Humanitarian Intervention in South Sudan in 2014 (NSC) — Student

Set in May 2014. Rival South Sudanese factions have fought a civil war since the end of 2013, causing mass displacements, tens of thousands of deaths, and widespread hunger. Negotiations between the leaders of these factions—President Salva Kiir and rebel commander and former Vice President Riek Machar—are stalled, and South Sudan’s dry season approaches, signaling intensified fighting and a humanitarian crisis of potentially historic proportions. Already, about two million South Sudanese have been driven from their homes, and food shortages and health needs have grown acute. Observers fear an eventual famine. Although a United Nations peacekeeping mission is present in South Sudan, other countries, including the United States, have begun to consider additional action to protect civilians. The president has asked the National Security Council for options on whether and how the United States could pursue a humanitarian intervention in or around South Sudan. NSC officials will need to take into account the pressure on the United States to act, including the responsibility to protect doctrine (R2P), as well as the significant costs, benefits, and risks of unilateral or multilateral intervention.

The United States plays a critical role in establishing and maintaining international order. This is particularly true in an increasingly globalized world. The range of foreign policy issues that require its attention is vast. The United States must consider foreign policy issues from conflicts in Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Syria to tensions with Iran and North Korea; from long-standing alliances to complex, evolving relationships with Brazil, China, India, Russia, and South Africa. Issues on the agenda range from the stability of global finance to the promotion of economic opportunity in low-income countries; and from climate to health to nuclear proliferation to terrorism. The United States has a vested interest in myriad world affairs. Further, issues such as immigration, trade, cybersecurity, climate change, and global health underscore the fading distinction between domestic and international matters.

Regardless of the scale of the problem, a successful foreign policy–making process starts by defining interests and goals. Policymakers and their advisors then formulate policy options to meet those goals and consider each option’s strengths and weaknesses. This process is challenging. In the best of times information can be unreliable or incomplete or an adversary’s intentions can be unclear. Often a decision’s consequences can be unknowable. Leaders frequently have to choose from a list on which every option is imperfect. Adding to this uncertainty is the complexity of the U.S. government’s foreign policy machinery. Numerous agencies—each with its own interests and biases—seek to influence how policy is decided and carried out. It takes considerable effort to run a process capable of producing sound policy decisions.

The National Security Council (NSC) plays a critical role in this effort. Its mission is to help the president effectively use a variety of instruments—military, diplomatic, or otherwise—to forge policies that advance U.S. national security goals.

The NSC was created by the National Security Act of 1947. This act defined the NSC as an interagency body intended to “advise the president with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security.” The period after World War II was an age of expanded American interests and responsibilities. The NSC was expected to provide a place where the heads of federal departments and agencies could cooperate to develop recommendations for policies that would advance U.S. aims. The NSC and its staff were also meant to manage the policymaking process. This ensured that the president would receive a full range of advice and opinion from the departments and agencies involved in national security.

The NSC has evolved significantly over the years. The NSC has adapted to the preferences of successive presidents and the challenges they faced. Variables such as the attendees, the frequency of meetings, the manner in which information is passed to the president, the importance of consensus, and the relative dominance of the NSC over other government institutions have changed over the decades.

The NSC has evolved to comprise various interagency committees and a large staff to prepare analysis and coordinate policymaking and implementation. The NSC is at the center of the interagency process. This process is one through which relevant government agencies address foreign policy issues and help the president make and execute policy choices.

I. National Security Advisor

The national security advisor (formally assistant to the president for national security affairs) is at the heart of the NSC structure. The national security advisor’s role is twofold: to offer advice to the president and to coordinate and manage policymaking. Because they have direct access to the president and do not represent a cabinet department, national security advisors are in a unique position. From this neutral perch they drive foreign policy decisions, manage the actors involved, and mitigate conflict throughout the decision-making process.

II. National Security Council Staff

The NSC staff consists of individuals from a collection of agencies that support the president, the vice president, and the administration. NSC staff members are generally organized into directorates that focus on regions or issues. The size and organization of the staff vary with each administration.

The NSC staff provides expertise for the variety of national security policy matters under consideration. It manages numerous responsibilities, including preparing speeches, memos, and discussion papers and handling inquiries from Congress on foreign policy issues. Staff members analyze both immediate and long-standing issues and help prioritize  the agenda.

III. Committee Structure

Committees are at the core of policy deliberation and policymaking in the NSC. They fall into four categories:

This committee structure tackles both immediate crises such as an outbreak of conflict and enduring issues such as climate change. IPCs conduct analysis on an issue, gather views on it and its importance from various departments, formulate and evaluate policy options, and determine what resources and steps would be required to carry out those options. The Deputies Committee manages the interagency process up and down. It decides what IPCs to establish. and gives them specific assignments. It also considers information submitted by the IPCs before relaying it to the Principals Committee or the full NSC.

The Principals Committee is the highest-level setting, aside from the NSC itself, for debating national security issues. It consists of the heads of the NSC’s component agencies. The Principals Committee is essentially all the members of the NSC except the president and vice president. Formal NSC meetings, which the president chairs, occur whenever the president sees fit. They consider issues that require the president’s personal attention and a direct presidential decision.

The goal of this committee structure is to foster consensus on policy options or highlight where and why consensus cannot be reached. If officials at one level agree on an issue, it does not need to go to senior officials for a decision. This practice reserves the president’s time and that of members of the Principals Committee for the most complicated and sensitive debates.

When a crisis erupts issues sometimes do not follow the usual path up from the IPCs. In these cases, NSC staff members and officials in government departments and agencies generally draft papers drawing on their expertise, available intelligence, and any existing contingency plans. Policy options are then debated and decided at the appropriate level. The policymaking process can also deviate from this model based on the preferences of each president.

For the purposes of this NSC simulation, you will role-play the NSC meeting with the assumption that the committees described have already done their jobs. Any critical information has already been passed to the highest-level decision-makers.

Presidential Decisions

When the president makes a policy decision, it can take the form of a verbal instruction recorded and shared with relevant departments and agencies. The president can also issue formal decisions in documents that lay out the administration’s policy and explain its rationale and goals. These documents have gone by different names under different presidents. President Joe Biden issues national security memoranda and national security study memoranda. President Donald Trump issued national security presidential memoranda.

The president can also issue an executive order (EO). EOs are a more formal and public declaration of policy. In contrast, national security directives are generally directed internally to federal departments and are often classified. In the past, presidents have issued EOs for such purposes as facilitating sanctions against foreign individuals and establishing new offices in government departments to carry out foreign policy aims. For federal agencies, both national security directives and executive orders carry the full force of law.

Although many executive branch departments and agencies are involved in foreign policy, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the intelligence community form the core of the foreign policy bureaucracy. The Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice often play crucial roles as well.

Department of State

The Department of State conducts the United States’ relations with other countries and international organizations. It maintains U.S. diplomatic presence abroad. The Department of State also issues visas for foreigners to enter the country, aids U.S. citizens overseas, and manages other programs to promote American interests. The secretary of state is the president’s principal foreign affairs advisor and has a keen understanding of the United States’ international relations. They are also well informed on the relationships between foreign countries, and the behavior and interests of their governments.

Department of Defense

The Department of Defense carries out U.S. defense policy and maintains U.S. military forces. It includes the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, as well as an array of agencies related to defense. The department employs more than two million military and civilian personnel and operates military bases around the world. The secretary of defense is the head of the department and the president’s principal defense policy advisor. They also stay up-to-date on the security situation in foreign countries and the possibilities and implications of U.S. military involvement. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the highest-ranking member of the U.S. armed forces and the president’s top military advisor.

Intelligence Community

The U.S. intelligence community consists of eighteen agencies and organizations, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which gather and analyze intelligence. Each of these agencies has its own mission; for example, the NSA focuses on signals intelligence (information gathered from communications and other electronic signals) and the Defense Intelligence Agency on military information. The director of national intelligence is the president’s principal advisor on intelligence issues. They oversee this network of agencies with the aim of ensuring that they work together and deliver the best possible information to U.S. policymakers.

