Rethinking Maritime Strategy: a New Approach for a More Complex Maritime Environment

View/Post Comments Regarding:

Results from Audience Polling 14 Nov 2006



Post a New Comment

1

LCDR Snyder: Being neither an expert in neither strategy nor polling I don't pretend to have the right answers, however Professor Breemer's polling seemed to be more in line with what I was expecting to broaden out the scope of consideration. With specific reference to the potential threats, I would make some very slight modifications to his list, having it read:

1. Religious fundamentalism
2. Proliferation of WMD
3. Rise of a peer competitor
4. Competition for scarce energy and natural resources
5. Rogue states
6. Failed states
7. Uncontrollable migration
8. Pandemics
9. Natural disasters
10. Global warming and climate change
11. Criminal activity on the seas
12. Other

Examining the Navy missions (Prof. Breemer's Question 5) would then flow for each of these potential threats. I would expand a bit to add non-traditional missions for consideration as distinct activities as they relate to the maritime environment (such as Counter-proliferation, Suppression of criminal activity, Immigration control, etc).

Reiterating that I am not an expert in this area… it seems like the way polling was done in defining the importance of the threats and missions may be somewhat misleading. As I recall, the polling allowed the audience to rank our top three priority threats. I’m not sure that methodology can show a distinction of the relative priority for the threats. For instance there is no way to indicate, for example, that my #1 and #2 priorities might be well above my #3 priority, or that my #4 priority is the same weight as #3, etc. I especially think that given a large number of choices (such as I am proposing) that this method wouldn’t work. Perhaps each choice could be quickly stepped through, and the audience assigns a relative weight to each (such as 0-10). Then we could really see the relative importance of each area. Again not an expert in this area so this may not be the right approach either and I include it for consideration.


Posted by Nathan A. Miller on 12/21/2006 11:31:24 AM


Jan Breemer of the Naval War College - Montery describes similar polling he has done. See
http://www.jhuapl.edu/MaritimeRegistry/Documents/BreemerSubmission.doc


Posted by Anonymous on 12/18/2006 2:03:13 PM


Mr. Miller, thank you for your comments. The object of the panels, discussion, and polling is indeed to broaden thought and discussion, and we are in the process of tailoring the questions to broaden the responses, particularly for a more diverse (not largely Navy, as in Newport) crowd that we'll have in the follow on Conversations. You've named a few already, but any additional questions you have in mind to gain more insight from the future audiences would also be welcome.

Posted by LCDR Audrey Snyder on 12/15/2006 5:29:04 PM


Having opened the Newport symposium with Peter Schwartz's discussion expanding mental maps and ensuring that we considered a wide range of potential contingencies, I was incredibly disappointed when we immediately jumped deep into a traditional box and mainly remained there for the remainder of the symposium.
Limiting our wargaming discussion to strategies of Primacy, Cooperative Security, Selective Engagement and Offshore Balancing (the first three being the very definition of textbook strategy, and the last still being rooted in a realist perspective) did not seem to facilitate exploring a wide range of potential options. Being an analyst myself, I certainly appreciate that one can't wargame everything, but we don't seem to be exploring the edge of the envelope at all. Shouldn't we at least address Isolationism, for example? Not because it is necessarily a good idea, but to at least see what the consequences and any potential benefits might be. The potential threats also mostly reflected an in-the-box Realist Perspective (4 state actors plus a Caliphate). Why is Rapid Climate Shift, which Mr. Schwartz identified as the greatest threat against mankind as a whole, not included as a potential threat? How about other potential non-state (even non human) threats which, while unlikely, may be catastrophic?
While I felt that the audience polling was very interesting, and a potentially powerful tool, I was very disappointed in the scope of the questions and their obvious disconnect from many of the presentations. Only 5 potential answer were given, and those choices mostly reflected very "in the box" perspectives and pre-determined the scope of the feedback, thus not allowing outside perspectives to be input into the process. For instance, under the potential threats section no choices were related to Climate or Environment (referring back to my earlier comment).
If the polling response is limited to only 5 choices, all of which are very tightly constrained, then I suggest that it be discontinued to prevent a self-reinforcing perspective. If polling is continued, then I would suggest a complete re-examination of the questions and answers to solicit a more broad response (and keep refining the questions and the conversation with the country continues) but to then provide a way for people to come back and take the final polished and more detailed survey at the end of the process.
I also would very much like to follow the process and be able to view the presentations given at other locations as the process moves forward.


Posted by Nathan A. Miller on 12/8/2006 12:43:19 PM

1


Browse General Overviews on Developing the New Maritime Strategy

Archives

April 2007
August 2008
August 2009
December 2006
February 2007
January 2007
January 2009
July 2007
June 2007

Home | About | Discussions | Core Questions | Library | Updates | Your Comments

NOTICE: This web site is hosted by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.  Any document posted is the sole responsibility of the service or agency representative providing the document.  Posted documents are for collaborative purposes and not for public release. Do not distribute documents without author's permission.  Neither classified nor sensitive material should be submitted.

Privacy Notice/Legal Disclaimer
© 2006 — Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

 NOTICE

While your comments are appreciated and welcomed, any submissions will be reviewed for appropriateness and may be edited for the sake of brevity before being posted to this site.