Q1: Does force structure development fit into the strategy process? If so, where?

A1: Yes, it does. All that is needed to be done is to look at such documents as the National Security Strategy of the United States, the Secretary of Defense's Report to Congress and the President, or the Bottom Up Review. They all use national security objectives as the starting point. (REF: FC 501)

Q2: If the objective of our tasking for this course is to develop a force structure, what are some of the questions which might influence the decision of what our optimum force structure for the year 2025 should be?

A2: This is the synthesis part of the process and begins the main focus of the lesson and course. Some possible answers are: What will the economy be like?; Will we have enough money to support the structure?; What will happen to the deficit?; What will be the impact of technology on society?; What will be the impact of the rise and fall of the new super powers?; Where will we get people to maintain a force struture?; What types of technology will there be?; How about the threat?; What will the impact of technology be on society?; What will China and Russia do?; How will American's relate to the military?; What will our national security objectives be in 2025? (REF: FC 501)

Q3: Let's assume that our broad national security objectives will not change dramatically. Furthermore, the United States, however it is structured, will still want to enhance its security and promote it's own prosperity. What are the consequences of this assumption?

A3: If our national objectives change dramatically, we must relook our force structure because it has likely become invalid. (REF: FC 501)

Q4: Now that you've come up with an assumption about future force structure, what is the next step in looking at force structure?

A4: Build a national strategy to support these objectives and then build national military objectives to support that strategy, and, in turn, build a military strategy to support those objectives (Z diagram). (REF: FC 501)

Q5: What will influence the process of determining our force structure?

A5: The US economy in the 21st Century; the global economy in the 21st Century; the rise and fall of new super powers; the impact of technology on society; the impact of global society and our nation's society; and our national security objectives in 2025. (REF: FC 501)

Q6: According to the reading "Forecasting Models, a Brief Guide", what are the two types of forecasting models?

A6: There are two general types of forecasting models: predictive and non-predictive. Predictive models try to forecast the future by using historical trend analysis techniques while non-predictive forecasting trends look a possible future options or potential alternatives. (REF: FC 501)

Q7: What is a futures wheel?

A7: A futures wheel will draw out the consequences of a decision or action in detail. To construct it, each trend, decision, or action becomes the center of a wheel, with three or four consequences emanating from it. Each of these in turn become the center of its own wheel. The process often works well by going to four levels. A "three by four" analysis will produce 120 possible consquences of the original trend. (REF: FC 501)

Q8: How can scenario-based planning be used?

A8: Scenarios are powerful planning tools precisely because the future is unpredictable. Using scenarios is rehearsing for the future: by recognizing the warning signs and the events that are unfolding one can avoid surprises, adapt and act effectively. Desisions that have been pre-tested against a range of what fate may offer are more likely to stand the test of time, produce robust and resilient strategies, and create distinctive competitive advantage. Untimately, the end result of scenario planning is not a more accurate picture of tomorrow, but better decisions about the future. (REF: FC 501)

Q9: What are some questions to ask to identify key forces?

A9: The following questions will help to identify key forces: 1. What will decision makers want to know when making key decisions?; 2. What will be seen as success or failure?; 3. What are the considerations that will shape those outcomes? (REF: FC 501)

Q10: What basis is used to establish the priority of key factors and driving forces?

A10: Key factors and driving forces are ranked first on the degree of importance to the success of the focal issue or decision, and secondly on the degree of uncertainty involved surrounding these factors and trends. (REF: FC 501)

Q11: What is involved when considering the various implications of the scenarios you develop?

A11: Once the scenarios have been developed, it's time to revisit the focal issue or decision and determine the future implications of each scenario. (REF: FC 501)

Q12: We all know that the world has changed. How did the end of the Cold War affect our defense policies and force structure requirements?