Department of the Treasury

The Department of the Treasury carries out policy on issues related to the U.S. and global economies and financial systems. The secretary of the treasury serves as one of the president’s chief economic advisors and is responsible for addressing a range of economic concerns. The Treasury’s ten bureaus, which include the U.S. Mint and the Internal Revenue Service, do much of the department’s work, which ranges from collecting tax to printing currency and executing economic sanctions.

Department of Homeland Security

Created soon after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department of Homeland Security works to counter and respond to risks to American security. It focuses on issues such as terrorism prevention, border security and immigration, disaster response, and cybersecurity. Familiar agencies within the department include U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Transportation Security Administration. The secretary of homeland security oversees the department and advises the president on relevant issues.

Department of Justice

The Department of Justice investigates and prosecutes possible violations of federal law. The Department of Justice represents the U.S. government in legal matters and works more broadly to prevent and respond to crime. Agencies such as the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration are part of the department, as are divisions focusing on particular areas of law, such as national security and civil rights. Leading the department is the attorney general, who offers legal advice to the president and the heads of other departments.

After decades of bloodshed, South Sudan won independence in 2011. However, it soon descended into crisis. Despite having large oil reserves that could fuel a strong economy, South Sudan emerged as one of the world’s least developed countries. Its government was dysfunctional. Political and ethnic rivalries between President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar caused the government to effectively collapse in late 2013, plunging the country into a civil war marked by ethnically targeted attacks. 

In the opening months of the conflict, it quickly became clear that the violence could lead to a severe humanitarian crisis. By April 2014, more than one million people had been driven from their homes and, as food shortages grew acute, nearly one-third of the country’s population were at severe risk of starvation.

Although a UN peacekeeping mission has been present in South Sudan since 2011, this new crisis led other countries, including the United States, to consider launching their own humanitarian interventions to establish or maintain peace and ensure access to humanitarian aid. Such interventions would be guided by the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine, adopted by all member states of the United Nations in 2005 after they failed to prevent a number of genocides. According to this doctrine, countries have a responsibility to intervene in other countries in cases of crimes against humanity or genocide. However, this norm is not legally binding and its use in some cases has been controversial. Still, the underlying principles of R2P could provide a basis for the United States to take action in South Sudan.

Decision Point—Set in May 2014

South Sudan is in its fifth month of civil war. So far, all attempts to reach a ceasefire have quickly failed. Recent reports suggest the war reached a new level of violence after South Sudanese opposition forces took control of the northern city of Bentiu and killed hundreds of civilians there. It seems likely that fighting will continue to escalate, subjecting civilians to more violence and possibly even leading to genocide. At the same time, drought, destruction, and the loss of the agricultural workforce will reduce South Sudan’s already scarce food supplies. The result is predicted to be a humanitarian crisis of historic proportions. 

In this context, the United States faces significant pressure to act. The United States could increase its involvement in current peace talks or cut funding to the warring parties, but these options take time. Meanwhile, South Sudanese civilians are suffering. National Security Council (NSC) members are thus meeting to debate a more immediate question: Should the United States pursue a direct humanitarian intervention in South Sudan? Supporters of intervention could invoke the R2P doctrine, arguing that conditions in South Sudan resemble those at the onset of Rwanda’s 1994 genocide, which claimed as many as one million lives. Yet NSC members need to weigh the possible good that an intervention could accomplish against the significant dangers and the costs that it would entail. 

Historically, the region in and around South Sudan has struggled with harsh geography, an unforgiving climate, an underdeveloped economy, and dysfunctional, often feuding, governments. South Sudan’s huge oil deposits have fallen under mismanagement and the threat of violence. The oil wealth has not benefited most of the South Sudanese people. Given these factors, even in peacetime the population of South Sudan has lived on the edge of a humanitarian disaster. 

