distinction.
When we come into the NSC, everybody has different opinions. At the end of the day, we present the president with all the facts. We let him make the decision. And we all, as a team, go out and support that decision.
When you're offered a job to serve your country, you step back and assess. And once I spoke with President Trump and told him what I thought I needed to be successful - which was to be a Cabinet member; to be on the National Security Council, where I could be a part of the policy decisions; and to be able to say what I wanted to say - how do you not do that job? He was incredibly supportive. He's continued to be. I love a good challenge, and this certainly has been that.
Indian president does not determine policy. Here President is not the policy maker. In the name of the president, the cabinet takes the policy decision.
We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected Judiciary inferior to Congress or the President in making policy judgments. That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.
President's personal staff has a unique role. They're his intimate personal advisers, and the tradition and the precedent has been, even when I was national security adviser, that people in that position do not testify before the Congress. They talk to the Congress. They have meetings with the Congress.