State of Strategy Conference Questionnaire

OMB CONTROL NUMBER:
0704-0553
Expiration Date: 04/30/2019

AGENCY DISCLOSURE NOTICE

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Executive Services
Directorate, Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100 [0704-0553].
Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to
comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
For brevity, some questions ask for very brief judgments on what are complex issues: We ask that you make your best overall judgment and not
dwell too much on the nuance of each question.
1. Did the 2014 QDR get the strategy right at the time of publication?

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

N/A

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

N/A

2. Does the 2014 QDR strategy remains valid today?

Strongly Agree

Agree

3. Does the QDR’s emphasis on each of the following remains valid today? *

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

N/A

Rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region to preserve peace and stability in the region
Maintaining a strong commitment to security and stability in Europe and the Middle East
Sustaining a global approach to countering violent extremists and terrorist threats, with an
emphasis on the Middle East and Africa
Continuing to protect and prioritize key investments in technology while our forces overall grow
smaller and leaner
Invigorating efforts to build innovative partnerships and strengthen key alliances and
partnerships

4. Does the 2014 QDR’s emphasis on the following Joint Force characteristics remain valid today? *

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

N/A

Smaller but more capable future force
Prioritizing modernization and readiness
Emphasizing high-end challenges (A2/AD)
Force-sizing guidelines (steady-state ability to defend homeland, deter aggressors, and conduct
global CT; wartime ability to support simultaneous defeat/deny demands)?

5. Is the QDR 2014 being effectively implemented?

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

N/A

6. Have each of the following aspects of the 2014 QDR been successfully implemented? *

Strongly
Agree
Rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region to preserve peace and stability in the region
Maintaining a strong commitment to security and stability in Europe and the Middle East
Sustaining a global approach to countering violent extremists and terrorist threats, with an
emphasis on the Middle East and Africa
Continuing to protect and prioritize key investments in technology while our forces overall grow
smaller and leaner
Invigorating efforts to build innovative partnerships and strengthen key alliances and
partnerships

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

N/A

7. Are the following capability areas under-emphasized, appropriately emphasized, or over-emphasized in the Defense Strategy, when considering today's
security environment? *

Under
Emphasized

*

Appropriately
Emphasized

_

Over
Emphasized

N/A

Cyber
CT and Special Operations
ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance)
Missile Defense
Nuclear Deterrence
Precision Strike
Space

Is there another capability area that is under-emphasized?

8. Are the primary missions under-emphasized, appropriately emphasized, or over-emphasized in the Defense Strategy, when considering today's security
environment? *

Under
Emphasized

*

Appropriately
Emphasized

_

Over
Emphasized

N/A

Counter Terrorism and Irregular Warfare
Deter and Defeat Aggression
Project Power Despite Anti-Access/Area Denial Challenges
Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction
Operate Effectively in Cyberspace and Space
Maintain a Safe, Secure, and Effective Nuclear Deterrent
Defend the Homeland and Provide Support to Civil Authorities
Provide a Stabilizing Presence abroad
Conduct Stability and Counterinsurgency Operations
Conduct Humanitarian, Disaster Relief, and Other Operations

9. Please rank the following future challenges in the order you feel any future Defense Strategy must address? (most important, second most important, third
most important, fourth most important, least important)

China

Iran

North
Korea

Russia

Terrorism,
especially
ISIL

Most Important
Second Most Important
Third Most Important
Fourth Most Important
Least Important

10. Should each of the following be a priority in the next Defense Strategy?

Strongly
Agree
Protect the Homeland
Project Power and Win Decisively in Overlapping Timeframes
Project Power Despite Anti-Access/Area Denial Challenges
Maintain Security Commitments in Europe & Middle East
Counter Global Terrorism

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

N/A

Is there anything else that should be a priority?

11. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements: *

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

N/A

“Resourcing will limit the Joint Force’s ability to implement the 2014 QDR strategy.”
“Bureaucratic processes will limit the Joint Force’s ability to implement the 2014 QDR
strategy.”
“The Joint Force’s ability to implement the 2014 QDR strategy will be limited by political
will.”
“The Joint Force’s ability to implement the 2014 QDR strategy will be limited by a perceived
U.S. credibility gap.”

Are there additional limitations you would like to add?

12. To what extent do you agree with the following articulations of the U.S. level of ambition that should underpins the next strategy?

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree Strongly
Disagree

N/A

The U.S. should remain the world’s pre-eminent superpower
The U.S. should retain a relative comparative advantage to every nation
The U.S. should allow Russia and China their spheres of influence
The U.S. should pull back its global presence and engagement and focus resource domestically

13. What changes to the size/shape/readiness of the U.S joint force would you recommend to better deliver the strategy?

14. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements: *

Strongly
Agree
The QDR was clear on its prioritization
It is possible for an unclassified strategy to be useful

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

N/A

15A. Grand Strategy is inevitably underpinning by planning assumptions, which may not be universally agreed. To what extent do you agree with the
assumptions below? *

Strongl
y Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongl
y
Disagree

N/A

Economic power is the foundation of state power so America must preserve national security without
compromising the economy
The first priority of national security is to protect the U.S. homeland and the American people
from enemies foreign and domestic
The U.S. prefers to act in concert with allies, even though doing so introduces collective action
and coordination challenges. However, the U.S. reserves the right to act unilaterally - and
invests its resources to be capable of doing so
U.S. prosperity depends on an open economic order characterized by free access to the global
commons, relatively low trade barriers, the sanctity of contract, and peaceful competition among
private businesses
There should never be a military power greater than the United States
The United States can afford military primacy. The fiscal constraints we face are the result of
choices that could, if necessary, be reversed – choices involving tax rates and entitlement
spending
Conventional wars between Great Powers are obsolete and things of the past
There is little danger of real counter-hegemonic balancing against the United States, because the
United States provides important public goods, and because potential balancers fear each other
more than they fear the United States
U.S. allies are the richest, most capable countries in the world (after the United States). Most
U.S. allies are now net security exporters in the post-Cold War world
The United Nations (especially the Security Council) is the primary provider of international
legitimacy, especially for use of force and international interventions
The U.S. provides public goods (e.g. security of global commons) because it is costlier to not
provide them. If the U.S. did not provide those goods, they either wouldn't be provided at all, or
would be provided by actors whose don’t share our interests

Click Here to Submit