A12: The world went from a bipolar structure, where our security challenges were clearly defined in terms of deterrence, to what is now a more diffuse and often confusing place. This, of course, makes defense planning particularly problematic. The nature of the post Cold War is complicated by an explosion of what can be called global issues or trends. In large part, our focus on global issues is a result of the end of the Cold War. That is, we are no longer preoccupied by teh "balance of terror" that characterized Cold War international politics. (REF: FC 502)

Q13: Papp, Schwartz, and Petersen all highlight the importance of global issues or trends. What are these issues?

A13: Papp: The environment, drugs, and health. Papp pays particular attention to land degradation and desertification; water degradation; atmospheric pollutoin and climate change; and, species and gene pool extinction. Schwartz: Shuffling political alignments; technology explosion; global pragmatism; demographics; energy; the environment; and, the global information economy. Petersen: Democratization; de-ideology; multilateralism; ethnic wars; and, ethnic isolation. (REF: FC 502)

Q14: In general terms, what does the popular unipolar world look like?

A14: The unipolar world can be understood in terms of America's preponderance of military strength. The logic is compelling: "We are in for abnormal times. Our best hope for safety in such times, as in difficult times past, is in American strength and will to lead a unipolar world, unashamedly daying down the rules of world order and being prepared to enforce them." (Krauthhammer) (REF: FC 502)

Q15: There is a multipolar world. What does it look like?

A15: Proponents of the multipolar perspective believe the next international system will be extremely diffuse with the US, the European Community, Japan and China playing major roles, but with other states and other international actors also, on occasion, rising to prominence on a case-by-case, or global issue to global issue, basis. More often than not, scholars who believe in this model see economic strength growing in importance in the next few years. However, they also believe military strength will continie to play an important role in international affairs. As already noted, this third perspective is extremely diffuse. Some argue it underplays the importance of economics and military strength, as well as the continued importance of traditional actors and issues in international life. Others argue that is is not a model at all, but rather a refusal to create a model of what the emerging international system will look like. In any event, many believe this is the sort of world we are heading toward. (REF: FC 502)

Q16: What barriers does the acquisition community have to overcome to purchase commercial technology?

A16: These barriers include: - Suppliers who were not willing to change their business practices to comply with government-unique requirements for actions or activities. We're no longer a big enough market to make it worth their while. Thus, we needed to eliminate many of our rules and regulations (for cost data and accounting systems, business set-asides, etc.); - Speeding up contract awards and payment schedules to vendors; - Companies are wary of giving the government the right to audit proprietary cost and financial information; - Companies fear losing their proprietary data and software; - The government's right to terminate contracts at will; and - Industry's perception that there is a tremendous risk that a contractor will inadvertently fail to comply with a government rule or regulation that will lead to criminal or civil penalties, and a loss of the company's good name in the commerical marketplace. (REF: FC 503)

Q17: Currently, the DoD is doing a much better job buying advanced technology from industry. However, what problems do you foresee as we start buying more and more things off-the-shelf?

A17: For DoD, commercial technology is a double-edged sword: We develop an increasing reliance that may be hard pressed during war/conflict; and this same technology will become available to hostile regimes as well as us, especially in the information technologies. What we buy with commercial technology is a couple of years of technical superiority. However, we lose that lead when our "allies" sell advanced commercial technology in the global market. All of this may lead to a lack of trust in systems that were not developed by the Department of Defense. (REF: FC 503)

Q18: Colonel Warden talks about our current threat-based requirements driven acquisition system in his short paper, "A Strategy for the New Age." What is his thesis?

A18: Colonel Warden believes that we "no longer have the luxury of depending on a rather sluggish Soviet Union to give us a measure of threat." Relying on a policy of reacting only to an identified threat as the basis for our force structure would be disastrous. We need to abandon this old threat-driven force structuring system. (REF: FC 503)

Q19: Do you think we will see more joint programs in the future? Why or why not?

A19: Joint programs will probably become the norm as we continue to see the defense budget decline (we're in our tenth straight year of decline.) Interoperability and being "purple" are now the buzzwords. Despite all of their problems/disadvantages, being joint is the politically correct thing to do. (REF: FC 503)