Download United States National Security Council

SWCHSMUN 2012
United States National Security Council
Sir Winston Churchill HSMUN Conference
SWCHSMUN 2012
Table of Contents
National Security Council ……………………………………………………………… Pages 2-3
What are Crisis Committees? ……………………………………………………….. Pages 3-6
Global Intelligence Report ……………………………………………………………. Pages 7-16
U.S. Security Infrastructure Assessment ………………………………………. Pages 17-21
Procedure ……………………………………………………………………………………. Page 22
USNSC Membership …………………………………………………………………….. Page 22
USNSC Member Profiles ………………………………………………………………. Pages 23-38
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
Works Cited …………………………………………………………………………………. Pages 39-42
1
The National Security Council
The National Security Council (NSC) is the President's principal forum for considering national
security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and cabinet
officials. Since its inception under President Truman, the Council's function has been to advise
and assist the President on national security and foreign policies. The Council also serves as the
President's principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies.
The NSC is chaired by the President. Its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory)
are the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to the Council, and the Director of National
Intelligence is the intelligence advisor. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the
President, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are invited to attend any NSC
meeting. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget are
invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities. The heads of other executive
departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials, are invited to attend meetings of
the NSC when appropriate.
A few things to keep in mind with regard to the United States National Security Council at
SWCHSMUN 2012:



While in reality this is not the case, during SWCHSMUN 2012, the United States National
Security Council will be run under standard Model UN Parliamentary Procedure during
the course of debate including the use of caucuses, timed speeches, and voting
regulations. It is expected that you are at least operationally familiar with these
protocols before debate, especially in a high profile, crisis oriented committee as this.
This committee will not be using resolutions, as the actual United States National
Security Council does not. Instead, we will be using “action orders”. These orders will be
to your respective departments to either bring forward some information or to commit
some action. Know what your departments are capable of in order to maximize the
effectiveness of these orders. These would be written out on paper and submitted to
the chair for vote very similarly to resolutions.
We will be using an accelerated time frame. Actions that would take weeks will yield
results within hours. This is done in order for the council to see the consequence, both
good and bad, of its actions and react appropriately. Note that this also the same for
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
Brief History of the United States Post World War II
The National Security Council was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. It was created
because policymakers felt that the diplomacy of the State Department was no longer adequate
to contain the USSR in light of the tension between the Soviet Union and the United States. The
intent was to ensure coordination and concurrence among the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, Air
Force and other instruments of national security policy, such as the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) which was also created with the National Security Act.
2


crises. Crises that would take weeks to degenerate into a very threatening situation will
also be accelerated in order to ensure a sense of urgency within the committee.
Being a crisis oriented committee, a crisis director will be assigned to our committee to
give real time response and coordinate visiting speakers.
Participants in the USNSC committee at SWCHSMUN are strongly encouraged to bring
a laptop to the committee. If you do not have access to a laptop for this event, please
have your Model UN faculty advisor to send an e-mail to the Secretary General of
SWCHSMUN, Mr. Kevin Gilchrist ([email protected]).
What are Crisis Committees?
Simulation Overview
Parliamentary Procedure Specific to Crisis Committees
The same parliamentary procedures used for General Assemblies and Special Committees
apply to Crisis Committees as well. However, Crisis Committees (such as the US National
Security Council) tend to be more informal than other committees, that is, they require a
limited use of parliamentary procedure. They are often times more unstructured, and the flow
of the committee is heavily dependent on the discretion of the chair. The chair will make
his/her procedural preferences clear at the start of the first committee session. There may be a
speaker’s list, yet most committees do without one. There is often no official setting of the
agenda, as debate tends to flow between topics and is determined by the pertinent crisis at
hand. In general, discussion occurs through moderated caucuses in which the chair calls upon
delegates to speak. Delegates motion for moderated caucuses of a specified length and
speaking time and on a specified topic. Many issues may be discussed concurrently and crises
introduced by the crisis staff may interrupt discussion. Occasionally, unmoderated caucuses
(motioned for by a delegate) are held in which formal debate is suspended and delegates speak
at will in groups of their choosing. In voting, a motion for an unmoderated caucus takes
precedence over a motion for a moderated caucus. Often, motions are simply passed without
voting if there are no competing motions. Action is taken through directives, and there are
generally no working papers or resolutions, unless the chair so desires. Notes are used to
communicate between delegates while the committee proceeds. They are often used to work
with delegates of similar viewpoints to coordinate actions. Questions can also be sent to the
chair (or crisis staff) in a note.
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
Crisis Committees are specialized groups at SWCHSMUN that spend most of their time dealing
with real-time events that require immediate attention and action. These crises range from
terrorist attacks to natural disasters to corruption within a certain organization. Common
considerations of crisis committees include: understanding the crisis and its implications,
informing (or not informing) the press and public, undertaking immediate damage control,
reacting to the actions of other groups, and preventing future crises.
3
Directives and Notes
Directives
In order to carry out any action during committee, a directive must be sent by an individual, a
group of individuals, or the committee as a whole. If it is not on behalf of the entire committee,
then the delegate(s) can choose to make the directive private and it will not be revealed to the
whole committee. If the chair deems necessary, the directive may need to be introduced by a
requisite number of writers. To pass a directive on behalf of the whole committee, a simple
majority vote is required. The chair will hold a vote as each directive is introduced.
There are three types of directives – Action Orders, Communiqués, and Press Releases.
Action orders are used to direct troops, agencies, individuals, etc. to take an action that
is within the authority of the committee. An individual may only send an action order if it is
within his powers. A communiqué is used to communicate with foreign governments, or
individuals outside the committee. A press release is used to reveal information to the public.
Examples of Directives
Action Order
Direct Allied forces to invade Normandy, France on June 6th. Paratroopers shall be
dropped behind enemy lines on June 4th. Landings shall take place at Utah, Omaha,
Gold, Juno, and Sword beaches.
-The Allies
To the Emperor of Japan:
We demand an immediate, unconditional surrender by all Japanese forces within 48
hours, or we shall be forced to unleash heretofore unimaginable devastation upon your
cities.
- The Allies
Press Release
Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was
suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
Communiqué
4
Examples of Notes- To a member of the same committee
[Address Section on outside of Note]
To: Franklin D. Roosevelt
From: Winston Churchill
[Message on inside of Note]
We ask that you work with us to increase intelligence efforts directed against our so-called
allies, the Soviets, so that we will not be surprised by any actions they take after the war.
- Winston Churchill
To a member of another committee
[Address Section on outside of Note]
To: Leaders of Romania, Axis
From: Josef Stalin, Allies
[Message on inside of Note]
Seeing as the defeat of Nazi Germany is near, we would advise you to make a deal with the
Soviet Union now or we will show no mercy when the time for your defeat arrives.
- Josef Stalin
[Address Section on outside of Note]
To: Chair/Crisis
From: Winston Churchill
[Message on inside of Note]
What is the current disposition of British forces in the Middle East?
- Winston Churchill
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
To chair or crisis staff
5
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
An Outline of Typical Crisis Committee Flow
 A moderated caucus takes place with delegates outlining their position.
 A delegate motions for a moderated caucus on a specified topic of a specified length with a
specified speaking time.
 Delegates discuss actions to take regarding that topic through the moderated caucus and
through notes.
 Delegates submit directives to the chair to take an action and motion to introduce the
directive.
 Discussion on the directives will proceed through the current moderated caucus and
amendments may be proposed and voted on.
 A delegate will motion to vote on a directive and the directive is either passed or rejected.
 A crisis will occur, oftentimes in the middle of debate. The crisis staff will introduce new
information or developments through news articles, videos, intelligence reports, etc.
 Discussion will shift informally or through a new moderated caucus to discuss this
development.
6
Global Intelligence Report
The Levant
Israel
The Levant, for the purposes of defining the operational areas of this Council, is the region of
the Middle East that includes Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Palestinian territories of the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Some also consider Egypt to be a Levant nation, but as this is in
some dispute, analysis of the Egyptian situation will be left to the North African segment. The
Levant is an area of grave concern for the national security strategy of the United States. The
current U.S. administration has made the Israeli- Palestinian conflict a foreign policy priority, as
administrations have for the last forty-five years, and as a result, has a clearly defined set of
friends and enemies in the Levant. The United States has been very clear in stating that it
considers Hamas, which won the June 2007 Palestinian parliamentary elections and has
relatively unencumbered jurisdiction over the Gaza Strip, to be a terrorist organization. Hamas
has launched on-again-off-again rocket attacks from Gaza against southern Israel, and has now
signed an agreement with the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority to form a unity government after
the 2012 election. Whether this will lead Hamas to a process of self-moderation as it seeks to
gain legitimate control over the whole of the Palestinian territories remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, on September 26th, 2011 the Palestinian Authority applied to the United Nations
for recognition as an independent state. As of this writing, the United States has made its
opposition to recognition clear, and has expressed an intention to veto recognition should it
come to a vote in the Security Council. The United States and Israel stand virtually alone in this
position, and should the United States move ahead with the veto, it could bring about
significant anti-American demonstrations and extremist actions against American overseas
positions.
Moreover, American relations with Israel are also at historic ebb. Though the tactical military
bond between the IDF and U.S. Armed Forces remains strong, tension exists at the highest
levels of both governments over the Israeli refusal to comply with America’s demands for a
total freeze on new settlements in the West Bank. Public opinion in Israel toward the United
State is at a historic low as well, creating the potential for ultra-conservative Israeli factions to
be provoked into action. Moreover, President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu share a
difficult personal relationship, making upper-level relations even tenser. In sum, the United
States is in the unusual position of having the frostiest relations with both Israel and the
Palestinian Authority that it has had in years at the same time. It must be wary of potential
threats to its interests on both fronts.
Syria, Lebanon and Jordan
The current regime in Syria of Bashar al-Assad continues to face massive protests as part of the
ongoing 2011 Arab Spring, and al-Assad has responded by cracking down heavily on his people.
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
As a member of the United States National Security Council, your duty is to be prepared to deal
with any potentially damaging situation that may arise. This section summarizes the most
prominent threats at this time.
7
Arabian Peninsula
The Arabian Peninsula includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar,
Oman, and Yemen. Many consider al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a terrorist
organization located in the incredibly unstable state of Yemen to be the greatest terrorist
threat to the United States today. AQAP’s present incarnation was formed in 2009 when the
Saudi branch of AQAP and al-Qaeda in Yemen merged under the leadership of Nassir alWahayshi. AQAP shares the strategic goals of the wider al-Qaeda organization, including ending
what they view as the foreign occupation of all Muslim lands, but also seeks to overthrow the
governments of Yemen and Saudi Arabia, establish an Islamic caliphate throughout the Arabian
Peninsula, and expel all foreign presence from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In 2009, the
organization attempted to execute its first attack outside the Arabian Peninsula when an AQAPtrained operative tried to detonate explosives on an American-bound airplane. Although the
attempt failed, it demonstrated the organization’s resolve to attack targets outside of the
Arabian Peninsula. AQAP has threatened the Bab al-Mandab, the strait between the Horn of
Africa and Yemen through which 3 million barrels of oil per day and 30 percent of global annual
trade pass, so the possibility of a coordinated attack with the al-Shabaab militia in the Horn of
Africa is a distinct threat to U.S. economic and energy interests. AQAP works to recruit Muslims
in the West through its strong internet and social media presence. The Yemeni government has
coordinated with U.S. intelligence services in its stepped-up counterterrorism efforts against
the organization, with 28 U.S. drone attacks on prominent AQAP targets in Yemen as of August
2012. The most prominent target that has been killed in U.S. drone attacks in Yemen was Anwar
Awkaki, an Al Qaeda commander who was born in New Mexico. The upsurge in drone strikes
comes as the government of President Abdu Rabu Mansoor Hadi, a U.S. ally, appears to have
gained ground in the country’s civil war. With U.S. backing, Yemeni forces have dislodged Al
Qaeda militants from several southern cities and towns that AQAP had previously captured.
White House terrorism advisor John Brennan has gone on record as stating that “so long as
AQAP seeks to implement its murderous agenda, we will be a close partner with Yemen in
meeting this common threat.” The Arab Spring affected the stability of Bahrain when protesters
challenging the legitimacy of Bahrain’s government clashed with troops that were deployed to
keep protests under control. The Bahraini government worked with Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates, who sent troops to the country ostensibly to protect financial institutions
and energy installations. In reality, Saudi and Emirati troops ended up playing a role in
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
The United States faces potential threats from two main Syrian sources. Radical segments of
the dissenters who feel the United States has not done enough to further the reformist cause
could channel their rage into potentially dangerous actions. Elements of Syrian military,
paramilitary or intelligence forces, whom are threatened by American-led sanctions against the
current regime, are equally alarming. The National Security Council should be prepared for
potential reprisals against American assets throughout the Levant. Much of southern Lebanon
remains controlled by Hezbollah, which the United States classifies as a terrorist organization.
However, in June of 2011, Hezbollah joined a national unity government in Beirut, and
diplomatic progress in that area remains underway. Jordan is relatively stable, and has not
been subject to the protests that have rocked neighboring countries; it is not an area of
concern to American national security at this time.
8
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran
Afghanistan
Afghanistan, like many nations in Central Asia, is fraught with internal and external difficulties.
Chief among these is its political instability. Since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001 at the
hands of American forces, the nascent government has struggled to rebuild a ravaged country.
Its efforts have been hindered by tribal and ethnic differences within both the electorate and
the legislature. Despite the construction of a strong central government under President Hamid
Karzai, the government’s mandate remains weak. Furthermore, tribal conflicts, both among
disparate groups and within the central government, continue to work against reconstruction
efforts by the government and the United States. The latter’s continued military and
humanitarian presence is another target of violence, particularly by groups backed by the
resurgent Taliban. The government continues to have border issues with Pakistan, as the
mountain tribes in the area are spread across both sides of the political boundary. The
government has had to deal with repeated incursions by the Pakistani military to secure the
treaty-based Durand Line. Similar border issues exist with Iran; in particular, there is tension
over Afghanistan’s creation of a dam on the Helmand River, which flows into southeast Iran.
The Afghan government has also struggled with Iran’s deportation of masses of Afghans.
Finally, the government has attempted to ease tense relations with Russia over both the opium
trade and the Taliban’s support of Chechnyan terrorists operating within Russia.
The United States’ main security concerns regarding Afghanistan are its on-going nationbuilding and anti-terrorism efforts. Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants remain entrenched in the
Afghan-Pakistan border mountains, and while U.S. drone and special forces strikes have had
some limited success, attacks on U.S., Afghan, and Pakistan forces have not ceased. Another
concern is the opium trade. Afghanistan is the world’s largest producer of opium. While this
and the diplomatic fallout with neighboring countries is a concern, a more pressing issue the
continuing use of opiate revenues by antigovernment groups, particularly the Taliban.
Pakistan
For Pakistan, like its neighbor Afghanistan, the primary internal concern is the political
instability resulting from a history of military rule and regional conflict. The assassination of
potential democratic reformer Benazir Bhutto in 2007 lent to the uncertainty of the country’s
political situation. While Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, many suspected the military
government of Pervez Musharraf as being responsible. There remains tension between
advocates of Western-style democracy and Islamist groups supporting a theocratic nation and
the government’s policies have repeatedly shifted between these two extremes. On top of this,
the country faces the threat of terrorism from groups on the Afghan border, a region where the
military consistently avoids any attempt to impose order, due to its resistance to central
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
suppressing protesters. The Bahraini government is an important strategic ally of the United
States, but is nonetheless accused of imposing a repressive rule that has led its citizens to
protest. While the conflict in Bahrain remains unresolved, the other “oil
monarchies” in the Gulf were largely untouched by the popular discontent that was pervasive
in Arab countries in the spring of 2011.
9
Iran
Despite Iran’s desire to place itself against Saudi Arabia and the United States as a hegemon of
the Islamic world, its efforts are hindered by internal and external opposition. The so-called
“Green Revolution” protests in early 2011, while primarily aimed at the constraints on freedom
and civil liberties and the alleged human rights violations by the government of President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, contained elements of discontent with the Islamic republic itself and
its embodiment in the Ayatollah as its supreme leader. Though the protests were halted by a
strong security response, unrest remains, and the persistent spread of the Arab Spring
revolutions intensifies the threat of popular revolt despite Iran’s relative cultural dissimilarity
with the Arab states. Iran’s closest external concern is the presence of U.S. forces - and, at least
in theory, U.S. friendly governments - on both its eastern and western borders in the form of
Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of these countries’ previous disputes with Iran make them a
pressing issue for the Iranian foreign ministry. Furthermore, the transnational Baluch
population has caused internal dissent in Iran’s southern provinces as well as increased border
tension with Pakistan and Afghanistan. The United States’ top concern for Iran is its attempts at
a nuclear program. While Iran has continually asserted that its efforts are solely for civilian
energy purposes, the IAEA has released reports that Iran has failed to follow guidelines set
down by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. A nuclear Iran would be a dangerous
development for several reasons. Although Iran does not have the missile capacity to strike
North American target, its Islamist government may not hesitate to use its capabilities against
nearby Israel. It could also serve as a deterrent against U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the
Middle East. Furthermore, there are fears that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear technology could
spread to non-state groups like al-Qaeda or the Taliban and be used for an attack against
Western populations.
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
authority. Many of these attacks are supported by transnational terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda
who condemn the government’s partial cooperation with the United States’ War on Terror,
particularly after the death of Osama bin Laden during a U.S. Navy Seal raid on his compound in
Pakistan. Another pressing concern for the Pakistani government is its ongoing tension with
India. Since the partition of the two countries in 1947, the border regions between them have
been continually disputed, particularly the northern region of Kashmir. Relations between the
two governments took a downward turn after the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, but
some degree of rapprochement has since shown moderate success. Despite this, continuing
Pakistani terrorist attacks against Indian army units in Kashmir hinders attempts at cooperation,
and the standoff between the two nuclear powers is a great source of concern for the
international community. The U.S.’s primary security interest in Pakistan is the need for the
government’s cooperation in hunting Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants along the Afghan border.
This has grown more difficult due to Pakistani displeasure with the collateral damage caused by
U.S. and NATO drone attacks, and the Islamist reaction to the death of Osama bin Laden has
caused the Pakistani government to be more wary of extremely close involvement in the War
on Terror. Furthermore, Pakistan’s possession of nuclear weapons is a continuing source of
unease, especially given the nation’s inherent political instability.
10
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
Northern Africa
There are two security challenges present in northern Africa: Islamist terrorist groups and
political instability. The terrorist threat comes from an Al-Qaeda cell in the region, known as AlQaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which is believed to have several large training camps in
the Sahel, the area wedged between the Sahara Desert and the Sudanian Savannah. Al-Qaeda is
believed to receive large weapons shipments into those countries to supply the training camps.
Al-Qaeda operatives frequently train in the Sahel and then return to urban areas, particularly in
Morocco, to plan attacks in Africa and elsewhere. In this regard, the proximity of the Maghreb
region to Western Europe is worrisome, as terrorists can travel to countries such as Spain and
Italy with relative ease. In late August 2011, al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for a suicide
bombing at a top Algerian military academy in the city of Cherchell which killed eighteen
people, including two civilians. A statement by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb actually
claimed that the attack took the lives of thirty-six individuals. This most recent attack reflects
the type of guerilla terrorism that is typical of AQIM. In addition to terrorist attacks, Tunisia and
Algeria have also been rocked by political unrest in the past year. In Tunisia, the Jasmine
Revolution in December 2010 and January 2011, considered by some to be the beginning of the
2011 Arab Spring, resulted in the downfall of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali after mass
popular demonstrations. These demonstrations were prompted by economic problems,
government corruption, and a lack of freedom of expression in Tunisia. While the protests
inspired protesters in Egypt and elsewhere, those issues are far from resolved, and protests
continue as an interim government paves the way for eventual free elections and the
installation of a new permanent and democratic government. Furthermore, the protests grew
violent at times as police and military forces aggressively sought to subdue protesters. In
Algeria, protesters, many of them young men frustrated by high unemployment and inflation in
housing and food costs, as well as a government that has restricted freedom of speech and
other liberties, continue mass demonstrations that began in late 2010. As in Tunisia, the
government struggles to maintain order and this kind of dissatisfaction with the government
may leave disaffected young men vulnerable to recruitment by fundamentalist terror
organizations, such as al-Qaeda. In this Horn of Africa, this kind of governmental instability has
been seen in Somalia for years now. A civil war that began in 1991 has consumed the country,
and for most of that time Somalia has lacked a central government, allowing for militia groups
to take power over the country, in particular the anti-Western, radical Islamist group AlShabaab in the south of Somalia. Most recently, instability has become the norm in Egypt,
where protests began in January 2011 and resulted in the fall of President Hosni Mubarak’s
government in February 2011, which had been standing for thirty years. Though their country
was considered stable at the time that the revolution began, Egyptian citizens took to the
streets en masse to protest long-standing injustices such as corruption and un-free elections,
abuse of emergency law, and police brutality. As in Tunisia and elsewhere, economic woes also
weighed on the protesters’ minds. Following the Egyptian Revolution of 2011, and the
resignation of Hosni Mubarak, executive power was assumed by the Supreme Council of the
Armed Forces, which dissolved parliament and suspended the constitution. In 2012,
parliamentary and presidential elections were held, with the presidential elections resulting in
the election of Mohammed Morsi as Egypt’s fifth president.
11
Mexico
Narcotics trafficking and the corresponding violence remain the most pressing issues on the
bilateral agenda. The current phase of Mexico’s drug war began on December 11th, 2006, when
newly elected President Felipe Calderón deployed 6,500 soldiers, marines, and federal
policemen to his home state of Michoacán, a hotspot in a recent surge of drug violence. The
conflict has since escalated in scope and violence. 50,000 military personnel and federal police
now patrol Mexican streets, and they have scored major successes: of the country’s 37 top
traffickers, authorities have killed or captured 17. Nevertheless, the death toll inexorably
continues to climb. Over four years, 34,612 Mexicans have died in drug-related killings; almost
half of all fatalities—15,273—occurred in 2010 alone, by far the bloodiest year in Mexico’s drug
conflict. 90 percent of the deaths are instances of cartel members killing one another. Rather
than spreading throughout the country, the bloodshed remains concentrated in three key
states: Chihuahua, Sinaloa, and Tamaulipas. Violence, however, has begun to seep into the
state of Nuevo Leon, which houses the thriving Mexican business hub of Monterrey. The
border town of Ciudad Juárez, located in Chihuahua, claimed one quarter of all 2010 drug
slayings as the Sinaloa Cartel and the Juárez Cartel (also known as the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes
Organization) battle for control of the smuggling routes to the lucrative U.S. market. Other
major cartels include the Zetas, a group of Mexican ex-special forces who used to serve as the
enforcement arm of the Gulf Cartel, and the New Federation, a makeshift alliance that the Gulf
Cartel, La Familia Michoacána, and the Sinaloa Cartel formed to contain the Zetas’ growing
clout. The cartels depend on the United States for their livelihood. In 2006, the White House
Office of National Drug Control Policy estimated that Mexican cartels took in $13.8 billion, of
which $8.6 billion - roughly sixty percent - came from selling marijuana to U.S. consumers.
Similarly, Mexico now serves as the transshipment point for 90 percent of the cocaine destined
for the U.S. market. Unfortunately, many of the U.S. victories in combating the Colombian drug
cartels in the 1980s and 1990s ultimately shifted the cocaine nexus closer to home, from
Colombia to Mexico. President Obama has thus acknowledged that the United States has “to
take responsibility” for the public safety crisis south of the border, and his administration plans
to disburse $900 million of the $1.4 billion Merida Initiative, a U.S. security assistance plan, by
the end of 2011. However, corruption among law enforcement officials, weak judicial
institutions, and poor intelligence-gathering capabilities all suggest that more money alone will
not carry the day against the kingpins.
Colombia
For many decades, Colombia has been mired in warfare between leftist guerillas, right-wing
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
Latin America and South America
Whether under the guise of securing its commercial interests, checking the spread of
communism, or carrying out the War on Drugs, the United States has a long history of
engagement and intervention in Latin America. Presently, a number of institutions - the
Organization of American States (OAS) and the Inter-American Development Bank, for example
- and a web of trade agreements ensure continued interaction between the United States and
its Latin American neighbors. In recent years, three Latin American states have emerged as
most relevant to U.S. security concerns: Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela.
12
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
paramilitaries, and drug cartels. Today, Colombia faces threats from two major armed groups:
the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN).
The United States has designed both as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The stronger of these
two groups is FARC, which formed in 1964 as an amalgamation of “communist militants and
peasant self-defense groups.” FARC rakes in between $500 million and $600 million from the
drug trade, the group’s primary source of funding, but kidnappings, extortion, and protection
rackets also pad the rebels’ coffers. Though FARC still remains powerful, the Colombian
government has scored major successes in cracking down on the organization. The group’s
current strength, estimated at roughly 8,000-9,000 combatants, has fallen by half since 2002,
when it commanded17,500-18,000 fighters. Likewise, in 2002 FARC boasted a presence in 514
of Colombia’s 1,098 municipalities; by 2009, that number had fallen to 206 municipalities. FARC
employs traditional guerilla warfare tactics, including sniper attacks, mine laying, car bombs,
assassination of political opponents, and light, relatively brief engagements (hostigamientos)
with security forces. In 2009, FARC conducted roughly 177 sniper attacks and 100
hostigamientos. Mines caused a further 674 casualties, of which 232 victims were civilians. The
average age of a FARC recruit, tragically, is a mere 11.8 years. Hoping to emulate the success of
Fidel Castro’s Cuban Revolution, a number of “students, Catholic radicals, and left-wing
intellectuals” banded together to create the ELN in 1964. Today, ELN operates primarily in the
“rural and mountainous areas of northern, northeastern, and southwestern Colombia, as well
as the border regions with Venezuela,” according to the U.S. State Department. Similar to
FARC, the ELN primarily finances its activities through narcotics trafficking. ELN fighters total
roughly 2,000, and the terrorist group carried out at least 23 attacks in 2010. FARC and ELN
announced an alliance in December of 2009. Although FARC and ELN perpetrated some jointattacks in 2010, hostility runs deep between the two organizations; FARC alone killed roughly
150 ELN guerillas from 2002 to 2009. The effectiveness of an alliance or non-aggression pact
between the two terrorist organizations seems to depend on regional commanders; whereas a
truce appears to be in effect in the Nariño and Cauca Departments, FARC’s front commander in
Arauca Department has declared his intention to fight the ELN until it is eliminated. The 2002
election of Álvaro Uribe as Colombia’s president ushered in a tougher internal security policy.
Uribe vowed to negotiate only with paramilitary and guerrilla groups that would give up
terrorism and consent to a ceasefire. Between 2002 and 2008, homicides declined by 40
percent, kidnapping fell by 76 percent, and terrorist attacks dropped by 61 percent. An
incredibly popular president, Uribe left office in 2010 with an approval rating of 75 percent. His
successor and former Minister of Defense, Juan Manual Santos, has largely continued Uribe’s
policies, although he has displayed a more conciliatory attitude towards Venezuela. Since Fiscal
Year 2000, Washington has provided Colombia approximately $7 billion, largely in military
assistance, through Plan Colombia. Though Plan Colombia initially began as a counter-narcotics
assistance program, in 2002 Congress authorized the use of Plan Colombia funds against both
drug trafficking and terrorist groups. The United States has provided extensive advisors to
Colombia, but U.S. personnel cannot directly partake in combat operations. Furthermore,
Congress has mandated that no more than 800 U.S. military personnel and 600 civilian
personnel can be stationed in Colombia, although U.S. manpower in Colombia usually does
not exceed one-half of that maximum amount. On October 30th, 2009, the two countries
announced the U.S.-Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA), which provided U.S.
13
Venezuela
Under Hugo Chávez, Venezuela has turned into a vocal opponent of U.S. policies. Chávez
himself has frequently railed against the United States and its leaders: in a 2006 speech before
the U.N. General Assembly, he called then-president George W. Bush “the devil” and “the
spokesman of imperialism.” Even after the election of Barack Obama, Chavez’s stance has not
noticeably softened. When the United States sent soldiers to Haiti to deliver post-earthquake
humanitarian assistance, Chavez accused the United States of “occupying Haiti undercover.” In
addition to developing closer ties with Latin America’s leftist governments, including the
administrations of Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Evo Morales in Bolivia,
and Fidel and Raúl Castro in Cuba, Venezuela has also courted Russia and Iran. Russia has
agreed to build Venezuela’s first nuclear power plant, for example, and the two countries also
conducted joint naval exercises in 2008. Furthermore, Iranian president Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and Chavez have declared that their two states possess a “strategic alliance”
that will overturn Western imperialism and create a “new world order.” Caracas and Tehran
have signed energy cooperation agreements worth billions of dollars, leading to accusations
that Venezuela may have violated U.S. or U.N. sanctions against Iran. In 2011, the German
newspaper Die Welt reported that Iran was constructing missile bases in Venezuela,
although both the U.S. State Department and the Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs have
stated that the allegations are untruthful. Venezuela has provided some support to terrorist
organizations, although it is unclear whether that support is actual government policy or the
actions of “entrepreneurial” government officials. In 2008, two arrested members of Basque
Fatherland and Liberty (ETA), a terrorist group active in Spain, confessed that they had received
training from a Venezuelan official. According to the Colombian government, Bogotá has
repeatedly provided Venezuela with information that FARC and ELN terrorists are hiding out in
Venezuela, but Venezuela has taken no action to expel them. The United States has also
designated Venezuela’s current Director of the Military Intelligence Directorate, General Hugo
Armando Carvajal Barrios, as someone who has materially assisted the FARC’s drug trafficking
efforts. Chavez has continued to deny charges that his government supports terrorism or that
“a foreign paramilitary or military guerilla force has taken over even the smallest millimeter
squared of our sovereign territory.”
Other Areas of Note
It is also worth considering independent state actors who are not necessarily involved in
regional areas of concern that could involve the United States, but who do represent potential
threats to national security.
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
forces access for ten years to seven military bases in Colombia to execute joint counternarcotics and counterterrorism actions. However, on August 17th, 2010, the Colombian
Constitutional Court found the treaty unconstitutional because President Uribe had not
submitted it to the Colombian Congress for approval. President Santos shows no inclination to
submit the accord to Congress, ensuring that the DCA will not enter into force.
14
North Korea
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, occupying the northern half of the Korean
Peninsula, is governed by a secretive and belligerent sultanistic regime which until very recently
was led by Kim Jong-Il, who became head of state after the death of his father, Kim Il-Sung.
Upon the death of Kim Jong-Il, power was passed on to his son, Kim Jong-Un. From its
beginning, the North Korean state has been anti-American and has repeatedly flaunted its
disrespect for international demands on its behavior. Furthermore, animosity between the two
Koreas is extremely high, and North Korea is often the belligerent party in flare-ups. On March
26th, 2010, a South Korean naval vessel the Cheonan, sank in the Yellow Sea, killing 46 sailors.
Upon investigation, an international panel, led by South Korea, declared the sinking to have
resulted from a torpedo attack by a North Korean submarine. The United Nations Security
Council made a statement strongly condemning the attack without directly implicating North
Korea. The North Korean government has denied that it attacked the ship.
Aside from this kind of unprovoked violence against South Korea, North Korea also has a
nuclear program that may pose a threat to the United States. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions
can be traced to the Cuban Missile Crisis. After that incident, North Korean officials began to
fear that the Soviet Union would not live up to mutual defense agreements with North Korea
and would consider ignoring the agreement in order to curry favor in the West, as they had
when they withdrew weapons from Cuba. Consequently, the North Korean government sought
to build a large standing army. They did not succeed in obtaining nuclear weapons during the
Soviet era; however, as Soviet bloc countries would not give nuclear missiles to the Koreans for
fear that they would share them with the Chinese. Finally, in 2006, North Korea announced that
it had conducted a nuclear test for the first time ever. American and independent assessments
confirmed the presence of earthquake-like tremors in North Korea at the purported time of the
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
China
Widely considered to be the United States’ rival on the rise, the People’s Republic of China has
become more and more assertive in its foreign policy over the years, especially concerning the
U.S. On August 10th, 2011, the Chinese announced that sea trials had begun on its new aircraft
carrier, which had been recently acquired from Russia. Though China asserts that the aircraft
carrier is solely for defensive purposes, its presence will give the PLA-Navy the ability to project
force around the world and must be taken as a serious shift both in the global power
scheme and the U.S. defense paradigm. China has also become increasingly assertive in
cyberwarfare. Both the U.S. government many of its major corporations have come under
attack with increasing frequency from hackers in the last several years, and many government
sources have acknowledged that those attacks have frequently originated from within China.
Google has blamed the mid-2011 attack on Gmail – which resulted in the exposure of hundreds
of passwords belonging to U.S. government officials, Chinese democracy activists, and others
around the world – on China. There are also ongoing security and foreign policy challenges
related to the tumultuous relationship between China and the Republic of China government in
Taiwan. Historically, the United States military has maintained a strong working relationship
with Taiwanese armed forces, including the sales of jets and other materials. China has
expressed concern about this and in late September criticized an Obama administration plan to
sponsor a $5 billion upgrade for Taiwan’s fighter jet fleet.
15
Other Challenges
Natural disasters may also create security challenges. The Atlantic hurricane season does not
end until November 30th, and strong hurricanes, such as Irene, which caused damage up and
down the East Coast in late August, can be challenging elements for governments to manage. In
extreme cases, such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005 when looting
and violence were out of control, affected areas can be paralyzed by disorder and a failure of
the rule of law.
Furthermore, of strong earthquakes across the globe recently, most notably in Japan in March,
has heightened awareness of the political, economic, and humanitarian challenges that can
result from a large-scale earthquake. Though the East Coast earthquake in August 2011 did not
cause significant structural or humanitarian losses in any city, it did raise awareness of the
potential structural flaws in buildings in urban areas in the northeast, including national
landmarks such as the Washington Monument.
Aside from natural disasters and the countries listed above that pose direct security challenges
to the United States, the National Security Council should remain vigilant of goings-on in all
regions of the world. Those that are suffering particularly acute economic problems or political
instability, which may trigger the kind of discontent among citizens that can lead to unrest are
always important to watch, as the chaos risks creating a power vacuum that may be filled by
terrorist groups; dictatorial, anti-American regimes; or violent non-state actors. The listings of
this guide are intended to provide an overview of the greatest threats to U.S. national
security; this is not, by any means, an exhaustive list.
STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM
The following is a list of states that are state sponsors of terrorism, have ties to terrorist groups,
or are terrorist safe havens, taken from the Department of State’s 2010 Country Reports on
Terrorism document.
• Afghanistan
• Cuba
• Iran
• Iraq
• Lebanon
• North Korea
• Pakistan
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
test, corroborating the North Korean regime’s account. Another test was conducted in 2009,
supposedly with weapons with the same capabilities as those that were dropped in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki in Japan at the end of World War II.
Given its apparent willingness to perpetrate violent attacks against South Korea, an American
ally in East Asia, and rumored attempts to develop missiles that could reach the United States,
North Korea remains a security challenge that the United States national security apparatus is
continually monitoring. The challenge is compounded by the secretive nature of the North
Korean regime, which has been untruthful in the past about many important topics, including
the country’s nuclear program.
16
U.S. SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT
Cyberterrorism
Often dismissed as pure science fiction, cybertechnology poses a tangible danger to United
States homeland security, particularly given the high state of American reliance on advanced
information systems. Cyberwarfare is not a new concept in international politics, and states
with advanced information technology are believed to have employed cyberattacks in the
contemporary method as early as 1982. In that year, the C.I.A. was reported, by an unnamed
member of the Reagan administration, to have placed a packed of malicious software known as
a ‘logic bomb’ in a Soviet pipeline control system, causing it to detonate in what was described
as having been one of the most spectacular explosions not caused by a nuclear discharge. More
recently, in 2003, unknown cyber attackers are believed to have penetrated U.S. government
databases.
