Unrest in Bahrain in 2014 (NSC) — Student

Set in August 2014. In the small island country of Bahrain, government and security forces have clashed with protestors seeking democratic reform. The ruling al-Khalifa family has responded to these protests with force and mass arrests. The most recent clashes between government forces and protestors are not the first but certainly the bloodiest. In February 2011, Bahraini activists, inspired by uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, gathered in the capital to seek political reform. The fact that Bahrain’s leaders are part of the Sunni minority and the demonstrators represent the Shiite majority gives the uprising a sectarian complexion, in addition to the broader social issues of disenfranchisement and limited economic opportunity. The U.S. government has decided to convene a National Security Council (NSC) meeting to consider whether and how to support political reform in Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, without further destabilizing the country or compromising U.S. interests or values.

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.

In the small island country of Bahrain, located in the Persian Gulf (sometimes known as the Arabian Gulf), government and security forces have clashed with protesters seeking democratic reform. Bahrain’s leaders belong to the Sunni sect of Islam, a minority in the country; the majority of Bahrainis are Shiite. Bahrain has a history of Sunni-Shiite tension. However, that tension is only one dimension of the problems that have unfolded in the country. Broader societal stresses also drive calls for reform. These issues include repression, disenfranchisement, and limited economic opportunity for the country’s majority.

Bahraini activists, inspired by uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, gathered in the country’s capital, Manama, in February 2011. They demanded reforms from the government. These reforms included a new constitution that would provide an elected parliament and independent courts. Also included in the reforms were the release of protesters arrested in police crackdowns as well as freedom of expression. Some opposition groups made more forceful calls for Bahrain to become a true constitutional monarchy and for an end to King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa’s rule. The ruling Al Khalifa family responded to these protests with force and mass arrests.

Bahrain has, for decades, been a strategically important partner of the United States. This is mainly because of its location as the base for the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet. U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf has helped ensure the free flow of oil from the Middle East. As a result, the United States has formed a close economic and military relationship with the kingdom. However, the unrest raised the question of whether the United States should support calls for democratic reform in Bahrain. However, the United States also had to consider if doing so risked damaging the U.S.-Bahrain relationship and threatened U.S. strategic interests in the country. 

Decision Point—Set in August 2014

Three years after Bahrain’s 2011 uprising, progress toward reform has stalled. In January 2014, the government suspended its “national dialogue” with opposition groups. The government blamed the opposition for the breakdown. Soon after, renewed unrest gripped the country. On February 14—the anniversary of the initial uprising—thousands of protestors calling for King Hamad’s ouster gathered in Bahrain’s capital, Manama. The protestors met stiff resistance from security forces. This resulted in several injuries and dozens of arrests. Outside the capital, a bomb struck a police bus in a Shiite village, killing one police officer. Three more officers were killed by another bomb weeks later. Although mainstream opposition groups denied any connection to the bombings and condemned the acts, the attacks only amplified an already severe crackdown by Bahrain’s security forces, especially in predominantly Shiite areas. Activists, along with international human rights organizations, are pressuring the United States, one of Bahrain’s principal economic and military partners, to respond. 

In this context, the president has called a National Security Council (NSC) meeting to decide how to respond to the unrest. Specifically, the NSC will need to decide whether the United States should continue to support the government of Bahrain, which has proved to be a staunch U.S. ally, or support the protesters’ demands—potentially at the expense of U.S. strategic interests. They may also decide to seek out some middle ground.

Bahrain is a country about one-fifth the size of Rhode Island and has a population of 1.5 million. Most sources indicate that the Bahraini citizenry is about 70 percent Shiite. However,  the government maintains that the actual proportion is smaller. 

Bahrain has been ruled by the Al Khalifa family since the royal family’s ancestors arrived from neighboring Qatar in 1783. Although the country has been widely perceived to be more open and progressive than its neighbors in the Gulf, the reality is complex. Bahrain’s government has adopted policies aimed at supporting religious tolerance, bolstering public health care and schooling, and upholding women’s rights, including the right to vote and run for office. 

Despite these policies, Bahrain has long had a dismal human rights record marked by a lack of political accountability.  Furthermore, Bahrain has a history of discriminatory and repressive policies toward the majority Shiite population. On several occasions since the 1970s, tensions in Bahrain have boiled over into widespread protests over government repression. These were met with violence from state security forces. The government has on occasion, promised limited democratic reforms to address protesters’ concerns. However, these reforms were often merely cosmetic changes. The ruling family’s power remained unchanged in reality.

Bahrain has, for decades, maintained a strategic relationship with the United States. The country became the site of a small U.S. naval presence following World War II. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the United States enlarged its presence in Bahrain by reestablishing and basing the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet there. In 2002, the George W. Bush administration designated Bahrain a major non-NATO ally. This status entailed certain military benefits for Bahrain. These benefits included participation in military-related research and development and special financing for the purchase of U.S. military equipment. In 2004, the United States and Bahrain signed a free trade agreement that expanded commercial relations between the countries.

Renewed unrest in Bahrain began on February 14, 2011. On this day,  government forces shot at and beat peaceful protesters. Inspired by the successful uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia in the previous months, the demonstrators, generally Shias but also Sunnis, believed the moment was opportune to demand a more democratic society. The government’s attempts to quash the uprising proved counterproductive because its use of force hardened the opposition’s call for an end to monarchy. On February 17, security forces raided a protest camp. This resulted in the killing of several protesters and injuring hundreds more. When protests intensified in March 2011, the ruling family appealed to its allied neighbors for help. In response, the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates dispatched two thousand troops to Manama to help the Bahraini government put down the protests and reestablish order. 

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates acted to support Bahrain for two reasons. First, as fellow nondemocratic monarchies, they feared that the same popular movements that brought down Tunisian and Egyptian dictators could spread and endanger their own holds on power. Second, they believed that the mostly Shiite uprising in Bahrain was being incited by Iran—a large, non-Arab, predominantly Shiite country and rival of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and their allies. The Bahraini government argued that Iran, which until 1970 claimed Bahrain as part of its territory, was attempting to undermine the monarchy. In February 2013, Bahraini officials arrested eight people taking part in anti-government protests and alleged that these individuals had links to Iran.

Following the initial uprising, King Hamad formed the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) to investigate the government crackdown that began in response to the February 14 protests. The commission’s five-hundred-page report found evidence of excessive force and torture and concluded that Bahraini authorities had caused the deaths of protesters. The commission made twenty-six recommendations to the government to ensure that such a crackdown would not happen again. Bahrain and other states welcomed the report. However,  critics expressed concern that its recommendations did not specifically address ways to resolve the underlying political crisis. Bahrain’s government agreed to adhere to the report’s recommendations but ultimately implemented only a handful of them [PDF]. 

In 2012, reports of government-supported raids on Shiite mosques and villages made achieving a political resolution to the crisis more difficult. An upsurge in violence took place in mid-2012, when the government proceeded with plans to host a Formula 1 race. Bahraini officials had previously used this type of event to showcase the country as modern and progressive. Opposition groups took advantage of the large contingent of international news agencies present for the racing event by staging demonstrations before and during the race. This sparked clashes with Bahraini authorities.

In the following years, reports of arbitrary detention and torture continued to surface. Bahraini authorities arrested hundreds of opposition members on charges of militancy, often conducting raids in largely Shiite communities. Bahraini courts frequently jailed dissidents or, in some cases, revoked their citizenship. 

Unrest continued to flare up throughout 2013. Renewed demonstrations frequently met a harsh police response. Several bomb attacks occurred over the course of the year, killing three Bahraini police officers. Opposition groups condemned those attacks. Bahraini authorities accused Iran-linked terrorist groups of carrying them out. Although the government called for a renewed national dialogue at the beginning of the year, Bahrain’s main opposition group later decided to withdraw from the talks after one of its ranking members was arrested on charges of inciting terrorism. As the country approached the third anniversary of its initial uprising, simmering tensions threatened to boil over at any moment.

For the United States, the uprising in Bahrain raised a conflict between U.S. interests and values. The Barack Obama administration had to balance the United States’ moral and political values—which included promoting democratic values and respect for human rights—on the one hand, with its ongoing strategic concerns in the region on the other. U.S. operations to combat terrorist groups were ongoing in the region, U.S. forces had been in Afghanistan for more than a decade, and tensions with Iran remained high. Safeguarding U.S. interests in the region often depended on cooperation with Arab governments, including in Bahrain.

Bahrain under the Al Khalifa family had long been a U.S. ally. It had helped ensure the free flow of oil from the Middle East to other parts of the world. It also hosted the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, which has patrolled the Persian Gulf and helped deter U.S. adversaries such as Iran. Bahrain and the United States have also worked together closely to combat terrorism in the region. Moreover, the United States has enjoyed close commercial and economic relations with Bahrain.

Renewed instability in Bahrain threatened these strategic and economic interests. For example, increased U.S. pressure on the Bahraini government for democratic reforms could anger the ruling family, which could reduce U.S.-Bahrain cooperation in response. Intensified domestic opposition could weaken or topple the government. This could result in a power vacuum or an uncertain transition during which the United States would lack a reliable partner. 

Yet there were also American values to consider. U.S. policymakers have often emphasized support for democracy and freedom as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. This made it difficult for Washington to ignore the Bahraini opposition groups’ demands for a more just and equitable society in Bahrain. However, Bahrain was already considered relatively progressive by the standards of the Persian Gulf region—in the area of women’s rights for example. Strong American pressure on the regime could cause instability that would endanger the freedoms that Bahrainis already enjoyed. 

