战略与国际研究中心-Crowdsourcing-Perspectives-on-Defense-Reform_24页_863kb

Crowdsourcing Perspectives on Defense Reform Summary

Introduction

This report, Crowdsourcing Perspectives on Defense Reform, by Kathleen H. Hicks and Colin McElhinny, explores public opinion on defense reform through a survey conducted in March 2016. The survey was part of CSIS's ongoing effort to analyze defense reform prospects and solutions, building on its historical role in the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Reorganization Act. The goal was to better define the problems and solutions for contemporary reform efforts by collecting insights from a diverse range of professionals.

The survey aimed to:

• Understand public opinion on key facets of defense reform, including guiding principles, opportunities for reform, and institutional strengths and weaknesses.
• Test the axiom that "where you stand depends on where you sit" by requiring respondents to identify their professional backgrounds.

The survey received over 900 responses, with a notable decline in sample size as the survey progressed. The demographic groups included:

• Legislative branch
• Executive branch (military)
• Executive branch (civilian)
• Other (non-governmental)

Core Content and Key Findings

Guiding Principles for Reform

Respondents identified the most important guiding principles for defense reform:

1. Maintaining civilian authority (lowest score, most important)
2. Ensuring the quality of military advice (second most important)
3. Maintaining the independence of military advice (third most important)
4. Efficiency and effective management of DoD systems

• The legislative branch placed less emphasis on military advice principles compared to other groups.
• The "other" group prioritized improving strategy formulation and contingency planning.
• Military respondents ranked ensuring the quality of military advice highest.

Opportunities for Reform

Respondents identified the following areas as most opportune for reform:

1. Acquisition process
2. Strategy process
3. Programming and budgeting processes

• The strategy process received fewer top 5 selections but was highly ranked by those who selected it.
• Legislative branch respondents were more likely to prioritize efficiency of DoD and acquisition process.
• Military and "other" groups were more inclined to focus on strategy and contingency planning.
• Executive branch civilians highlighted interagency process, civil-military balance, and civilian personnel system as key areas for reform.

Strength of Institutions

Respondents evaluated the strength of key DoD institutions and leaders:

• Secretary of Defense was rated as "just right".
• Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, service chiefs, and service secretaries were seen as slightly too weak.
• Combatant commanders were slightly too strong.
• National Security Council (NSC) staff was rated as "too strong" (6.9), with this perception shared across all demographic groups, especially by legislative branch respondents.

Size of Institutions

Respondents expressed concerns about the size of key institutions:

• NSC staff was the most concerning, with all groups agreeing it was too large.
• Marine Corps respondents saw the largest gap between need and size.
• Navy respondents were most concerned about the size of OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) and Joint Staff.
• Air Force respondents were the least concerned about the size of national security institutions.

Effectiveness of the Interagency System

The interagency system was generally rated as less than middling in effectiveness across all seven tasks:

• Confirmation and political appointment processes were the most effective.
• Strategy development was the least effective.
• Military respondents rated the system lower than other groups in five out of seven areas.
• Civilian executive branch respondents were most negative about confirmation and political appointment and policy implementation processes.

Effectiveness of Congressional Oversight

Congressional oversight was also rated as less than average in effectiveness across all seven areas:

• Routine oversight (e.g., National Defense Authorization Act) was the most effective.
• Strategy development was the least effective, despite multiple statutory directives and review panels.
• Legislative branch respondents were the most concerned about role clarity, rating it weaker in eight out of nine categories.
• Military respondents were slightly more positive about role clarity in planning and executing cross-regional operations.
• Executive branch civilians showed the most clarity in areas such as approval for use of force, communications with the president, and programmatic and acquisition approvals.

Conclusion

The survey highlights areas of consensus and divergence among different professional groups regarding defense reform. While there is broad agreement on the need for reform in the acquisition process, strategy process, and programming and budgeting, there are notable differences in priorities based on demographic background. The data also underscores the importance of civilian authority and the complexity of interagency and congressional oversight.

CSIS emphasizes that the survey data should be considered as one input into a broader assessment of defense reform, given the potential for selection bias among respondents. The findings will be used alongside other analyses to evaluate and refine proposed reforms by Congress and the Obama administration.

Key Takeaways

• Maintaining civilian control is the top priority for reform.
• Strategy formulation is seen as a high-opportunity area, though not as widely selected.
• NSC staff and DoD institutions are perceived as too large.
• Interagency and congressional oversight are generally ineffective.
• Role clarity is a major concern, particularly for legislative branch and military respondents.

This analysis provides a valuable foundation for understanding the challenges and priorities in defense reform from a crowdsourced perspective.