The crisis that broke out in 2013 has its roots in South Sudan’s decades-long struggle for independence from Sudan. For the first half of the twentieth century, Sudan was a colonial territory under joint British and Egyptian rule. Under this arrangement, Sudan was effectively treated as two separate regions: a mostly Muslim north and a largely Christian or animist south. When Sudan gained its independence from colonial rule in 1956, these divisions—and questions of control over natural resources— became a source of simmering tension. Almost immediately after Sudan gained its independence, southern Sudanese groups rebelled against the government in Khartoum. 

The two regions reached a fragile peace in 1972, which granted southern Sudan a degree of autonomy. But just over a decade later, southern groups rose up again over violations of the peace settlement. This second civil war was marked by intense violence against civilians. Rough estimates place the war’s death toll as high as 2.5 million people, mostly civilians.

Sudan’s second civil war ended in 2005. As part of the peace deal to end the war, the south was given a chance to vote on whether to become an independent country. Six years later South Sudan overwhelmingly voted for independence. Salva Kiir, the head of the main southern rebel group, became South Sudan’s first president. He appointed a rival militia leader, Riek Machar, as his vice president. Machar represented the Nuer ethnic group (making up 16 percent of the population), while Kiir represented the Dinka (36 percent). Relations between these groups, which are South Sudan’s largest ethnicities, had deteriorated over previous decades. Kiir believed that Machar’s appointment would help unify the new country. 

However, tensions quickly emerged in the new country. The two leaders disagreed over how to distribute oil profits. Kiir wanted the profits to flow into the central government. However, Machar said they should go to South Sudan’s individual states. (Machar’s home state of Unity has some of the nation’s richest oil fields.) Additionally, Kiir took steps to bolster his executive powers, whereas Machar argued for power to be less centralized. 

Concerned that these tensions could lead to conflict, the UN Security Council voted to establish a peacekeeping force in the country. The United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) tasked 7000 personnel with supporting South Sudanese government forces in maintaining peace. Still, the new country faced grave challenges ahead.
In mid-2013, Kiir launched a series of investigations and suspended several high-ranking government officials. He portrayed the investigations as anticorruption measures, but the move was widely denounced as an attempt to strengthen his hold on power by removing potential threats. Claiming his rivals were plotting a coup, Kiir fired his entire cabinet, including Machar. Machar had declared that he would challenge Kiir in the next presidential election. 

In December 2013, violence erupted in Juba, South Sudan’s capital, between ethnic Dinka and ethnic Nuer soldiers in the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), then South Sudan’s national army. The resulting firefight killed at least five hundred people, including civilians. As Dinka soldiers moved to massacre Nuers, Nuer militias retaliated in kind. This resulted in thousands of executions. Nuer soldiers mutinied and deserted across the country. Machar fled Juba, rallying a rebel Nuer army. Since then, violence has continued across South Sudan, primarily between the SPLA, loyal to Kiir, and Machar’s rebel forces. Other militias have also conducted attacks, which have caught civilians in the crossfire.

This conflict disrupted the livelihood of millions of South Sudanese by severely threatening agriculture, on which many rely to support themselves and their families. Many farmers were forced to abandon their fields or face violence from the warring parties and loosely affiliated gangs.  Constant disruptions to South Sudan’s agricultural production sparked a food crisis leading 2.5 million people to face starvation. 

The waves of violence gripping South Sudan drew widespread outrage. U.S. President Barack Obama condemned the outbreak of fighting in December 2013. The UN Security Council also voted to nearly double the size of the peacekeeping mission that had been stationed in the country. Despite this, the civil war raged on and efforts to negotiate a ceasefire continued to fail. Policymakers grew increasingly concerned that the worst of the conflict was yet to come.

The United States played a significant diplomatic role in South Sudan starting from  the beginning of the twenty-first century. It helped broker the 2005 peace agreement that ended Sudan’s second civil war and paved the way for South Sudanese independence. Since brokering the peace, the United States also made substantial investments in funding Sudan’s development. Washington provided more than $6 billion in humanitarian aid between 2005 and 2010. After South Sudan gained its independence, the United States continued to invest in development efforts in the new country. It also supported and helped to fund UN peacekeeping missions in the region. 

Although some policymakers argued that South Sudan had little economic or geopolitical significance for the United States, many moral and political factors created pressure for U.S. intervention. The first was preventing atrocities and reducing the violence and loss of life in South Sudan. Many observers criticized U.S. responses to past humanitarian crises, such as the 1994 Rwandan genocide. They argued that the United States should have done more to prevent atrocities. As the crisis in South Sudan gained attention, the United States faced pressure to demonstrate its commitment to protecting human rights. Additionally, because the United States helped broker the 2005 peace deal that led to South Sudan’s independence, seeing the new country spiral into genocide and famine risked signaling the failure of a significant American diplomatic effort.

With the threat of escalation looming, policymakers in Washington had serious incentives to address the civil war in South Sudan. Still, any response came with possible costs. Military intervention especially carried severe risks to U.S. personnel and threatened to become an expensive endeavor. As NSC members assessed the risks and potential benefits, various options for a direct intervention were available. The first question was not how to pursue a humanitarian intervention but whether to pursue one at all. 

NSC members had three main policy options to consider.

Intervention in South Sudan 

A direct military intervention by the United States and any willing partners could have the greatest effect on conditions in South Sudan. However,  it would also be the riskiest and most expensive option. A direct intervention could take two main forms.

Exclusively humanitarian intervention 

The United States and any partners could conduct a humanitarian intervention to distribute aid inside South Sudan but not seek to enter the conflict itself in any way. The only goal would be to relieve human suffering. Personnel would negotiate with parties in South Sudan. However, they would  not use force if they encountered resistance to their efforts to distribute assistance. U.S. troops would be authorized to fire only if they or civilian aid workers were in imminent danger. 

An exclusively humanitarian intervention could ensure civilians are protected while minimizing the risk to U.S. personnel. Still, bringing aid directly to displaced persons within South Sudan would require a major effort. Given the poor condition of the roads and other infrastructure in South Sudan, the United States and any partners would need helicopters to assist in the delivery of aid. In addition, helicopters would be needed to deliver generators, communications equipment, and shelters to facilitate and sustain the operation. The military would also need to establish and enforce no-fly zones to protect troops and aid workers on the ground. Also, an intervention under these rules would only be possible if Kiir explicitly allowed the United States and any partners to enter the country. Most significantly, this option would not put an end to the fighting. Intervention forces and aid workers would need to wait for other diplomatic efforts to secure an end to the fighting, leaving them in harm’s way for potentially years to come.

Humanitarian intervention with peace enforcement

This option would be the most ambitious. Its goal would be to address the conflict itself while simultaneously helping to relieve human suffering. It would require the same elements as the previous option to enter South Sudan, set up aid delivery stations, and protect aid workers, but it adds another military element: enforcing peace among the warring parties. To do this, U.S. and any partner forces would start by declaring a mandatory ceasefire and working to physically keep the warring parties apart. If that failed, troops would then need to become involved in peacemaking. This would entail forcibly creating the conditions to make a peace deal possible. For example, peacemaking could include taking control over territory or attacking other parties to make them unable to continue fighting. Either way, this operation requires significant military action. U.S. forces would be authorized to open fire on any party to the conflict, if necessary. U.S. troops would also be allowed to use force to defend civilians as well as themselves, their equipment, and aid personnel or supplies.

Intervention in neighboring countries to provide humanitarian aid

In the first months of the civil war, nearly five hundred thousand South Sudanese refugees fled to bordering countries, including Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda. Most observers expected that those numbers would continue to rise. Governments of these countries and UN agencies would likely welcome assistance from the United States and partners in providing food, shelter, security, and medical care to refugees as their numbers grew.

This option would involve sending civilian employees and funds to support humanitarian efforts already on the ground surrounding South Sudan, rather than deploying a major military force. However, some U.S. military personnel would be needed to ensure safety. Cargo aircraft and helicopters would also be needed to reach otherwise inaccessible places. This approach would require fewer personnel and less equipment than a direct intervention in South Sudan. It would show that the United States was taking action to relieve the suffering of the South Sudanese people while putting few Americans in harm’s way and incurring fewer economic costs than an intervention in South Sudan would. Military personnel and aircraft from the United States and any partners would enter only those countries whose governments approved, making such an intervention consensual. Overall, this option would limit risks and costs, but it would not aid people within South Sudan, nor would it get at the root causes driving the conflict. 

No or minimal involvement

Given the costs, risks, and complications of the other options, restraint deserved as much consideration as direct action. It would save taxpayer dollars and keep U.S. aid workers and troops out of harm’s way. Furthermore,  a poorly executed U.S. military intervention could inflame tensions, sparking more fighting and loss of life. The United States could continue or even increase its financial support for relief efforts undertaken by nongovernmental organizations and UN agencies and devote funding and diplomatic support to facilitating negotiations. It could also impose additional sanctions on individuals involved in the conflict. Such an approach would likely decrease U.S. influence in South Sudan’s affairs, yet it holds some chance of improving the situation while avoiding a direct U.S. intervention. However, this option would not provide the same level of relief to those suffering in the crisis as the others.

Print these custom placards for use during your simulation. If you need to edit them, make a copy to your Google Drive.

All National Security Council (NSC) members except the president will write a position memo before the role-play. You can find more details about writing position memos under Student Resources. The president will write a presidential directive after the role-play. More details about that are also under Student Resources.

What is a memorandum?

The United States ultimately decided not to intervene in South Sudan in 2014. Washington announced a series of sanctions on South Sudanese government officials and members of rebel groups deemed responsible for fueling violence in South Sudan. At the same time, the Obama administration sought to maintain an active diplomatic role in pushing for peace. Then U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited South Sudan in May 2014 to push for an end to the conflict. Over the following years U.S. diplomats made repeated attempts to broker a lasting peace deal.

The United States also continued in its efforts to ease the humanitarian crisis unfolding in and around South Sudan as a result of the civil war. From 2014 to 2020, the United States provided over $5 billion in humanitarian aid to South Sudan and neighboring countries hosting large populations of South Sudanese refugees.

These efforts largely failed to have significant influence on the trajectory of the conflict, and South Sudan’s civil war would continue to rage for more than five years after its outbreak. Peace talks continued on and off but fighting often resumed after each round of meetings. In August 2015, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), a regional bloc, successfully mediated a cease-fire agreement. However, the cease-fire was shattered in July 2016 and Kiir- and Machar-aligned forces resumed fighting once more.

The renewed violence that year prevented farmers from planting or harvesting crops, causing severe food shortages in the country. In July 2014, the UN Security Council declared South Sudan’s food crisis the “worst in the world.” In February 2017, the United Nations and some government agencies declared famine in parts of the country, with nearly five million people at risk from food insecurity. Food insecurity has continued and even worsened to this day. In 2023, more than 7.7 million people, or two-thirds of the population, faced severe food insecurity—the worst hunger crisis the country has ever faced.

In June 2018, under increasing international pressure to negotiate, Kiir and Machar met for the first time since 2016 and signed a new IGAD-brokered peace deal. The meeting resulted in a power-sharing agreement in which Machar would return as vice president. The revitalized peace agreement reduced violence in many regions of South Sudan and improved the ability of humanitarian groups to supply aid. South Sudan made economic improvements by resuming its stalled oil production.

The peace process moved slowly. It took nearly two years for the country to successfully form a unity government. Important components of the peace agreement, such as appointments to state governorships, were even slower to be implemented, and remained as potential sources of continued tension. Observers have expressed skepticism about the durability of this agreement and stress that—despite the progress toward peace—South Sudan’s humanitarian crisis has yet to abate.