In general, a ‘cyber-attack’ is most easily conceptualized as the selective use of invasive
computer-based mechanisms, such as viruses, worms, or simple information overload, to cause
digital damage - loss of critical data, information theft, interference in web-based activities- or
physical damage - power loss, failure of hazard containment systems, destruction of digitally
controlled infrastructure. Cyberattacks can come in many forms. The most basic is that often
used by private hackers and cyberterrorists: denial of service. Denial of service involves flooding
a target computer system with irrelevant or malicious data in order to overload it and cause
shut down or procedural blockage. An example occurred in Estonia in 2007, when an unknown
attacker nearly shut down the Estonian civil infrastructure, much of which was completely
internet-based. The system survived the attack only because of their capable government IT
division, and damage was costly and significant. More difficult to detect and counteract are the
more complex viruses, which must attach themselves to a host program to reproduce, and the
dangerous worm, which reproduces itself but does not need a host program, and also will cause
damage regardless of its function. The Israeli military is believed to make extensive use of
worms; two incidents in particular lend evidence to this. In 2007, Syrian air defenses were
mysteriously crippled by computerized systems failure shortly before an Israeli air raid. Three
years later, Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz suffered critical malfunctions due to the release
of the Stuxnet worm in their containment systems, causing serious setbacks and some severe
accidents. Both of these incidents were widely believed to have been the work of the Israeli
Mossad intelligence service. Cybertechnology poses several challenges to national and
international security. The first is accountability: cyberattacks make it difficult to trace or
positively identify an attacker. Even if the individual(s) who carried out the attack are traced,
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
• Philippines
• Somalia
• Sudan
• Syria
• Venezuela
• Yemen
17
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
they may not even be directly connected to the state or non-state actor who masterminded the
plan. Agents of a foreign government choosing to engage in or engineer a cyberattack may
reasonably assume that they will not be identified. In the event of a nuclear strike, everyone
knows who sent the bomb. After a cyberattack, however, it could be weeks, months, even years
before the culprit is identified, if at all. States may not be able to attribute the attack to a
particular aggressor state or non-state actor, or determine against whom they need to balance.
Another challenge of cybersecurity is that states with advanced cyber capabilities and actual or
potential rivalries with other states possess first-strike capability. Cyber tactics can be used for
both counterforce and countervalue purposes. As in the case of the supposedly Israeli attack on
Syrian air defenses, a cyberattacker can target military installations to make a conventional
attack more feasible. However, a cyberattack can also disrupt or seriously damage critical
infrastructure, even to the point of creating physical damage outside of its direct target, as in
the C.I.A.’s destruction of a Russian pipeline and the Stuxnet virus in Iran. Such a strategy could
be used in a populated area to cause malfunctions in municipal waste, water, or power
systems; to sabotage metro rail, airport, and other transportation services; or even to bring
about catastrophic failures in nuclear safety systems. Through combined counterforce and
countervalue tactics, a cyberattacker could seriously damage, if not cripple, their intended
target.
The “management” of the Internet itself – or lack thereof - poses a serious challenge to any
state’s cybersecurity initiatives. The Internet Engineering Task Force, a key player in the upkeep
of the Internet, is distinctly anarchic, indifferent to state authorities, and prone to questionable
methods of decision-making (it uses whistling competitions as a means of voting). The Internet,
the key battleground of cybersecurity, is not conducive to regulation. In fact, the only entities
with any meaningful degree of control are the Internet Service Provider (ISP) companies.
Because of this, the private sector must be a key player in cyberdefense. Already, attempts
have been made to integrate public/private initiatives towards cyberdefense, culminating in the
MITRE Advanced Cyber Security Center in Boston, which brings together government and
private sector cyber experts to develop defense and mitigation strategies. The most urgent
danger posed by cybersecurity, however, is undoubtedly its availability. Any individual in any
country with access to workable computer equipment and the skills of hacking can create a
cyber-assault mechanism; armed with the resources of an organized terrorist organization or a
rogue state, the damage that could be caused by a dedicated team of cyberattackers is
immeasurable. Even a profitable businessman with the services of a skilled group of actors
could develop the capability to challenge a state in the cyber arena. On the reverse side, with
the widespread use of information systems in advanced Western economies, this
vulnerability will only increases as the process of globalization goes forward. With our economy
and daily lives inundated with digital and other types of information technology, the U.S. is
particularly vulnerable to cyberattacks. The first potential avenue of attack comes in the form
of automated systems used by private citizens; computers, phones, and cars. The threat to
computers is obvious: a well-placed virus could play havoc with financial data, initiate identity
theft, bring down security systems, and cause critical overloads resulting in physical damage.
Cellular phones, especially the ever-popular ‘smart phone,’ are similarly an easy target. Most of
can be linked to a physical computer, and many can connect to the Internet. It is easy for a
cyber-attack to spread through these connections to disrupt cellular communication, send false
18
Aviation Security
The weaknesses of the United States’ aviation security were clearly shown in the attacks of
September 11th, 2001, in which lax security enabled a group of terrorists to hijack an airplane
and wreak devastation in New York City, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Since that event, the
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
messages, access restricted call data, and even remote-tap phones to intercept and copy
conversations. IPods, e-readers, and other Internet- or computer-linked devices are also at risk.
Less obvious is the danger posed to automobiles. Cyber researchers have determined that “car
hacking” is a distinct possibility. Cars built in recent years contain an amount of digital circuitry
unprecedented in, say, the 1960s. Examples of systems affected by computerized systems are
the fuel supply, brakes, transmission, hydraulic pressure, and environmental control. Access to
cars from external computer systems is even more available through mandated onboard
diagnostics ports, not to mention Bluetooth and cellular connections for phones and OnStar
services. Another source of concern is the U.S. SmartGrid initiative. The SmartGrid project was
designed with several goals in mind: increasing the efficiency and economy of energy
distribution; facilitate the creation of interfaces for “smart” technology, especially as a fuel
alternative for hybrid and electric-powered cars; and providing better information and
necessity-based control of consumer energy. The idea behind a SmartGrid is not the creation of
a monolithic network, but rather an overlapping system of power companies, networks,
operators, and receptors. The SmartGrid is generally conceived as a two-fold system: a
‘transmission grid’ moves large amounts of electrical energy across large distances, supposedly
even across the continent when fully developed, and a ‘home area network’ or ‘municipal grid’
distributes this energy to buildings based on each building’s specific consumption needs. One of
the aims of this system is to allow more accurate time-of-use information to refine energy
pricing for consumers. But there are significant concerns related to the security of the Smart
Grid. Any computer is vulnerable to infiltration via its connections to other computers, and the
Smart Grid depends on computers. An attack on systems connected by a Smart Grid could
cause mass blackouts, loss of critical systems in power plants and emergency response centers,
and cripple communications systems. Furthermore, manuals for the SCADA control systems
commonly used in power systems have been found with hackers in over 2,000 separate
incidents. So far, SmartGrids have only entered early test phases in a small handful of cities, but
the technology is quickly gaining attention. Despite the dangers of the SmartGrid and private
computer systems, the most pressing concern for cyber security in the United States is the
viability of nuclear containment mechanisms and command and control systems. The United
States currently has over 10,000 nuclear weapons stored in various secure facilities. Many of
the critical components, including many of the warheads themselves, are stored via
computerized monitoring and maintenance systems. Though the U.S. is considered to have one
of the strongest cyberdefense mainframes in the world, it has still been vulnerable in the past,
and other nuclear powers such as Russia or Pakistan do not have nearly the same resiliency in
their defenses. Nuclear power plants are at even greater risk due to their reliance on
computerized regulatory systems and their connections to standard power networks. The
catastrophic damage that could be caused by the critical failure of containment and control
systems in a nuclear storage or power facility is a nightmare scenario for the security forces of
any nuclear power.
19
Port Security
Ports and the containerized shipping that passes through them are immensely important for
the U.S. economy, but pose a large security risk to the nation as well. About 90 percent of the
world’s trade is transported through containerized shipping, and the U.S. receives around half
of its incoming trade – by value - through such shipping. Any disruption to the transport
networks would be catastrophic for the U.S. economy. In fact, past port closures along the
West Coast cost more than $1 billion a day. Because of the cost of inspecting the more than 6
million cargo containers passing through U.S. ports every year and the large cost of shipping
delays due to these inspections, only 2-10 percent of shipping containers are physically
inspected by Customs. Such insufficiencies in the security network of ports can be exploited by
terrorists, who could smuggle conventional bombs, radiological “dirty” bombs, or weapons of
mass destruction in cargo into U.S. ports. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office
concluded that “while the likelihood of such use of containers is considered low, the movement
of oceangoing containerized cargo is vulnerable to some form of terrorist action…including
attempts to smuggle either fully assembled weapons of mass destruction or their individual
components.” The Department of Homeland Security leads the Coast Guard, the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, and the Transportation Security Administration in securing U.S. ports.
The Coast Guard works to protect U.S. ports by inspecting approaching commercial ships,
protecting U.S. Navy ships in American ports, and countering terrorist threats in these ports,
while the U.S. Customs and Border Protections inspects cargo and the crew of the ships.
However, it has been suggested that customs and Coast Guard have been less than present in
day-to-day port security in the past, with private terminal operators and security personnel
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
U.S. has acted to improve its aviation security, but weaknesses persist. One innovative new
program is the use of full-body scanners at airports, which has led to controversy over privacy
rights and possible health effects. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has
started a program of “chat-downs” in which “officers engage in brief, casual conversations with
passengers and listen for any hints of suspicious behavior,” although such techniques have not
been fully assessed by the Department of Homeland Security. Passengers are no longer allowed
to carry liquids on board their flights. Even with these and other safety precautions, however,
travelers rarely feel fully safe.
One major issue in aviation security is lax airport access controls, with investigators using
counterfeit credentials easily accessing secure areas in airports. Airport perimeter security is
often taken care of by the police or local authorities untrained by the TSA, which has too little
authority to properly enforce the necessary safety standards. Screeners at airports have been
found to be insufficiently trained, likely because the rapid turnover rate in the position
disallows extensive and expensive training. Although most reforms have taken effect in largetraffic airports, smaller airports may be weaker as a result of their lower priority status. Aviation
security jumps to the forefront of the American news cycle with the advent of each new
bombing attempt, including that of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the attempted Underwear
Bomber, and the intercepted Yemeni bomb packages which targeted Chicago synagogues.
Although aviation security has improved vastly since the tragic events of 9/11, the United States
is still very vulnerable to attacks which exploit the weaknesses of the aviation system.
20
U.S.-Mexico Border Security
The 2000-mile border between the United States and Mexico has been shown to be porous,
allowing many to cross illegally into the United States. Until today, this weakness has been
exploited mainly by illegal immigrants and smugglers bringing contraband into the United
States. However, it would not be difficult for members of a terrorist organization to enter the
United States or bring explosive devices into the United States in many unprotected regions
along the U.S.-Mexico border. This has not gone unnoticed by government officials
operating near this border; as early as 2004, Senator Kyl from Arizona questioned, “Why
wouldn’t those seeking to attack America be tempted to join the hundreds of thousands
already illegally entering from Mexico?”
Although money poured into border security and efforts to counter illegal immigration has
been relatively effective in many urban areas, illegal cross-border activity has been displaced to
other sectors of the border which are less secure and far less monitored. Recent investigations
by the GAO have shown a “significant disparity between the large law enforcement presence
on state lands in one state and what seems to be a lack of law enforcement presence on
federally managed lands.” Even in monitored areas, GAO undercover investigators were
frequently able to cross into the United States with counterfeit identification, leading the
organization to conclude that “terrorists could use counterfeit identification to pass through
most of the tested ports of entry with little chance of being detected.”
Biohazards
Of additional concern to the U.S. national security apparatus is the threat of bioterrorism,
which, though it could be a threat in any of the areas listed above, would demand a different
response than traditional terror attacks due to its sophisticated, insidious nature. A March 2011
report by the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, a research
institute dedicated to conducting research that will enhance the United States’ ability to
respond to biosecurity threats, concluded that, “the effective dissemination of a lethal
biological agent within a population center would endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands
of people and have unprecedented economic, societal, and political consequences.” In a
bioterrorism attack, harmful, disease-causing agents that affect people, animals, plants, or
some combination thereof, are released in a target area. These agents can be spread through
air, water, or in food. Bioterrorism can be especially potent because of the built-in incubation
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
primarily responsible for guarding their facilities and inspecting containers according to Coast
Guard approved plans.
The Container Security Initiative (CSI) is a program created by the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to “extend our zone of security outward” from our shores by identifying containers
most likely to be at risk for terrorist actions by using intelligence sources, screening containers
at their port of departure instead of upon arrival on American soil, quickly pre-screening such
containers with detection technology, and using containers that evidently show possible
terrorist tampering. Shippers have also promised to improve the security of their cargo
shipments in return for benefits from the government under the Customs-Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), but the government has in large part failed to verify the shipper’s
security information and processes.
21
period that occurs as targets are infected with the agents but do not show symptoms. The
United States is, to date, not as aggressively preparing itself against bioterrorism as it is against
other potential security threats. For example, access to water plants is essentially unguarded,
prompting fears that terrorists could strike against water supplies in urban areas.
PROCEDURE
The U.S. National Security Council will apply basic parliamentary procedure loosely to its
proceedings. The majority of debate will take place in moderated caucuses, with unmoderated
caucuses used sparingly when prudent. More complicated motions will be left to the Chair’s
discretion. The Council will work to pass Directives responding to the fast-paced crises that they
face. Simple majority will be sufficient to pass Directives, unless otherwise specified by the
Chair. Each member has their own portfolio, which can be utilized to obtain information and
take action; however, individual decisions are no substitute for group initiatives, particularly
when facing a large-scale crisis.









Vice President Joe Biden
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff
William Daley, White House Chief of
Staff
Tom Donilon, National Security Adviser
Denis McDonough, Deputy National
Security Adviser
Secretary of the Treasury Timothy
Geithner
Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security Janet Napolitano







General David Petraeus, Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency
Lieutenant General (Ret.) James Clapper, Jr.,
Director of National Intelligence
Eric Holder, Attorney General
Gil Kerlikowske, Director of White House
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Susan E. Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations
Daniel B. Shapiro, NSC Senior Director for
the Near East and North Africa
John Brennan, Assistant to the President and
Deputy National Security Advisor for
Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
USNSC Members at SWCHSMUN 2012:
22
The Vice President’s chief constitutional responsibility
is to preside over the United States Senate. This
includes voting to break ties when they occur—
although this constitutional power has been diminished
by certain legislation passed by the Senate—as well as
presiding over the Electoral College when it convenes.
As such, the Vice President’s constitutional
responsibilities are quite limited; the primary legal
significance of the V.P. is that he or she ascends to the
presidency in the case of the president’s death,
incapacitation, resignation or removal. Although the
Vice Presidency is not officially assigned to any of the
three branches of government by the constitution,
the office is seen more and more as a member of the
executive branch due to the frequent endowment of
executive duties by the president and the significant
Joe Biden, Vice President
role the V.P. plays in advising and assisting the
president in decision-making on a variety of policy issues. For the purposes of this simulation,
the V.P. will serve as the liaison between the NSC and Congress. The current Vice President of
the United States is Joseph Biden, Jr. Before beginning his current role as V.P., Mr. Biden served
six terms as a Senator for the state of Delaware beginning in 1972, at which point he became
one of the youngest people ever elected to the U.S. Senate. During his tenure as Senator, he
served as a Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations
Committees, for seventeen and twelve years respectively. On the Judiciary Committee, he
made himself known for his work on criminal justice issues, especially through the 1994 Crime
Bill and the Violence Against Women Act. On the Foreign Relations Committee, he was widely
recognized for his understanding of and role in shaping U.S. foreign policy; he took a leading
role in debates and legislation on subjects such as the Middle East, Southwest Asia, post-Cold
War Europe, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction. Upon Biden’s ascension to the Vice
Presidency in 2009, President Obama indicated that he wanted the Vice President to be one of
his chief advisers and trouble-shooters in the administration. He thus was not given a specific
portfolio of issues to handle– unlike former Vice President Gore, who focused heavily on
environmental issues, among other things–and was instead given full access to the president’s
schedule and authorization to come to any meeting he desired to attend. Among the duties
given to him by President Obama, Vice President Biden has been responsible for overseeing the
distribution of the $787 billion of stimulus funds authorized by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, chairing the White House’s Middle Class Task Force, and providing focus and
guidance on Iraq and Afghanistan policy within the administration. More recently, in 2011, Vice
President Biden was asked by President Obama to lead negotiations with Congressional
Republicans as the two parties endeavored to make a deal on the federal budget. He also
advises the president regularly on a broad range of foreign policy issues, given his knowledge
and expertise accumulated during his years on and chairing the Senate Foreign Relations
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
USNSC MEMBER PROFILES
23
The Secretary of State is the head of the United
States Department of State and serves on the
cabinet as the President’s chief adviser on
foreign affairs. The Secretary of State is the
highest ranking cabinet secretary both in line of
succession to the presidency and in order
of precedence. He or she serves as the head of
the U.S. Foreign Service, and is responsible for
supervising and supporting the foreign affairs
activities of other U.S. government departments
and agencies, including the Department of
Defense and the C.I.A. As chief adviser to the
president on foreign relations, the Secretary
provides policy support to the president in
outlining U.S. foreign policy and by supervising
its implementation. He or she also engages in
high-level bi- and multilateral diplomacy with
other countries, which includes the negotiation
of international treaties and accords. For the
purposes of this committee, the Secretary of
State will be able to direct the U.S. Foreign
Service to carry out specific actions in foreign
countries. The incumbent Secretary of State is
Hillary Rodham Clinton. Before being sworn in as
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State
Secretary
for the Obama administration in 2009, Secretary Clinton spent nearly four decades in
.
public service–most notably as a First Lady and a member of the United States Senate, but also
as a public issue advocate and an attorney. As First Lady of the State of Arkansas for 12 years,
she chaired the Arkansas Education Standards Committee, co-founded the Arkansas Advocates
for Children and Families, and served as a member on the boards of the Arkansas Children’s
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
Committee. Vice President Biden’s personal life since becoming a Senator has been beset with
tragedy. A month after his election to his first term in the Senate in 1972, his first wife and
young daughter were killed in a car crash that also seriously injured his two sons. In 1988, his
pursuit of the Democratic nomination to the presidency was cut short by accusations that his
remarks at a debate were copied from those of a British Labour Party leader. Only months after
that political disgrace, he collapsed from a brain aneurysm, forcing him to undergo two serious
surgeries. Vice President Biden affirms that he has learned lessons from each of his life crises,
including that one must, “always let the people you love know you love them, and never let
something go unsaid.” This life lesson may have helped to determine his approach to politics, as
he is widely known for his direct—and sometimes impulsive—manner of speech, in spite of his
own professional emphasis on diplomacy and discussion.
24
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
Hospital and the Children’s Defense Fund. Upon her husband Bill Clinton’s election to the
presidency in 1992, Secretary Clinton used her position as First Lady to promote issues such as
healthcare reform and social welfare, especially related to children and families. She was
heavily involved in bipartisan efforts to improve the adoption and foster care systems, reduce
teen pregnancy, and provide more wide-reaching healthcare to children across the country
through the Children’s Health Insurance Program. As First Lady, she traveled to more than
eighty countries around the world as a representative of the United States, garnering
respect as a champion of human rights, democracy, and civil society. In conjunction with then
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, she launched the government’s Vital Voices Democracy
Initiative, which has resulted in the training and organization of women leaders across the
globe.
After the end of President Clinton’s second term, Secretary Clinton made history as the first
former First Lady elected to the United States Senate and as the first woman elected statewide
to represent New York. As a Senator, she served on the Armed Services Committee; the Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; the Environment and Public Works Committee; the
Budget Committee; and the Select Committee on Aging, in addition to acting as a Commissioner
on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. In the Senate, Clinton worked
across party lines to build support for a variety of causes, ranging from the expansion of
economic opportunities to access to quality, affordable healthcare. Following the terrorist
attacks of September 11th, 2001, she strongly advocated for allocating funds to the rebuilding
of New York and to the first responders whose lives and health were risked working at Ground
Zero. She highlighted her own support for the military, fighting for improved health care and
benefits for wounded service members, veterans, and members of the National Guard and
Reserves. It is worth noting that she was the only Senator member of the Transformation
Advisory Group to the Department of Defense’s Joint Forces Command.
One year after being reelected to the Senate in 2006, she announced her intention to run for
President, losing the Democratic nomination in a historically close primary race against Barack
Obama and later being nominated to serve as Secretary of State, in a move touted by many as
Obama assembling a modern day “Team of Rivals.” Although their campaign battle was one of
the most polarizing and bitter in recent decades, Secretary Clinton and President Obama have
forged a strong and credible partnership since taking office. She has proved to be a team player
and a tireless defender of the administration, deferential to the President and careful to
balance the public actions and persona of her husband, the former president, with that of
President Obama. However, her relationship with the President is not characterized by the
same tight bond as those of former Secretary-President pairs such as Condoleezza Rice and
George W. Bush. Secretary Clinton has not yet made clear a core foreign policy issue for her
tenure, which could enable her partnership with the President to join the ranks of those historic
predecessors. Regardless, she has fully supported the President’s policies on the world stage,
including his message of engagement, his aspiration to improve the U.S.-Russia relationship,
and to maintain a functional relationship with China by soft-pedaling human rights when there,
in spite of the fact that she had fervently advocated the cause there at the Beijing women’s
conference in 1995. In recent months, she played a crucial role in convincing the President of
the need for U.S. intervention in Libya, and has been forced to juggle the complexities – and
inconsistencies - of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
25
Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Defense is the principal
adviser to the President on defense policy
and is responsible for the formation and of all
policy of direct concern to the Department of
Defense. The Secretary’s constitutional duties
and powers include the oversight and
direction of the Department of Defense,
making the Secretary the top of the chain of
command for all Department of Defense
forces, for both operational and
administrative purposes. He is second only to
the President as National Command
Authority, and may transfer forces from one
Combatant Command to another, a power
shared only by the President. The
Secretary has, as chief military adviser, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On June
22nd, 2011, then-C.I.A. Director Leon
Panetta was unanimously confirmed by the
Senate to serve as the Secretary of Defense
following the retirement of incumbent
Secretary Robert Gates. Prior to his
confirmation as Secretary of Defense, Secretary Panetta served in various public service roles,
both elected and non-elected. His political career began when he won election as a Democratic
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
Specific duties of the Secretary of State include:
 Organizes and supervises the entire United States Department of State and the United
States Foreign Service.
 Advises the President on matters relating to U.S. foreign policy, including the
appointment of diplomatic representatives to other nations, and on the acceptance or
dismissal of representatives from other nations.
 Participates in high-level negotiations with other countries, either bilaterally or as part
of an international conference or organization, or appoints representatives to do so.
This includes the negotiation of international treaties and other agreements.
 Responsible for overall direction, coordination, and supervision of interdepartmental
activities of the U.S. Government overseas.
 Providing information and services to U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad, including
providing credentials in the form of passports and visas.
 Supervises the United States immigration policy abroad.
 Communicates issues relating the United States foreign policy to Congress and to U.S.
citizens.
26
The Secretary of Defense by statute also exercises "authority, direction and control" over the
three Secretaries of the military departments (Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy,
and Secretary of the Air Force), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the other members of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Chief of Staff,
Commandant of the Marine Corps, Chief of Naval Operations, and Air Force Chief of Staff), the
Combatant Commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands, the Directors of the Defense
Agencies (for example the Director of the National Security Agency) and of the DoD Field
Activities.
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
Representative from California from 1977 until 1993, at which time he was appointed by
President Bill Clinton to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in light of his
years of experience acquired on the House Budget Committee. He then served as President
Clinton’s Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997, following the humiliating defeat of the Democratic
Party in the 1994 midterm elections, and is credited with organizing and consolidating what
had previously been considered a chaotic White House. In 2009, he was appointed to be the
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency by President Obama, who cited Panetta’s sharp
managerial skills, well-recognized bipartisan reputation on Capitol Hill, keen understanding and
familiarity with foreign policy as a result of his experiences in the White House and his service
on the Iraq Study Group, and crucially pertinent budgeting skills.
In the role of Director of the C.I.A., he was charged with leading the Agency and managing
human intelligence and open source collection programs on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence
Community. During his tenure, the C.I.A. underwent a transformation from its original structure
as a human intelligence agency to something of a paramilitary organization, as it became
responsible for overseeing an escalated drone aircraft bombing campaign in Pakistan and an
increase in the number of covert bases and operatives in Afghanistan.
