Power is spread among a multitude of agencies, and authority and responsibility are often quarantined. This is especially evident in relations between the branches of government. As the keeper of the purse, Congress is a vital actor in strategy formulation, but the natural antagonism between the legislature and the executive branch, when combined with the domestic orientation of Congress, hinders consistency. The congressional budget process, which leads to erratic funding levels for international commitments, amplifies this problem. The electoral process erects further obstacles to a coherent and consistent strategy.
Policies are susceptible to radical quadrennial swings.
In fact, such swings are virtually guaranteed by the need of political challengers to draw distinctions between themselves and incumbents. This talented group does, in fact, impart some sorely needed steadiness to American security policy. But the problem, as Henry A. Kissinger noted, is the essential lack of creativity and innovation inherent in any bureaucracy.12 Standing operating procedures, precedents, and the imperatives of interagency consensus and intra-agency conformity often stifle new ideas, and repressively channel policy into tested patterns reflecting past problems rather than present ones. Historical Factors Shackles on innovation are not simply the creation of bureaucratic socialization, and rapid swings in political moods do not come solely from the absence of courage in contemporary elected officials. The reasons lie deeper than that.