1. Joshua J. Dick, available from www.polsci.buffalo.edu/documents/PSC314.pdf.
2. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed., 2000, available from dictionary.reference.
com/search?q=policy&r=67; United States Central Command J5 Policy Division, “Desknote—Policy Definition,” Work-ing Paper, June 17, 2008; Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, WashWork-ington, DC: U.S.
Department of Defense, available from www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/DoDdict/data/n/5672.html; and U.S. Army War College National Security Policy Program, “Policy Formulation Model,” Working Papers, June 2009, June 2010, and June 2011.
3. Richard K. Betts, “Is Strategy an Illusion?” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 2, Fall 2000, p. 6, as quoted and described in Clark A. Murdock, et al., Improving the Practice of National Security Strategy: A New Approach for the Post-Cold War World, Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2004, p. 12.
4. Colin S. Gray, Modern Strategy, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 17, as quoted in Andrew F.
Krepinevich and Barry D. Watts, “Regaining Strategic Competence,” Washington DC: Center for Strategic and Bud-getary Assessments, 2009, p. 16.
5. A U.S. Army War College faculty colleague, Colonel Richard Lacquement, pointed out the distinction between aspirational or ideal policy end state/goals, on one hand, and with a policy that had identified end state/goals that could be reasonably attained, given cost and risk factors, but would not necessarily achieve an ideal or perfect end state/goal for an identified policy, on the other. Terry L. Deibel identifies the same issue in Foreign Affairs Strategy:
Logic for American Statecraft, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 235.
6. JP 1-02.
7. Richard Smoke, National Security and the Security Dilemma, 2nd Ed., New York: Random House, 1987, p. 301, as quoted in Sam C. Sarkesian et al., U.S. National Security: Policymakers, Processes, and Politics, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002, pp. 13-14.
8. U.S. Army War College National Security Policy Program, “Policy Formulation Model,” June 2009, June 2010, and June 2011.
9. Sarkesian et al., p. 184.
10. Gregory D. Foster, “Conceptual Framework for Strategymaking,” Hearings Before the Committee on Armed Services United States Senate on National Security Strategy, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Janu-ary 13, 1987, p. 163.
11. Sarkesian et al., p. 17.
12. Partial definition from BusinessDictionary.com, available from www.businessdictionary.com/definition/stakeholder.
html.
13. George C. Edwards III and Wallace Earl Walker, eds., National Security and the U.S. Constitution: The Impact of the Political System, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1988, pp. 38-39.
14. For an excellent description of these three issues and their applicability to policy formulation, see Chap. 20 of this volume; and Jiyul Kim, Cultural Dimensions of Strategy and Policy, Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S.
Army War College, May 2009.
15. Ibid., p. 15.
16. Ibid., p. 21.
17. Ibid., pp. 23-26.
18. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, Michael Howard and Peter Paret, eds., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976, p. 156.
19. Graham Evans and Jeffrey Newnham, The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations, London, UK: Penguin Books, 1998, pp. 261-262.
20. The crucial issue of the policymaker who sometimes forgets that the vital longer-term goals are more impor-tant than “doing something right now” was pointed out by Mr. Len Hawley. See Email from Len Hawley, “Hawley Com ments on the PF Model,” April 20, 2005.
21. The paragraphs addressing the prioritization of national interests are drawn from Alan G. Stolberg, Chap.
3, “Crafting National Interests in the 21st Century,” J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr., ed., U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues, Volume II: National Security Policy and Strategy, 4th Ed., Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2010.
22. G. R. Berridge and Alan James, A Dictionary of Diplomacy, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2nd Ed., 2003, p. 181.
23. Deibel, p. 134.
24. Robert D. Blackwill, “A Taxonomy for Defining U.S. National Security Interests in the 1990s and Beyond,”
Werner Weidenfeld and Josef Janning, eds., Europe in Global Change: Strategies and Options for Europe, Gutersloh, Ger-many: Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers, 1993, p. 103.
25. Neuchterlein, 1973, pp. 6-7.
26. Commission on America’s National Interests, p. 2.
27. Deibel, pp. 129-130.
28. Art, p. 45.
29. Neuchterlein, 1973, pp. 9-10.
30. Sam C. Sarkesian, John Allen Williams, and Stephen J. Cimbala, U.S. National Security: Policymakers, Processes and Politics, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002, p. 6.
31. Morgenthau uses two; Sarkesian, Williams, and Cimbala; Art, and Blackwill use three; while The Commis-sion on America’s National Interests and Neuchterlein use four. Both the October 1998 and December 1999 National Security Strategies also used three.