Seeking to balance its interests and values, the United States did not fully embrace the Bahraini demonstrators in 2011. The public U.S. response to the initial uprising in Bahrain was muted. Obama encouraged open dialogue between the government and the opposition. However, he remained silent on the use of force against protestors and the deployment of Saudi and Emirati troops to help quell the uprising. Later in 2011, the United States temporarily suspended a $53 million arms deal, pending the findings of Bahrain’s investigation of the uprising. The deal went forward less than a year later. The Obama administration, however, maintained partial restrictions blocking the sale of equipment that could be used against protestors, such as tear gas.

The United States had no shortage of options in dealing with a crisis in Bahrain. The question was what combination of them would be most successful in this case. In general, the options fell into four main categories:

No Action

NSC members could prioritize preserving the strategic benefits of the U.S. relationship with Bahrain and decide not to place any public pressure on the ruling family. This could still allow for U.S. diplomats to advocate for human rights privately in their interactions with the Bahraini government. However, the United States would do nothing to call into question its support for the ruling family.

Diplomatic measures

The United States could put diplomatic pressure on Bahrain in several ways. This could include publicly criticizing the Bahraini government, or even articulating U.S. concern for the situation in an international forum such as the United Nations. This could highlight the issue to the world. Greater international attention could pressure Bahraini authorities to avoid using force against protests. The government could also be pushed to hold talks with opposition leaders.

Economic measures

NSC members could place more concrete pressure on Bahrain with economic measures. These could include threatening to suspend the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement until Bahrain fully complied with the recommendations laid out in the BICI report. The United States could also target foreign aid toward organizations that aligned with U.S. values, such as specific opposition groups or reformers within the monarchy. 

Military measures

Since the core of the U.S.-Bahrain relationship is founded on strategic military cooperation, the most robust U.S. action toward Bahrain would target the U.S. military presence there. Military measures could entail threatening to cut off military assistance until certain reforms were made. The United States could also leverage its longstanding military presence by moving the Fifth Fleet to a different country unless the Bahraini government implements certain reforms.

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?

Despite continuing tension between government forces and opposition in Bahrain, the United States has largely maintained close relations with Bahrain and has put limited pressure on the government toward reform. The Obama administration continued to criticize Bahrain’s repressive measures and called for restraint and dialogue between the government and opposition groups. However, it stopped short of measures that would put strong pressure on the government. 

In the following years, the United States and Bahrain continued to fortify their military and economic relationship. The Donald Trump administration de-emphasized human rights issues in Bahrain as part of a broad strategy to fight extremism and counter Iranian influence in the Middle East. Following the discovery of a large oil and gas reserve in April 2018, Bahrain approached major oil companies for contracts to develop oil fields. Bahrain expressed a preference for U.S. companies due to the strength of existing U.S.-Bahrain ties. Upon taking office in 2021, President Joe Biden once again emphasized the importance of democracy and human rights to his administration’s foreign policy. However, Biden has continued to pursue and even deepen security cooperation with Persian Gulf states.

As a result of its continued cooperation with Bahrain, the United States has received considerable support from the country on several strategic and diplomatic objectives. These have included conducting counterterrorism operations, managing ongoing tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, and easing Arab-Israeli tensions.

Still, ongoing tension between the government and the opposition continues to bring U.S. interests into conflict with U.S. values. Repression and violence in Bahrain have intensified, including the arrest and jailing of activists, extrajudicial killings, and revocations of citizenship. The United Nations, along with human rights groups, has heavily criticized the country’s practices and called for Bahrain to observe international human rights laws. So far, international pressure on Bahrain to improve its treatment of citizens has been limited, and the country has faced few consequences for its continued violation of human rights. 

The United States has faced sharp criticism over its leniency toward Bahrain’s leaders despite the country’s continued lack of progress toward meaningful reform. Human rights groups, Bahraini opposition members, and U.S. lawmakers have all made frequent calls for the White House to push more forcefully for Human Rights in Bahrain. Some critics have also argued that the U.S. government’s handling of the situation has been counterproductive. Worsening repression and continued unrest on the island, they argue, indicates that U.S policy has failed to support stability in Bahrain. Furthermore, it could potentially even undermine U.S. efforts to reduce violent extremism in the region.

At the same time, deteriorating relations with Iran and ongoing counterterrorism operations in the region have reaffirmed the strategic logic that drove Washington to maintain a productive relationship with Manama in the first place. Heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf especially serve to underscore the continued relevance of the Fifth Fleet’s presence. Even if the United States could promote greater stability by pushing harder for reforms, the consequences of compromising U.S. military readiness, let alone losing the cooperation of a regional ally, could be severe. 

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.