Director Panetta’s appointment to his new role as Secretary of Defense has placed him in
charge of the final stages of the withdrawal in Iraq and the Obama administration’s military
policy in Afghanistan. As concern over the growing public debt has grown in recent months,
Secretary Panetta will be struggling with Congress to settle the Pentagon budget, which many including himself and his predecessor Secretary Gates - hope to reduce in spite of already inplace national security budget cuts of $400 billion through the 2023 fiscal year. Although
Secretary Panetta is not trained as a classical military strategist, highly familiar with the
intricacies of weapons systems and the inner workings of the Pentagon, he is renowned for his
managerial skills and his approachable and jovial personality, both of which are expected to
assist him in his direction of the Defense Department and in his interactions with Congress.
27
General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Dempsey attended John S. Burke Catholic High School in Goshen, New York, and views himself
as Irish American. He has a Master's degree in literature from Duke University. He received a
commission as an Armor officer upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in
1974. As a company-grade officer, he served in 1st Squadron, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment as
the S-1 OIC. He went on to be the Executive Officer of the 3rd Brigade 3rd Armored Division
during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. He then commanded the 4th Battalion of the 67th
Armored Regiment "Bandits" from 1992–1995 in the 1st Armored Division in Friedberg, Hesse,
Germany.
In June 2003, then Brigadier General Dempsey assumed command of 1st Armored Division. He
succeeded Ricardo S. Sanchez who was promoted to command V Corps. Dempsey's command
of the 1st Armored Division lasted until July 2005 and included 13 months in Iraq, from June
2003 to July 2004. While in Iraq, 1st Armored Division, in addition to its own brigades, had
operational command over the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and a brigade of the 82nd
Airborne Division; the command, called "Task Force Iron" in recognition of the Division's
nickname, "Old Ironsides", was the largest division-level command in the history of the United
States Army.
It was during this time that the U.S. intervention in Iraq changed dramatically as Fallujah fell to
Sunni extremists and supporters of Muqtada Sadr built their strength and rose up against
American forces. Then Major General Dempsey and his command assumed responsibility for
the Area of Operations in Baghdad as the insurgency incubated, grew, and exploded. On March
27, 2007, Dempsey was promoted from commander of Multi-National Security Transition
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is
the highest ranking uniformed member of
the Armed Forces of the United States of
America. In this capacity, he serves as the
chief military adviser to the National
Command Authority of the United States,
which comprises the President and the
Secretary of Defense. Despite his ranking
status, he does not have direct command
capacity over troops; that capacity is
exercised by the President and implemented
through Unified Combatant Commands.
Nevertheless, he serves a
crucial function in his capacity both as head
of the JCS as well as adviser to the National
Security Council. General Dempsey assumed
his current assignment on October 1, 2011.
28
The Chairman convenes the meetings and coordinates the efforts of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
(JCS), an advisory body comprising the Chairman, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the chiefs of staff of the United States Army and United States Air Force, the Chief of Naval
Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
Command-Iraq, to be reappointed as a lieutenant general and assigned as deputy commander
of U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.
On February 5, 2008, Dempsey was nominated to head the Seventh United States Army/U.S.
Army, Europe, and was nominated for promotion to four-star general upon Senate approval.
On March 11, 2008, Dempsey's commander, Admiral William J. Fallon, retired from active
service. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates accepted this as effective on March 31.
Dempsey took over command as acting commander CENTCOM.
On March 13, 2008, Dempsey was confirmed by the United States Senate as Commander,
Seventh United States Army/U.S. Army, Europe. On December 8, 2008, Dempsey took
command of United States Army Training and Doctrine Command. On January 6, 2011, Defense
Secretary Robert Gates announced that he would nominate General Dempsey to succeed
General George Casey as the Army Chief of Staff.
On February 8, 2011, Gates announced that President Barack Obama nominated Dempsey to
be the 37th Chief of Staff of the United States Army.
On March 3, 2011, Dempsey testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed
Services for reappointment to the grade of general and to be the 37th Chief of Staff of the
United States Army.
On March 15, 2011, the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services affirmatively reported
Dempsey's nomination to serve as the 37th Chief of Staff of the United States Army to the floor
of the Senate. On March 16, 2011, the Senate confirmed Dempsey's nomination by unanimous
consent.
On April 11, 2011, Dempsey was officially sworn in as 37th Chief of Staff of the United States
Army at a ceremony at Fort Myer. With Admiral Mike Mullen set to retire as Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff in September 2011, President Obama needed to select his replacement. The
Vice-Chairman, Marine General James Cartwright, who was initially believed to be the front
runner for the job, had fallen out of favor among senior officials in the Defense Department.
Obama administration officials revealed on May 26, 2011, that the President would nominate
Dempsey to the post of Chairman. In August 2011 General Dempsey was confirmed by
unanimous consent to succeed Admiral Mike Mullen as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. On August 2, 2012, the U.S. Senate blocked an Obama administration-backed cyber
security bill. Dempsey had said that the bill was needed to safeguard national defense by
protecting key infrastructure like power grids and the transportation network. “Because the
military relies on this infrastructure to defend the nation, we cannot afford to leave our
electricity grid and transportation system vulnerable to attack,” Dempsey had said in a letter
written to Senators. The bill had called for a National Cybersecurity Council to assess
vulnerabilities and would have created a voluntary system of reporting attacks.
29
Jacob Lew, White House Chief of Staff
He told a Senate panel in 2010 that he did not believe that deregulation led to the financial
crisis. He said that "the problems in the financial industry preceded deregulation," and after
discussing those issues, added that he didn't "personally know the extent to which deregulation
drove it, but I don't believe that deregulation was the proximate cause." Jacob Lew is an
Orthodox Jew, and has extensive connections to the American Jewish community. It is hoped
that he might be able to help President Obama "build a more friendly rapport" with Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The White House Chief of Staff is the highest ranking employee of the White House Office
inside the Executive Office of the President of the United States and is an Assistant to the
President. The roles of the Chief of Staff are both managerial and advisory and can include the
following





Select key White House staff and supervise them
Structure the White House staff system
Control the flow of people into the Oval Office
Manage the flow of information
Protect the interests of the President
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
The current White House Chief of Staff is Jacob
Lew, who assumed the position on January 27,
2012, after William M. Daley resigned. Lew
graduated from Harvard and earned a law
degree from Georgetown. He worked as an aide
to Rep. Joe Moakley (D-Mass.) from 1974 to
1975. He then was a senior policy adviser to
House Speaker Thomas (Tip) P. O'Neill Jr. (DMass.) from 1979 to 1987. Lew served as
Deputy Director of Office of Management and
Budget in the Clinton Administration from 1995
to 1998 and Director from 1998 to 2001. He
served as executive vice president of New York
University from 2001 to 2006. Lew worked at
Citigroup from 2006 to 2009. The Huffington
Post reported that in 2008, he served as chief
operating officer of Citigroup Alternative
Investments, investing in a hedge fund that bet
on the housing market to collapse. From 2009
to 2010, Lew worked for Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton as deputy secretary for
management and resources.
30
Negotiate with Congress, other members of the executive branch, and
extragovernmental political groups to implement the President's agenda
Tom Donilon, National Security Adviser
Thomas E. Donilon has roots as a lawyer and a
lobbyist. He served as an Executive Vice
President at Fannie Mae from 1999 through
2005, and got his start as a political operative
while organizing the 1980 and 1984 Democratic
presidential campaigns. This makes him
perhaps a curious choice as the president’s top
adviser on issues of national security, but he
served prominently on this topic in the Clinton
administration, working closely on the Bosnian
settlement and NATO issues in his position as
Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Warren
Christopher. Donilon was closely involved in the
Obama administration’s national security
structure from the start, having served as a
foreign policy tutor for then-Senator Obama
during his debates with Senator John McCain.
He was a “co-lead” on the Obama-Biden
Transition Team’s National Security section,
helping develop the new administration’s
foreign policy strategy. Upon the inauguration
of President Obama, he was appointed to serve
as Deputy National Security Adviser underneath
then- National Security Adviser Gen. James
Jones (Ret.). Donilon played a rather prominent
part in Bob Woodward’s book Obama’s Wars,
published in September of 2010, in which he
was depicted as part of the President’s political
team, often at odds over the decision-making
vis-à-vis Afghanistan with uniformed military
personnel, including his boss, General Jones.
He also frequently clashed with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, with Donlion
advocating a more rapid withdrawal, speaking out specifically against the idea of “endless war.”
Shortly after - and reportedly hastened by – the publication of that book, General Jones
announced his resignation and retirement, and Donilon was named as his successor. Since his
appointment, Donilon has advocated a more balanced approach to America’s national security,
with focuses not just on present American involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan but also on
threats– both military and otherwise–from rivals like China and Iran. During the Arab Spring, he
helped construct the administration’s position of support from afar, leading from behind, and
soft power action–tenets which the administration has been tested on since the start of the
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012

31
allied involvement in Libya. As Director of the NSC, he also played a crucial role in the decisionmaking surrounding the action taken against Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
Denis McDonough,
Deputy National Security Adviser
Denis McDonough began as a foreign policy adviser in
the legislative branch, rising through the staff of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee and serving as a
foreign policy staffer for former Senate Majority
Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). After Daschle’s defeat in
the 2004 election, McDonough moved to a newly
established liberal think-tank, the Center for American
Progress, where he remained until 2006. In his time at
CAP, McDonough was instrumental in creating the
Middle East Progress initiative, targeted at both
political change in the region as well as renewed
American focus on Islamic extremism in the wake of the
Iraq War. After departing the Center in 2006, he joined
the Senate staff of Ken Salazar and then that of Barack
Obama. After Obama’s declaration of candidacy for the
presidency in January 2007, he became the top foreign
policy adviser to the Obama campaign, and upon
Obama’s victory in November 2008, he joined the
National Security Council, first as Strategic
Communications Director and then as Acting Chief of
Staff. In 2010, after the resignation of General James
Jones as National Security Adviser and the promotion
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the
National Security Advisor (abbreviated NSA, or sometimes APNSA or ANSA to avoid confusion
with the abbreviation of the National Security Agency), is a senior official in the Executive Office
of the President who serves as the chief advisor, stationed in the White House, to the President
of the United States on national security issues. This person also participates in the meetings of
the National Security Council. The National Security Advisor's office is located in the West Wing
of the White House. He or she is supported by the National Security Council staff that produces
research, briefings, and intelligence for the APNSA to review and present either to the National
Security Council or directly to the President. The Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs is appointed by the President without confirmation by the United States Senate.
However, the APNSA is a staff position in the Executive Office of the President and does not
have line authority over either the Department of State or the Department of Defense, but is
able, as a consequence thereof, to offer advice to the President - unlike the Secretary of State
and the Secretary of Defense who are senate-confirmed officials with line authority over their
departments - independently of the vested interests of the large bureaucracies and clientele of
those departments. The influence and role of the National Security Advisor varies from
administration to administration and depends heavily on the qualities of the person appointed
to the position.
32
Previously the president of the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York, Secretary Geithner also
worked for the Council on Foreign Relations and at
the International Monetary Fund. In his tenure as
Secretary of the Treasury, he has been largely
responsible for decisions regarding the
amelioration of the 2007-2011 financial crisis and
restoration of a strong economy, the restructuring
of the regulatory system for the finance industry,
and international cooperation on global financial
issues. One of Secretary Geithner’s main concerns
has been the distribution of funds from both the
Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP) and the auto
bailout. To solve the financial crisis, he has taken a
two-pronged approach. One, he has endeavored to
create banks to buy and hold toxic assets and to
encourage investors to acquire such assets. Two,
he has awarded money to qualifying banks—only
those that in accordance with certain regulations—
Timothy Geithner,
for the purposes of lending and increasing financial
Secretary of the Treasury
flows. Although some regulations of the financial
system have already been tightened through the Dodd-Frank legislation and will likely be made
even tougher under his watch the Secretary has been quick to assure bankers that the
government does not wish to impose too many controls, which might discourage private
investors, and that the government is not mandating how the banks that receive financial
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
of Jones’ deputy Tom Donilon to the position of NSA, McDonough was elevated to serve as
Donilon’s deputy. Since he joined the Obama Administration, he has been known to be
intensely protective of the President, which can be explained by the fact that their working
relationship existed long before Obama sought election to the White House. Indeed, a 2010
profile of McDonough in the New York Times suggested that many in the White House consider
McDonough to be a sounding board that they can try their opinions before they bring them to
the President, as the Deputy National Security Adviser’s opinions align closer to those of the
Commander-in- Chief than almost anyone else in the administration. McDonough has not made
many waves with his policy positions, but his general opposition to both the war in Iraq and
extended American involvement in Afghanistan are well known, with McDonough having
assisted in constructing those campaign planks for Obama in 2007 and 2008. At CAP, he
advocated for more intense congressional scrutiny of American intelligence work abroad. More
broadly speaking, McDonough has advocated for a “common-good” attitude towards foreign
policy, which includes not just (relatively) smaller scale issues like Afghanistan and Iraq but also
placing issues like global warming in the context of national and international security. He is
one of the more progressive foreign policy experts in the White House to have the President’s
ear.
33
Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland
Security, former Arizona governor and former
chair of the National Governors Association, is
responsible for expanding the nation’s security
and strengthening U.S. measures to prevent,
respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism
and other catastrophes, including natural
disasters.
Secretary Napolitano has expressed concern
about terrorist threats from al-Qaeda and its
affiliates in Yemen and the Arabian Peninsula as
well as the increasing threats from terrorist
groups using social media and the internet as
recruitment tools. She has stated the need for
increased domestic counterterrorism efforts,
based on the recent domestic terrorism plots
involving both a Times Square car bomb as well
Janet Napolitano,
as the New York subway system. The Secretary
Secretary of the Department of Homeland
has discussed the possibility of sophisticated
Security
chemical, biological, nuclear, and cyberattacks on
the country, and the need to prepare for such
events, proposing that the best way to deal with
such threats to national security is to work with state and local law enforcement, individual
Americans, the private sector, and even international allies in tight partnerships with shared
responsibility for the protection of the American people. Largely in response to the 2010 Yemen
bomb plot and the Christmas Day underwear bomb plot, the United States has implemented–
under Napolitano’s oversight–enhanced airport security led by the Transportation Security
Administration, including controversial new scanners and enhanced pat downs. Under
Napolitano, the Department of Homeland Security has grown more capable of deterring
cyberattacks, promoting cooperation within its own agencies as well as collaborating with the
Department of Defense, the National Security Agency and the private sector, in the face of
cyber threats including the Denial of Service attacks in July of 2010 and the Conficker computer
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
assistance use the funds. The Secretary, working with the financial leaders of other nations, has
aimed to curb money laundering and the cash flows between terror groups, while still
encouraging foreign investment. The U.S. government has implemented economic sanctions
on rogue nations, most notably Iran, by freezing assets and forbidding transactions with
national banking institutions, companies, and individuals in foreign governments. Secretary
Geithner and the Obama administration more broadly have criticized China for its present
policy of currency manipulation, which they argue hurts American businesses. Moreover, they
have asserted that China must also liberalize their economy from the grips of the government
lower barriers to free trade, especially those tariffs on imports from the United States, and
pursue and penalize those who pilfer American technologies – a major point of contention
between the two somewhat friendly rivals.
34
General David Petraeus,
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
General David Petraeus, former commander of
American forces and the NATO International
Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan,
commander of United States Central Command,
and architect of the 2007 surge of American
forces in Iraq, was nominated to be the director
of the Central Intelligence Agency by President
Obama in April of 2011 and confirmed in July of
that year. While a leader in the military,
General Petraeus supported the use of Special
Operations forces and private security
contractors to carry out intelligence missions
and collect information even outside the zone
of operations of the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq. He is thus familiar with the sort of
information gathering and military operations
that he will administer in his new position at
the C.I.A. As Director of the C.I.A., Petraeus
oversees information-gathering efforts and
covert and paramilitary operations carried out
by the agency, using this information to advise
public policymakers on issues such as - but not
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
worm. The Project Global Shield initiative, launched by the Department of Homeland Security in
partnership with the World Customs Organization, has aimed to increase the security of the
global supply chain by identifying and protecting the most sensitive points and preventing “the
theft or diversion of precursor chemicals that can be used by terrorists to make improvised
explosive devices.” Secretary Napolitano has expressed concern about the lack of security
presence at U.S. border crossings and other domestic ports of entry, through which terrorists
and international criminals might enter and smuggling and human trafficking could take place.
Under her direction, human, monetary, and technological resources have flooded to the
southwest border, leading to a decrease in illegal crossings and the seizure of much
contraband, as well as the deportation of illegal aliens with criminal records and a slight decline
in spillover violence from the Mexican drug cartels. Still, the Secretary has focused on punishing
businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers as much as, or even more than, illegal aliens
themselves. Although much of her focus has been on the U.S.-Mexican border, she has also
expressed worries about the weaknesses of the U.S.- Canadian border, which is far less
militarized. Secretary Napolitano and others within the government are also working to expand
and improve information sharing among state/local governments and federal agencies. She
recently oversaw the end of the color-coded terror alert system in favor of a new National
Terrorism Advisory System, in which the Department of Homeland Security will advise the
necessary people of specific heightened threats to national security but will not issue broad
statements on the overall danger level to the country, finding them to be superfluous and
counterproductive.
35
A retired Air Force general, Director Clapper
has a long history of working in intelligence,
including stints as Director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency (1991-1995), Director of
the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
(2001-2006), Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence (2007-2010) and Director of
Defense Intelligence in the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (2007-2010)
before he was nominated by President Obama
and confirmed unanimously by the Senate to
become the Director of National Intelligence.
In the wake of the intelligence failure
surrounding the September 11th attacks, the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004 replaced the position of the
Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) with the
new, more powerful position of Director of
National Intelligence (DNI) in an attempt to
better coordinate the activities of the sixteen
Lieutenant General (Ret.) James Clapper, Jr.,
disparate members of the U.S. Intelligence
Director of National Intelligence
Community. Though the DNI serves as the de
facto and de jure head of the intelligence
community, the DNI’s actual authority is
limited to establishing intelligence
community-wide priorities, developing the budget for the National Intelligence Program,
monitoring the performance of the agencies within the intelligence community, and serving as
the president’s principal intelligence advisor. The DNI cannot micromanage other agency’s
operations, but the position does maintain some authority to move funds from one agency to
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
limited to – the Taliban insurgency in
Afghanistan, terrorist threats from countries
like Yemen and Pakistan, drug trafficking, and
the futures of the governments involved in the Arab uprisings in the spring of 2011. General
Petraeus will have direct control over the controversial armed drone campaigns carried out in
Pakistan and Afghanistan by the C.I.A. He has recently criticized Pakistan’s Inter-Services
Intelligence Directorate (ISI) for supporting insurgents hiding in Pakistan and attacking
American troops in Afghanistan. He has also expressed fear that complete U.S. withdrawal from
Afghanistan may destabilize the region, and thus advocates a long-term commitment in the
country, including the possibility of joint military bases with local forces even after the
projected troop withdrawal in 2014. General Petraeus has proposed that American troops
should be reassigned to focus on training Afghan security forces, which would allow more
Americans to withdraw in the future after the security transition. He has also advocated a
counterinsurgency strategy that focuses on rebuilding Afghan institutions
36
another, though restrictions exist: the transfer must receive the authorization of the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget and the funds cannot exceed $150 million without the
head of the affected agency’s permission. Furthermore, DNI can transfer up to one hundred
intelligence community personnel to staff a new intelligence center, provided that the transfer
occurs within twelve months of the center’s creation. Clapper believes that Afghanistan
represents “a classic counterinsurgency campaign” that “the United States will win…on a
village-by-village basis.” In his view, the United States should concentrate on local security and
nation-building instead of directing its efforts towards the killing or capture of high-value
targets. Clapper also testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that China and Russia,
because of their nuclear arsenals, potentially pose “a mortal threat” to the United States,
though he did add that he does not think that “either country today has the intent to mortally
attack us.” Clapper also noted that Iran and North Korea were “of great concern,” but he
argued that they do not currently pose a threat to the continental United States.
Eric Holder, Attorney General
Prior to joining the Obama administration as
Attorney General, Eric Holder served as
Associate Judge of the District of Columbia
Superior Court (1988-1993), U.S. Attorney for
the District of Columbia (1993 to 1997), and
Deputy Attorney General (1997 to 2001).
As the federal government’s chief law
enforcement officer, Holder presides over a
large law-and-order apparatus with global
reach. Among the organizations that answer
to the Attorney General are the U.S.
Attorneys; the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; the Drug Enforcement
Administration; the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; the U.S.
Marshals Service; and the National Drug
Intelligence Center. Controlling such a wide
variety of resources gives the Attorney
General the ability to conduct a broad
range of actions, including intelligence
gathering, counterintelligence, counter-
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is the United States government official (subject to
the authority, direction, and control of the President) required by the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to:
 Serve as principal advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and the
Homeland Security Council about intelligence matters related to national security;
 Serve as head of the sixteen-member Intelligence Community; and
 Direct and oversee the National Intelligence Program.
37
Before taking on the role of White House
“drug czar,” Gil Kerlikowske spent 37 years in
law enforcement. He worked for nine years as
Chief of Police in Seattle, where he succeeded
in dropping crime to a forty-year low, and also
served as Police Commissioner of Buffalo,
New York; the Deputy Director of the
Department of Justice’s Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services; and various roles in
the St. Petersburg, Florida Police Department.
As head of the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy, Kerlikowske creates the
National Drug Control Strategy, a document
that outlines the country’s drug control goals
and prescribes the means for achieving those
goals. Kerlikowske also submits the National
Drug Control Budget, which allocates
resources to five categories of drug control
spending (prevention, treatment, domestic
law enforcement, interdiction, and
international) and further allocates funding to
the various departments and agencies that
Gil Kerlikowske,
participate in drug control activities. Lastly,
Director of White House Office of National
Kerlikowske advises the president on drug
Drug Control Policy
policy. The authority to change drug control
laws, however, rests solely with Congress.
When it comes to drug policy, Kerlikowske ranks as a reformer who favors prevention and
treatment over the traditional, incarceration- and interdictioncentric model. When Kerlikowske
ran the Seattle Police Department, arresting people who possessed marijuana for personal use
did not qualify as a departmental priority. Additionally, his fiscal year 2012 budget request
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
narcotics, and counterterrorism, as well as
investigations into other federal crimes.
In line with his belief that the, “criminal justice system has proven to be one of the most
effective weapons…for both incapacitating terrorists and collecting intelligence,” Holder
supports a policy of trying accused terrorists in civilian courts instead of military tribunals. As
such, the Justice Department charged Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man accused
of attempting to bomb an airliner en route to Detroit on December 25th, 2009, in federal court.
However, Holder did cave in to public opposition to his plan to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in
a civilian court in New York City. In response to charges that the government could have
declared Abdulmutallab an enemy combatant, held him indefinitely, and denied him access to
an attorney, Holder asserted that, “the government’s legal authority to do so is far from clear.”
Holder also raised controversy when he appointed a prosecutor to investigate potential C.I.A.
interrogation abuses.
38
included a 7.9 percent increase in funds used for prevention. Indeed, Kerlikowske has even
rejected the term “war on drugs,” arguing that citizens would misconstrue the war on drugs as
“a war on them.” Nonetheless, he has emphasized that he does not favor legalizing drugs.
Susan E. Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
The Ambassador’s most important function is representing the U.S. on the U.N. Security
Council, as well as in most meetings of the General Assembly. Rice can provide key insight for
the U.S. National Security Council on the attitudes and actions of foreign governments. Susan
Rice believes strongly in the ability of international institutions, such as the U.N., and other
forms of international cooperation to create and maintain global peace. She has identified four
key areas of focus in her policies: climate change, U.N. peacekeeping capacity, nuclear nonproliferation, and the fight against global poverty and violence. Rice is committed to making the
U.N. more effective for collective action in these areas and all global issues, and feels that
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
Susan E. Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
A graduate of Stanford and Oxford, Susan Rice began her government career in 1993 as the
NSC’s Director for International Organizations and Peacekeeping. She then ascended to the
position of Special Assistant to the President and later U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for
African Affairs. During the second Bush administration, she specialized in transnational security
threats and global poverty at the Brookings Institution. She re-entered public service as a
national security advisor for the Obama campaign, and was appointed Ambassador to the
United Nations (U.N.) in January 2009. As Ambassador to the United Nations, Rice is
responsible for representing the interests of the United States at the U.N. and communicating
the concerns of her fellow ambassadors to the U.S. government. The current administration
restored the Ambassador to the U.N. as a cabinet-level position; it was not considered cabinetlevel under President Bush.
