Member Login Become a Member
Advertisement

More, from CNAS…

  |  
03.03.2008 at 12:12am

Background

The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and Foreign Policy magazine set out to address some of the most challenging questions facing the U.S. military in the 21st century: What is the state of America’s military? How healthy are the armed forces? How prepared are they for future conflicts? How confident are they in civilian leaders and government institutions? And what impact have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had on them? To find out, CNAS and Foreign Policy teamed up to conduct a survey to find out what senior retired and active duty officers — the very people who have run the military over the last half century — collectively think about the state of the force, the health of the military, the course of the war in Iraq, and the challenges that lie ahead.

SWJ Blog entry here.

Learn more: CNAS Fact Sheet | Questions and Data

Methodology

The U.S. Military Index is based on a survey of 3,437 retired and active duty officers holding the rank of major or lieutenant commander and above from across the services. About 35 percent of the participants hailed from the Army, 33 percent from the Air Force, 23 percent from the Navy, and 8 percent from the Marine Corps. The Index focuses on a very select portion of the retired and active duty military, including 232 retired general and flag officers, elite generals and admirals who have served at the highest levels of command. Approximately one-third were colonels or captains, while 37 percent held the rank of lieutenant colonel or commander. Twelve percent graduated from one of America’s exclusive military academies. Approximately two-thirds had combat experience, with roughly 10 percent having served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. Over 95 percent of participants had served in the military for fifteen years or more, 81 percent more than twenty years, and some 17 percent had served more than thirty years. Nearly 30 percent were either active duty or retired within the last ten years, with current active duty personnel accounting for over 8 percent of respondents. Participants in the survey were selected by the Center for a New American Security and Foreign Policy magazine. The nonscientific survey was administered online from December 7, 2007, to January 15, 2008.

Release Event Information:

CNAS and Foreign Policy Magazine launched the results of this survey on February 19, 2008.

The release event also involved a panel discussion with:

Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales, Jr., USA (Ret)

Maj. Gen. Scales served more than 30 years in the U.S. Army, including as commandant of the United States Army War College. He is a Fox News Channel military analyst and the president of Colgen, Inc.

Lt. Gen. Greg S. Newbold, USMC (Ret.)

Lt. Gen. Newbold served more than 30 years in the Marine Corps, including as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He currently serves as the managing director of Torch Hill Capital.

Lt. Col. John A. Nagl, USA

Lt. Col. Nagl is commander, 1st Battalion, 34th Armor at Fort Riley, Kansas. He was deployed to Iraq in 2003, helped write the Army’s counterinsurgency field manual, and is the author of Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya to Vietnam.

CNAS Clarification:

February 22, 2008–Since the February 19 release of a Center for New American Security (CNAS) and Foreign Policy (FP) magazine survey of retired and active duty officers on the state of the U.S. military, we have heard concerns from several people we respect about the manner in which its findings have been presented. CNAS takes these concerns very seriously. We regret that some of our findings were presented without the proper context and caveats for which we take full responsibility. We wish to clarify here what this index is and what it is not. We have updated our website to address these concerns. CNAS is committed to addressing this issue openly and directly.

The FP article summarizing the survey’s results noted that it was “nonscientific,” and that it included both “active and retired” personnel. While we continue to believe that the CNAS/FP survey provides many useful insights, it has become evident that its limitations require more explanation and clarification.

1. Nonscientific survey. Like many surveys conducted by the media and other organizations, including past FP indexes on terrorism, the CNAS/FP effort was not a randomized poll. Instead, emails were sent to thousands of individuals, mostly members of the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), but also to additional active duty personnel currently serving in fellowships or at senior service schools, as well as to several hundred retired general and flag officers who were selected for their long service and extensive experience. Those who participated spent about twenty minutes online to complete the survey, sometime during the period between December 7, 2007 and January 15, 2008.

2. Predominantly retired officers. When we sent out the survey, we were unsure what mix of retired and active officers would respond, particularly through MOAA. As it turned out, although 285 active duty personnel responded, the response from the retired community was much larger, so that 92 percent of the 3,437 total respondents were retired. Some 700 participants had retired within the past 10 years, so that 29 percent of survey respondents were active duty or retired within the last ten years, while 71 percent had retired more than 10 years ago. Finally, and as noted in the FP article, more than two-thirds of respondents had combat experience and 10 percent had operational experience in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

3. Did not consider junior officers or enlisted personnel. The survey’s purpose was to ascertain how a very select group — retired and active duty officers who had served at the highest level of command, Major/Lieutenant Commander and up, assessed the current state of the military and a number of related issues. The survey was not designed to “take the pulse” of the entire military. In particular it did not attempt to assess the views of company-grade or noncommissioned officers, who play a pivotal role in leading today’s military and who will become senior leaders in the future. More broadly, it did not attempt to assess the views of enlisted personnel, who make up 84 percent of the active duty military. We hope that future surveys focus on these groups, but also believe that retired and active duty officers represent a very knowledgeable and influential group whose perspectives were of particular interest.

Both CNAS and Foreign Policy magazine posted the results of the survey online, including demographic data about the participants, the day that the article was released. However, while we provided the relevant information to the public, CNAS regrets not doing so more directly and effectively.

In presenting survey results at a public event on February 19, we noted several areas where retired and active duty officers surveyed seemed to have significant differences. For example, 44 percent of active duty officers and those retired for a year or less believed the military was weaker than it was five years ago, compared to 60 percent of respondents overall. On the other hand, for many questions, the results for officers who were either active duty or retired within the last year were similar to those of the overall group surveyed. We regret that we did not communicate both areas of difference and concordance more effectively. For those interested in further comparisons, we have posted results for this sub-group (active duty and retired for a year or less) on the CNAS website along with overall results for all 3,437 respondents.

We have updated the description of the survey methodology and results on the website, and hope that these changes and this clarification help to address any concerns regarding the survey. Our goal is to incorporate lessons learned into our future work, and we would appreciate your feedback ([email protected]).

About The Author

Article Discussion: