Net Assessment and Planning for National Security - George Mason ...

Meeting Time: Monday, 4:30PM-7:10 PM
Location: Arlington 331
DRAFT
George Mason University
School of Public Policy
Net Assessment and
Planning for National Security
PUBP 710-002
Spring 2008
Andrew F. Krepinevich
Office Hours: 3:30-4:30 PM, Mondays, and by appointment
Office:
Telephone: 202-331-7990 (ext. 1345)
Email: Krepinevich@csbaonline.org
Course Objective
The course examines Net Assessment; a multidisciplinary strategic assessment process
developed to address security issues, including military balance assessments. Net
Assessment involves a many-sided comparative evaluation of the balance of strengths
and weaknesses of countries, and regional and institutional entities of interest to national
security decision-makers. Eclectic in scope, Net Assessment involves myriad elements,
addressing political, military, social, cultural, demographic, economic, budgetary,
ecological, and technological influences on the security environment. While it employs
standard political science methodologies, Net Assessment often involves the use of
business principles, scenarios, so-called crisis and path gaming, conflict simulations, and
other analytic tools. Properly applied, the Net Assessment process can assist the policy
maker in identifying current strategic relationships and, perhaps equally important, where
the security competition is headed and what factors will be most important in determining
future military balances. Included in the course will be the application of Net Assessment
principles to several historical and contemporary case studies, to include the military
balance in Western Europe in the spring of 1940, the NATO-Warsaw Pact military
balance, the Anglo-German Dreadnought race, the current defense program being crafted
from the Quadrennial Defense Review, and the emerging Military Revolution.
DRAFT

Graded Requirements (Percentage of Grade)
Mid-Term Exam (40%)
Class Participation (This class is a seminar; informed participation is expected) (20%)
Research Paper* (20-30 pages, double-spaced with citations) (40%)
(Late submissions will not be accepted)
*New Voices in Public Policy: I will consider nominating the very best papers in this
course for publication in New Voices in Public Policy. New Voices is a student- and
faculty-reviewed journal that shares SPP's finest student work with the rest of the world.
Special Needs
If you are a student with a disability and you need academic accommodations, please see
me and contact the Disability Resource Center (DRC) at 993-2474. All academic
accommodations must be arranged through the DRC.
SPP Policy on Plagiarism
The profession of scholarship and the intellectual life of a university as well as the field
of public policy inquiry depend fundamentally on a foundation of trust. Thus any act of
plagiarism strikes at the heart of the meaning of the university and the purpose of the
School of Public Policy. It constitutes a serious breach of professional ethics and it is
unacceptable.
Plagiarism is the use of another’s words or ideas presented as one’s own. It includes,
among other things, the use of specific words, ideas, or frameworks that are the product
of another’s work. Honesty and thoroughness in citing sources is essential to professional
accountability and personal responsibility. Appropriate citation is necessary so that
arguments, evidence, and claims can be critically examined.
Plagiarism is wrong because of the injustice it does to the person whose ideas are stolen.
But it is also wrong because it constitutes lying to one’s professional colleagues. From a
prudential perspective, it is shortsighted and self-defeating, and it can ruin a professional
career.
The faculty of the School of Public Policy takes plagiarism seriously and has adopted a
zero tolerance policy. Any plagiarized assignment will receive an automatic grade of “F.”
This may lead to failure for the course, resulting in dismissal from the University. This
dismissal will be noted on the student’s transcript. For foreign students who are on a
university-sponsored visa (eg. F-1, J-1 or J-2), dismissal also results in the revocation of
their visa.
2

To help enforce the SPP policy on plagiarism, all written work submitted in partial
fulfillment of course or degree requirements must be available in electronic form so that
it can be compared with electronic databases, as well as submitted to commercial services
to which the School subscribes. Faculty may at any time submit student’s work without
prior permission from the student. Individual instructors may require that written work be
submitted in electronic as well as printed form. The SPP policy on plagiarism is
supplementary to the George Mason University Honor Code; it is not intended to replace
it or substitute for it.
Texts:
Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millet. Military Innovation in the Interwar
Period (London: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
PART I. INTRODUCTION & TOOLS OF THE TRADE
1. What is Net Assessment? (Jan 21)
Eliot A. Cohen. “Net Assessment: An American Approach,” (Tel Aviv: JCSS
Memo #29, April 1990), unpublished paper.
A.W. Marshall, J.J. Martin, and Henry S. Rowan, eds. On Not Confusing
Ourselves (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991). Hereafter cited as
“ONCO.” Chapters 9 and 15.
A.W. Marshall. Problems of Estimating Military Power. (Santa Monica, CA:
Rand Corporation, 1966). (Instructor PDF)
A. W. Marshall, “The Nature and Scope of National Net Assessment,” draft
National Security Council memorandum, March 26, 1972, pp. 1-12. (Instructor
pdf.)
A. W. Marshall, “The Nature and Scope of Net Assessments,” National Security
Council memorandum, August 16, 1972, pp. 1-3. (Instructor pdf.)
Henry Mintzberg, “The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning,” Harvard Business
Review (hereafter cited as “HBR”) (January-February 1994).
Jay Winik, “Secret Weapon,” The Washingtonian (April 1999). (Instructor pdf)
2. Crafting a Net Assessment: The Case of China (Jan 28)
Roger Cliff, et al., Entering the Dragon’s Lair (Santa Monica, CA: RAND,
2007). (Instructor pdf)
3

Aaron Friedberg, “The Struggle for Mastery in Asia,” Commentary, November
2000.
(R) Andrew Krepinevich, et. Al., Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial
Challenge (Washington, DC: CSBA, 2003).
(R) “The Assassin’s Mace: China’s Growing Military Might,” The New Atlantis,
2004, pp. 107-110.
3. Static and Dynamic Measures, and Scenario-Based Planning (Feb 4)
Alan Beyerchen. “Clauswitz, Nonlinearity, and the Unpredictability of War,”
International Security (hereafter cited as “IS”) (Winter 1992/93).
Hugh Courtney, Jane Kirkland, and Patrick Viguerie. “Strategy Under
Uncertainty,” HBR (November-December 1997).
John W.R. Lepingwell. “The Laws of Combat?” IS (Summer, 1987).
Pierre Wack. “Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead,” in HBR (September-
October 1985).
Pierre Wack. “Scenarios: Shooting the Rapids,” in HBR (November-
December 1985).
4. Business Tools: Competitive Advantage, Time-Based Competition and
Competitive Strategies (Feb 11)
W. Cockell, et al. Core Competencies and Other Business Concepts for Use in
DoD Strategic Planning (San Diego, CA; SAIC, February 7, 1992).
Kathleen M. Eisenhardt and Shona L. Brown. “Time Pacing: Competing in
Markets that Won’t Stand Still,” HBR (March-April 1998).
A.W. Marshall. “Competitive Strategies: History and Background,” Unpublished
paper, March 1988.
Michael E. Porter. “The Competitive Advantage of Nations,” HBR (March-
April 1990).
C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel. “The Core Competence of the Corporation,”
HBR (May-June 1990).
George Stalk. “Time—The Next Source of Competitive Advantage,” HBR
(July-August 1988).
4

Barry Watts, “Relative Cost Imposition as a Net Assessment Topic for DHS,”
Unpublished draft paper, November 6, 2007.
5. Measures of Effectiveness: Six Case Studies (Feb 18)
Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen. Revolution in Warfare? Air Power in
the Persian Gulf (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1995), pp. 45-79.
Andrew F. Krepinevich. The Army and Vietnam (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1986), pp. 3-16, 157-163, 194-233, 258-275.
Andrew F. Krepinevich. “Are We Winning in Iraq?” Testimony, United States
House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, March 17, 2005.
James G. Roche and Barry D. Watts. “Choosing Analytic Measures,” The
Journal of Strategic Studies (June 1991).
6. Military Effectiveness: The Dynamics of Innovation and Transformation
(Feb 25)
Joseph L. Bower and Clayton M. Chistensen. “Disruptive Technologies:
Catching the Wave,” HBR (January-February 1995).
John P. Kotter. “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail,” HBR
(March-April 1995).
Andrew F. Krepinevich. “Why No Transformation?” Joint Forces Quarterly
(Autumn-Winter 1999-2000).
7. Case Study: Military Transformation in the Interwar Period (Mar 3)
Williamson Murray. “Armored Warfare: The British, French, and German
Experiences,” in Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millet, eds., Military
Innovation in the Interwar Period (Hereafter cited as “MIIP”) (London:
Cambridge University Press, 1996).
Geoffrey Till. “Adopting the Aircraft Carrier: The British, American, and
Japanese Case Studies,” in Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millet, eds., MIIP.
Barry Watts and Williamson Murray. “Military Innovation in Peacetime,” in
Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millet, MIIP.
Andrew F. Krepinevich. Lighting the Path Ahead (Washington, DC: CSBA,
2002). (Instructor pdf)
5

Spring Break (Mar 10)
8. Mid-Term Examination (Mar 17)
PART II: HISTORICAL CASE STUDIES
9. The Military Balance: France 1940 (Mar 24)
Eliot A. Cohen and John Gooch. Military Misfortunes (New York: Free Press,
1990), Chapter 8.
Philip A. Karber, et al. Assessing the Balance of Forces: France 1940. (McLean,
VA: BDM Corporation, June 18, 1979).
Ernest R. May. Strange Victory (New York: Hill and Wang, 2000), pp. 448-64.
Williamson Murray. The Change in the European Balance of Power, 1938-
39. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), Chapters X and XI.
10. The NATO-Warsaw Pact Military Balance (Mar 31)
Eliot A. Cohen. “Toward Better Net Assessment,” IS (Summer 1988).
John J. Mearsheimer. “Numbers, Strategy, and the European Balance,” IS
(Spring 1988).
Joshua M. Epstein. “Dynamic Analysis and the Conventional Balance in
Europe,” IS (Spring 1988).
Barry R. Posen. “Is NATO Decisively Outnumbered?” IS (Spring 1988).
11. The Anglo-German Dreadnought Race (Apr 7)
Aaron L. Friedberg. The Weary Titan: Britain and the Experience of Relative
Decline (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988), Chapter 4.
Nicholas A. Lambert. “Admiral John Fisher and the Concept of Flotilla Defence,
1904-1909,” The Journal of Military History (October 1995).
Nicholas A. Lambert. “British Naval Policy, 1913-1914: Financial Limitation
and Strategic Revolution,” The Journal of Modern History (September 1995).
John Tetsuro Sumida, “Sir John Fisher and the Dreadnought: The Sources of
Naval Mythology,” The Journal of Modern History (October 1995).
12. The U.S.-Soviet Strategic-Nuclear Balance (Apr 14)
6

A. W. Marshall, “The Future of the Strategic Balance,” OSD/NA memoranda,
August 1976. (Instructor pdf.)
Bruce W. Bennett, Assessing the Capabilities of Strategic Nuclear Forces: The
Limits of Current Methods (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, June 1980, N-1441-NA,
unclassified, pp. 1-32, 54-83, 94-112. (Instructor pdf.)
Herman Kahn, Thinking about the Unthinkable (1962), pp. 1-38, 212-217.
(Instructor pdf.)
Herman Kahn, Thinking about the Unthinkable in the 1980s (New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1984), pp. 23-53.
Keith B. Payne, The Fallacies of Cold War Deterrence and a New Direction
(Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2001), pp. 17-78.
PART III: THE FUTURE OF NET ASSESSMENT
13. The Military Revolution (Apr 21)
Andrew F. Krepinevich. “Cavalry to Computer: The Patterns of Military
Revolutions,” The National Interest (Fall 1994).
Andrew F. Krepinevich, The Military-Technical Revolution Revolution: A
Preliminary Assessment (Washington, DC: CSBA, 2002).
A. W. Marshall, “Some Thoughts on Military Revolutions — Second Version,”
OSD/NA memorandum for the record, August 23, 1993, 8 pages. (Instructor
pdf.)
A. W. Marshall, “RMA Update,” OSD/NA memorandum for the record, May 2,
1994, 6 pages. (Instructor pdf.)
A. W. Marshall, “Revolutions in Military Affairs,” Statement Prepared for the
Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology, Senate Armed Services
Committee, 5 May 1995, 3 pages. (Instructor pdf.)
14. The Future of Net Assessment (Apr 28)
ONCO, Chapter 16.
A. W. Marshall, “Future Direction for OSD/Net Assessment,” OSD/NA
memorandum for the secretary of defense, March 14, 1977, 2 pages; A. W.
Marshall, “Future Direction for Net Assessment,” OSD/NA memorandum for
Eugene Fubini, February 28, 1977. (Instructor pdf.)
7

A. W. Marshall, “Further Thoughts on Future Net Assessments,” OSD/NA
memorandum for distribution, May 9, 2000 (revised September 11, 2000), 5
pages. (Instructor pdf.)
8