Israel Hayom..
19 April '20..
Link: https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/04/19/who-is-really-making-the-decisions-on-how-to-manage-the-corona-crisis/
Over the last two weeks, there has been a witch-hunt over the question of who is "managing" the coronavirus crisis, and given the sensitivity of this issue, the media is likely to keep focusing on this for the near future.
Unfortunately, with only a few exceptions, most of the writers and pundits are missing the central question – or perhaps it simply doesn't fit their agenda.
Shuki Sadeh outdid himself with a noxious article in The Marker about the National Security Council, almost entirely detached from reality and the NSC's remarkable work during the current crisis, and in recent years. The article relied on interviews and ideas from various "NSC victims" as well as politicians whose main objective is to defame the prime minister and his team.
The central question that all these advisors and pundits who do not understand the Israeli system of government, or seek to change it through illegitimate pressure, is not "who is managing the crisis", but rather who is making the decisions.
The hierarchy of the executive authority in Israel is very clear – even if we don't always work according to it: the prime minister and the security-defense cabinet, or any other composition of ministers that is decided (and sometimes the entire government according to the law), are the ones who are in charge of making the important decision which impacts upon our lives, both in routine times and in times of crisis. The legislature, i.e. the Knesset, is meant to supervise the activities of the executive. This is a very important process – but very often Knesset committees, especially those run by the opposition, are not focused on supervision, but rather on goading the prime minister and ministers.
A limited forum
If one understands these basic principles, then it is understandable that the discussions around "who is managing the crisis" are less relevant. Decisions are made in a limited forum, and sometimes by the prime minister alone. In order to help him reach these decisions and understand the operational alternatives suggested by the professional bodies, the National Security Council was established.
The NSC is not an operational body and it must not become such. Its role is to integrate all the information flowing in from the professional bodies, each one focused on the specific area of expertise under its authority, to analyze the alternatives and present them to the decision-makers while setting out the advantages and disadvantages of every alternative. The national security adviser can recommend a course of action or solution, but the decisions – and all the responsibility for them – is with the prime minister, flanked by a limited team of ministers such as the members of the security cabinet (when it comes to decisions on this issue).
The NSC is meant to pass on to the professional bodies the translation of those decisions into action on the ground according to their areas of expertise and relative edge, while maintaining complete objectivity and to then monitor the implementation.
Anyone suggesting that crisis management should be transferred to the Israel Defense Forces, one of the ministries or any other entity is not only suggesting that management is taken out of the hands of the NSC, but essentially also wants to take the responsibility for the decision making away from the prime minister and instead place it with the head of the body they suggest should "manage" the process instead of the NSC. The IDF, the Mossad and the Shin Bet security services are undoubtedly more successful operative bodies than the NSC, and that's how it should be – it's their job. These bodies do not have any advantage over the prime minister and his staff in making decisions.
The role of the NSC is to activate each entity according to its abilities and relative advantage: the IDF in imposing a closure on a city, the police in overseeing public order, the Health Ministry in monitoring the hospitals and medical supplies, the Finance Ministry in managing the state coffers, the Defense Ministry in quickly and effectively managing procurement at home and abroad, the Defense Research and Development Directorate (DDR&D) in developing out of the box technological ideas, and so forth.
There is no one entity that should be doing all this work, especially when so many bodies are involved and pull in their own direction under the Not Invented Here (NIH) method. Think what would happen if one of these bodies took full responsibility for managing the entire crisis: other entities with many of their own relative advantages would seemingly become superfluous.
A classic example of the dilemma I have raised is the discussion over an exit strategy. Each body is putting forward its ideas, relying on its experts and advisers, and is trying to advance the idea that it is promoting, which usually is also the one that fits its own agenda. But what advantage do these entities have, even with their excellent implementation capabilities, over the prime minister and his team in making the decision about the exit strategy? Why would an exit strategy by the IDF, the Mossad, the Finance Ministry's budget division, the Health Ministry or the Police be better than a strategy put together by the NSC in line with the recommendations of all these bodies?
It is safe to assume that if one of these was appointed "crisis manager", as various figures have proposed, then its exit strategy would be put to the prime minister as the chosen strategy, even though there is no relative advantage. The only entity that can listen to everyone, analyze the suggestions, their advantages and disadvantages and present them to the prime minister and ministers is the NSC. The NSC is not immune to mistakes, which is why it is not the one making the decisions.
Are the prime minister and NSC necessarily right? We hope so, but there is no real guarantee. We live in a world once defined by then-US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as an unknown, i.e. we do not know what we do not know. The prime minister did well by appointing the NSC and its head, Meir Ben Shabbat, to manage and coordinate the situation, just as it has done in the past for civilian events (even if on a smaller scale), while the operative activities are in any case assigned to the entity with the relative advantage.
It is vital to continue to examine the decisions that are taken and to adapt to the evolving reality, but there is only one figure who has overall responsibility and who has to make the decisions, for better or worse, and that is the prime minister. To do this, he needs a strong team that knows to channel out the background noise and present to him all the data collected after they have been processed, analyzed and as ready as possible to enable an informed decision.
Brigadier General (res.) Jacob Nagel is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a visiting professor at the Technion Aerospace Engineering Faculty. He previously served as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s acting National Security Advisor and head of the National Security Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment