Quote:
CNAS Clarification
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, and we take full responsibility. We wish to clarify here what this index is and what it is not. 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 10 percent of respondents 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, 45 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 hope this clarification helps to address any concerns regarding the survey. Our goal is to incorporate lessons learned into our future work, and we would appreciate your feedback (info@cnas.org).
On behalf of Kurt Campbell, Jim Miller and myself,
Michèle A. Flournoy
President and Co-Founder, Center for a New American Security
1301 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 403
Washington, DC 20004