32. Neuchterlein, 1973, p. 11.
33. Ibid., p. 15.
34. Ibid., p. 18.
35. Art, p. 45.
36. Commission on America’s National Interests, p. 5.
37. Neuchterlein, 1991, p. 19.
38. Art, pp. 45.
39. Commission on America’s National Interests, p. 6.
40. Ibid.
41. Neuchterlein, pp. 20-21.
42. Art, p. 46.
43. Neuchterlein, 1973, p. 22.
44. Commission on America’s National Interests, p. 7.
45. Neuchterlein, pp. 26-27.
46. Commission on America’s National Interests, p. 8.
47. Neuchterlein, p. 26.
48. Commission on America’s National Interests, p. 8.
49. Ibid., p. 185.
50. Sam C. Sarkesian, John Allen Williams, and Stephen J. Cimbala, U.S. National Security: Policymakers, Processes, and Politics, Boulder, CO: Lynn Rienner, 2002, p. 71.
51. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, available from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constraints.
52. Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, as quoted in die.net, available from dictionary.die.net/restraint.
53. Arthur F. Lykke, Jr., “Toward an Understanding of Military Strategy,” in Military Strategy: Theory and Applica-tion, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 1989, pp. 3-8.
54. Webster’s New World College Dictionary, as quoted in YourDictionary.com, available from www.yourdictionary.
com/enabler.
55. Alan G. Stolberg, “The International System in the 21st Century,” in J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr., ed., U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues, Volume II: National Security Policy and Strategy, 3rd Ed., Carlisle, PA: Stra-tegic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, June 9, 2008, p. 9.
56. Merriam-Webster OnLine, available from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constraints.
57. TEFL Training World, “Glossary of TEFL Terms,” available from www.tefltrainingworld.com/glossary_of_tefl_
terms.htm.
58. Sharper Vision Centers, “Glossary,” available from www.sharpervisioncenters.com/glossary.htm.
59. Deibel, p. 296.
60. Philip Zelikow, “Foreign Policy Engineering: From Theory to Practice and Back Again,” International Security, Vol. 18, No. 4, Spring 1994, pp. 162-63.
61. Email from Len Hawley, “Hawley Comments on the PF Model,”April 20, 2005.
62. Dennis Ross, Statecraft: And How to Restore America’s Standing in the World, New York: Farrar, Straus and Gir-oux, 2008, p. 335.
63. Colonel John Mauk is the primary proponent behind significant improvement in the 2012 updating for this and the following three sections (“Define Policy Options,” “Analyze and Validate Each Option,” and “Analyze Risk for Each Option”) in this chapter. No one understands risk analysis better than John. I am indebted to him for his changes from the 2010 version of this chapter.
64. Gregory S. Parnell, “Value-Focused Thinking,” Methods for Conducting Military Operational Analysis, West Point, NY: Military Operations Research Society, 2007, p. 651.
65. Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, P.L. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285, Sec. 4(f), as quoted in Raphael Perl, “Combating Terrorism: The Challenge of Measuring Effectiveness,” Congressional Research Service (CRS) Re-port for Congress, RL33160, Washington, DC: CRS, Novem ber 23, 2005, p. 1.
66. For more information on MOE and MOP, see the “Commander’s Handbook for an Effects-Based Approach to Joint Operations,” Ft Leavenworth, KS: Joint Warfighting Center, 2006; and U.S. Army Field Manual (FM) 3-24, Coun-terinsurgency, Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2006, p. 5-27.
67. Parnell, p. 651.
68. Ralph L. Kenney, Value-Focused Thinking: A Creative Path to Decisionmaking, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press, 1992, p. 58.
69. Parnell, p. 621.
70. Keeney, pp. 25-26.
71. Ibid, pp. 96-98.
72. Hawley, email to the author, April 20, 2005.
73. Ibid.
74. Deibel, p. 318.
75. JP 1-02.
76. Ibid.
77. Ibid.
78. Gregory Schultz, “Evaluating Strategy: Briefing for Core Course 6100,” U.S. National War College, unpub-lished briefing, August 25, 2011.
79. Parnell, p. 621.
80. Ibid., p. 634.
81. WordNet Search, available from wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=risk.
82. Parnell, p. 636.
83. Michael G. Miller, “Thinking About Second & Third Order Effects: A Sample, and Simple Methodology,” IO Sphere, Summer 2006, 37, available from www.au.af.mil/info-ops/iosphere_summer06_miller.pdf.
84. Thinkexist.com, available from thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/spoiler.
85. Zelikow, p. 169.
86. James F. Holcomb, “Managing Strategic Risk,” in J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr., ed., U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues, Volume I: Theory of War and Strategy, 3rd Ed., Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S.
Army War College, June 2008, pp. 70-71.
87. Richard L. Kugler, Policy Analysis in National Security Affairs: New Methods for a New Era, Washington, DC:
National Defense University Press, 2006, pp. 35-49.
88. The White House,” Organization of the National Security Council System,” Presidential Policy Directive-1, Feb-ruary 13, 2009.
89. Email from Len Hawley, “Hawley Comments on the PF Model,” April 20, 2005.
90. Colonel Hans Bush, NSPP Class of 2010, is directly responsible for the concepts contained in this paragraph.
91. Zelikow, p. 170.
92. Holcomb, pp. 70-71.
93. Ross, p. 335.
94. Holcomb, p. 70.
CHAPTER 5