39
John Brennan, a specialist in
Middle Eastern studies, spent
much of his career in the Central
Intelligence Agency, both in
clandestine service and
intelligence analysis. His C.I.A.
career highlights include station
chief in Saudi Arabia during the
Khobar Towers incident (1996),
Chief of Staff to then- Director
George Tenet (1999-2001), deputy
Executive Director (20012003), and Director of the National
Counterterrorism Center (20042005). After a brief stint in the
private sector with such
organizations as the Intelligence
John Brennan, Assistant to the President and
Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland
Security and Counterterrorism
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
reform is a more viable option than desertion to solve problems within international
institutions.
Daniel B. Shapiro specialized in the
Middle East and Judaic affairs throughout
his education, eventually earning a
master’s degree from Harvard in Middle
Eastern Politics. Shapiro made his federal
career in the legislative arena, serving
as a staffer for the House Foreign Affairs
Committee; a senior Senate foreign
policy advisor; a legislative liaison for
President Clinton’s National Security
Advisor, Sandy Berger; and a State
Daniel B. Shapiro, NSC Senior Director for the Near
East and North Africa
Department official in the United Arab Emirates. He has worked closely on the Middle East
peace process, and has a strong working relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. As NSC Senior Director for the Near East and North Africa, Shapiro is responsible for
advising the NSC on matters relating to the Israeli community and the Middle East peace
process, as well as communicating with senior diplomats and military officials and visiting the
Middle East. Shapiro is also a chief advisor to the President on Israeli affairs and Israeli relations
with its neighbors. It has been speculated that a large part of Shapiro’s importance to the
Obama administration are found in his links to Israel, given recent doubts aired in the political
arena over the President’s commitment to the U.S.-Israeli partnership. Shapiro has had
extensive involvement in the administration’s plans and policies in the Levant and continues to
maintain close contact to evolving issues in the region.
40
WORKS CITED
Allen, Mike and Kasie Hunt. “White House drops plan for New York City terror trials.”
Politico. 31 January 2010. Capitol News Company LLC. 18 September 2011
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32243.html>.
Baker, Peter. “How Obama Came to Plan for ‘Surge’ in Afghanistan.” New York Times.
5 December 2009. New York Times. 20 August 2011
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/world/asia/06reconstruct.html>.
Blessing, Kelly. “Eric Holder.” Who Runs Government from the Washington Post. 20 April 2011.
The Washington Post. 20 September 2011 <http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Eric_
Holder>.
Blessing, Kelly. “William Daley.” Who Runs Government from the Washington Post. 4 April
2011. The Washington Post. 5 September 2011
<http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/William_Daley>.
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
and National Security Alliance and
the Analysis Corporation, Brennan
returned to the government as
Chief Counterterrorism Adviser to
President Obama, and was closely involved with the mission to apprehend Osama Bin Laden in
April 2011. He was responsible for briefing the press and the public on the results of the raid,
and many of the otherwise unknown details about the operation were revealed by Brennan. As
Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Brennan is
responsible for supervising plans for national defense against both terrorism and natural
disasters. Additionally, he serves as the chief advisor to the President on these issues and meets
with him daily. Brennan is often the first to notify the president of serious national security
incidents. His position is sometimes known as the “Homeland Security Advisor,” as he is the
point person for the NSC response to domestic threats. He has been cited as a leading figure for
the entire intelligence community on issues of terrorism. Brennan carries a certain stigma in
political circles. He was initially considered by the President as a possible C.I.A. director. His
name was withdrawn due to concerns of his ability to pass the Senate confirmation process, as
he had spoken out in support of the Bush administration’s practice of transferring prisoners to
foreign countries for interrogation, a sensitive topic among many Democrats. Despite this, he
believes that waterboarding and similar controversial interrogation practices may have
increased state and non-state opposition to American policy and decreased support for U.S.
counterterrorism efforts abroad. Specifically, he fears that the practice could have stimulated
recruitment for terrorist groups. He supports the effort to focus counterterrorism efforts on
“extremists,” and not “jihadists” due to his experience with the Middle East. Finally, Brennan
strongly and vocally spurns the use of national security issues as political tools – which may
pose a challenge as the President increasingly looks to use his national security victories as
ammunition in his upcoming re-election campaign.
41
Clapper, James R. “Intelligence Transformation: Meeting New Challenges in the Middle East
and Beyond.” Policy Watch/Peace Watch. 21 May 2009. The Washington Institute for
Near East Policy. 8 September 2011
<http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3056>.
“Clinton, Hillary R.” U.S. Department of State. State Department Bureau of Public Affairs, Office
of Electronic Information. 5 July 2011.
<http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/115321.htm>.
“David Petraeus.” The New York Times. 1 September 2011. The New York Times. 9 August 2011
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/david_h_petraeus/index.html>.
Erickson, Amanda. “James R. Clapper.” Who Runs Government from the Washington Post. 4
October 2011. 6 October 2011
<http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/James_R._Clapper?loadTab=0>.
Erickson, Amanda. “Thomas Donilon.” Who Runs Government from the Washington Post. 9
May 2011. The Washington Post. 8 July 2011
<http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Thomas_Donilon>.
Gorman, Siobhan. “New Spymaster Wins Senate Nod.” The Wall Street Journal. 6 August 2010.
Dow Jones & Company. 8 August 2011 <http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748704657504575412001653635206.html>.
Fields, Gary. “White House Czar Calls for End to ‘War on Drugs.’’” The Wall Street Journal. 14
May 2009. Dow Jones & Company. 19 September 2011
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124225891527617397.html>.
“Hillary Rodham Clinton.” The New York Times. 1 April 2011. New York Times. New York Times.
12 July 2011
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton
/index.html?scp=1spot&sq=clinton&st=cse>.
“Joe Biden.” The New York Times. 27 June 2011. The New York Times. 8 July 2011
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/joseph_r_jr_biden/index.ht
ml?scp=1-spot&sq=biden&st=cse>.
Johnson, Carrie. “Holder Hires Prosecutor to Look Into Alleged C.I.A. Interrogation Abuses.” The
Washington Post. 25 August 2009. The Washington Post. 5 June 2011
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/08/24/AR2009082
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
Eversley, Melanie. “Geithner: U.S. taking first steps toward tougher Iran sanctions.” On
Deadline. 6 June 2016. USA Today. 18 July 2011. <http://content.usatoday.com/
communities/ondeadline/post/2010/06/geithner-us-taking-first-steps-towardtougheriran-sanctions/1>.
42
401743.html?sid=ST2009082401068>.
Kaiman, Beth. “Hazy future for ‘lowest priority’ marijuana initiative.” The Seattle Times. 31
August 2003. The Seattle Times Company. 14 June 2011
<http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030831&slug
=marijuana31m0>.
Kornblut, Anne E. and Karen Tumulty. “William Daley, former commerce secretary, eyed for
senior White House post, sources say.” The Washington Post. 3 January 2011. The
Washington Post. 14 July 2011 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
content/article/2011/01/03/AR2011010304574.html?hpid=topnews>.
Labaton, Steven and Edmund L. Andrews. “Geithner Said to Have Prevailed on the
Bailout.” The New York Times. 9 February 2009. New York Times. 9 July 2011
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/business/economy/10bailout.html?adxnnl=1&ref
=timothyfgeithner&adxnnlx=1307212164-FOWPhl4QcSkCSnkaWQFUfQ>.
“Leon E. Panetta.” The New York Times. 13 July 2011. New York Times. 8 July 2011
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/leon_e_panetta/index
.html>.
Martinez, Luis. “Russia, China Major Threats? Intel Director Clapper’s Comments Perplex
Senators.” ABC News. 10 March 2011. ABC News Internet Ventures. 10 August 2011
< http://abcnews.go.com/politics/ russia-china-major-threats-nationalintelligencedirectorjames/story?id=13104936>.
Mazzetti, Mark and Eric Schmitt. “Obama’s Pentagon and C.I.A. Shifts Show Shift in How U.S.
Fights.” The New York Times. 28 April 2011. New York Times. 10 August 2011
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/28military.html?_r=1>.
Napolitano, Janet. “A New Challenge for Our Age: Securing America Against the Threat of Cyber
Attack.” Department of Homeland Security. 20 October 2009. Department of Homeland
Security. 10 August 2011.
<http://www.dhs. gov/ynews/gallery/gc_1256070988236.shtm>.
Napolitano, Janet. “Prepared Remarks by Secretary Napolitano at Harvard University’s John F.
Kennedy Jr. Forum.” Department of Homeland Security. 15 April 209. 10 August 2011.
<http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/speeches/sp_1271366935471.shtm>.
Napolitano, Janet. “Prepared Remarks by Secretary Napolitano on Immigration Reform at the
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
“Ltg. James R. Clapper, Jr., USAF.” Defense Intelligence Agency. 1 September 2011. Defense
Intelligence Agency. 7 September 2011 <http://www.dia.mil/history/
directors/ltgclapper.html>.
43
Center for American Progress.” Department of Homeland Security. 13 November 2009.
Department of Homeland Security. 10 August 2011. <http://www.dhs.gov/ynews
/speeches/sp_1258123461050.shtm>.
Napolitano, Janet. “Remarks by Secretary Napolitano at the Border Security Conference.”
Department of Homeland Security. 11 August 2009. Department of Homeland Security.
10 August 2011 <http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/speeches/sp_1250028863008.shtm>.
Napolitano, Janet. “Remarks by Secretary Napolitano at the Council on Foreign Relations.”
Department of Homeland Security. 29 July 2009. Department of Homeland Security. 10
August 2011 <http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/speeches/sp_1248891649195.shtm>.
“Office of National Drug Control Policy.” The White House. The White House. 8 July 2011
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp>.
Perlez, Jane and Eric Schmitt. “Move to C.I.A. Puts Petraeus In Conflict with Pakistan.” The New
York Times. 28 April 2011. New York Times. 28 September 2011. <http://www.nytimes.
com/2011/04/29/world/29petraeus.html?_r=1>.
“Secretary Janet Napolitano.” Department of Homeland Security. Department of Homeland
Security. 11 August 2011
<http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1232568253959.shtm>.
Somerville, Glenn. “Geithner to meet European, Mideast officials.” Reuters. 9 July 2009.
Reuters News. 18 August 2011 <http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/09/
us-usa-treasury-geithneridUSTRE5686PA20090709>.
“State of America’s Homeland Security.” Department of Homeland Security. 27 January 2011.
Department of Homeland Security. 19 August 2011
<http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/speeches/sp_1296152572413.shtm>.
“Thomas Donilon.” The New York Times. 8 October 2010. New York Times. 8 October 2010
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/thomas_e_donilon/index.html
?scp=1&sq=tom%20donilon&st=cse>.
“Timothy F. Geithner.” The New York Times. 1 July 2011. New York Times. 12 July 2011
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/timothy_f_geithner/index.html>.
Van Dongen, Rachel. “Adm. Mike Mullen.” Who Runs Government from the Washington Post. 8
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
“Secretaries Clinton, Geithner on Japanese Sanctions on Iran.” Embassy of the United States –
Brussels, Belgium. 7 Sept. 2010. Embassy of the United States – Brussels, Belgium. 10
July 2011 < http://www.uspolicy.be/headline/secretaries-clinton-geithnerjapanesesanctions-iran>.
44
March 2011. The Washington Post. 20 July 2011
<http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Adm._Michael_Mullen>.
“Vice President Joe Biden.” The White House. The White House. 29 June 2011 <http://www.
whitehouse.gov/administration/vice-presidentbiden>.
United States National Security Council | SWCHSMUN 2012
This background guide is largely based on a background guide that was originally published for
NAIMUN. It has since been revised to reflect changes in the world politics.
45