Few observers advocated that a military intervention in South Sudan should have been undertaken. However, many analysts have argued that the United States could have adopted a more robust response to the crisis. Some experts have particularly criticized the United States’ initial response to the civil war in South Sudan. Many pointed out that in the opening months of the conflict, U.S. policy implicitly supported Kiir’s government. For instance, U.S. policymakers did not support an international arms embargo on the country until 2018, in part over concerns that it would disproportionately affect government forces. Critics argue that these decisions were guided by flawed assumptions about the legitimacy of Kiir’s government, despite evidence that his forces were perpetrating atrocities alongside Machar’s. Instead, these critics assert that the United States should have prioritized stability above all else, including by placing increased diplomatic pressure on South Sudan’s government, and considering advocating the removal of both Kiir and Machar from power.

Ultimately, observers worry that the current peace in South Sudan is not guaranteed to last. Many of the tensions that fueled civil war in South Sudan remain, and instability elsewhere in the region could spread or divert international resources and attention away from South Sudan. Should the current peace break down into renewed civil war in the future, U.S. policymakers could once more face a decision of whether and how to step in.

After the debate and deliberation close, the president will announce his or her decision, to be later finalized in the form of a written presidential directive. If time permits, you will participate in a debrief following the president’s announcement.

Be active in this debrief. The role-play might seem to be the most challenging part of the experience, but the debrief is equally important. It will reinforce what you learned during the role-play exercise and refine your analytical skills. It will also force you to step out of your role and to view the case from a personal perspective. You will have the opportunity to discuss any challenges you encountered as you worked through the discussion with your peers and how you felt about the final presidential decision.

The debrief will close with a reflection on the complexities and challenges of crafting foreign policy. This should help clarify your understanding of what you learned and answer any lingering questions. This exercise will also assist you in completing your final assignment, a written reflection.

The following questions are proposed to guide the discussion in the in-class debrief. This is not an exhaustive list and may vary depending on how your role-play exercise unfolded. If your class or group does not hold a debrief, these questions will nonetheless help you reflect on the role-play and write your policy review memo: 

The written reflection is your final assignment in the simulation. In the debrief discussion after the role-play, you and your peers went beyond the role you played and thought about the issue from a variety of perspectives. Now that the National Security Council discussion and debrief are behind you, you can consider whether you personally support your recommended policy given the full spectrum of arguments and considerations that arose. Shedding your institutional role and writing from a personal point of view, you will craft a policy review memo that outlines and reflects on the policy options discussed, incorporating and critiquing the president’s decision where appropriate.

If you played the role of president in the simulation, your memo should still reflect your personal opinion. You can comment on the course of action you ordered as president, further justify it, write more extensively on the options you dismissed, or suggest and support alternate options.

No matter which role you played originally, take into account all you have learned. Your instructor or facilitator will want to see whether and how your understanding of the issue and of the policymaking process has evolved from that expressed in your position memo.

More details about the written reflection are available under Student Resources.

Essential Resources

Additional Resources

Research and Preparation

Sources

Note: If you are assigned the role of president, you will not write a position memo. Instead, you will write a two-page presidential directive (PD) at the conclusion of the role-play. You will address the PD, which will follow a memo format, to the NSC members and inform them of your final decision regarding the policy option or options to be implemented (see below).

If your teacher has chosen to assign you the role of general advisor to the president, you will not need to write the position memo from a particular institutional position. Instead, you will have the flexibility to approach the issue from your own perspective, incorporating a comprehensive assessment of the crisis into your argument.

Click here to see a sample of a position memo.

The format of the presidential directive is simpler than that of a position memo. A directive contains a record of the policy option or options that the president has chosen as well as the accompanying orders to various parts of the government with details on how to carry out these decisions.

Click here to see a sample presidential directive.

During the simulated NSC meeting, you will meet to debate and discuss U.S. policy options in response to the issues outlined in the case. Consistent with the NSC’s mission to advise the president, you should raise the issues that are most important for the president to consider. This will enable them to make the most informed decision on policy options. Though you may or may not agree with this decision, your responsibility as an NSC member is to provide the best possible analysis and advice from the perspective of your role.

Role-play Guidelines

Guidelines

Click here to see a full example of a written reflection.