focused its efforts upon heralding in the downfall of the Soviet empire, and then the September 11th events forced it to become more proactive toward national security. Today, we are in the post-decisional stage of national security policy, and yet the government is rather divided about how the policy should continue to develop. The Democrat-run Obama administration in the executive branch would rather enact diplomacy or sanctions to help ease tensions worldwide, while the Republican-run Congress in the legislative branch tends to favor military intervention as a means of preemption. This dichotomy between the executive and legislative branches creates backlog and often interferes with policy-making decisions. However, there is bipartisan agreement about taking a more proactive approach toward national security, yet now the issue that remains is how to go about doing so in order to minimize risk and maximize …show more content…
The terrorist attacks of 2001 served as a means for the government to quickly identify problems in the agenda-setting phase. The policy formulation was rather rushed due to the importance of passing the legislation at the time and objectives were chosen quickly in a time of chaos and despair for many Americans. The legitimization phase was rather swift as well, because people were depressed and scared of future terrorist attacks. Implementation occurred over several stages as the government reorganized and new federal agencies were added. Evaluation of the policy occurs on a continual basis and was criticized heavily after the Edward Snowden scandal which brought forth the question of liberty vs. privacy. Policy maintenance includes succession of the Act, and in 2011 President Obama chose to extend provisions contained within the Act for an additional four years. Therefore, although U.S. national security is one broad policy, it continues to change and be impacted by multiple other policy