With the threats outlined I think there are at least two parts to this. The first is strategic diplomacy, which would address the threats themselves and become part of the long term security strategies of states after they do the analysis (hopefully quality analysis). The second is the response to; prevent, mitigate, or counter those threats and specifically the related events they might trigger. The latter also requires we understand which events are related to what triggers so that we don't create new problems by addressing the problem(s).

As noted in the above thread if you find one problem, you will probably find others that are present as well. The existing mechanisms for multi-lateral approaches seem to be inadequate given the predisposition for short term self-interest over long term stability that benefits all. A global threat is only global if enough states agree it is.

We're going to expend a great deal of blood an treasure treating the symptoms and effects of the events so we can get over the short term humps and failure to agree on what makes a threat "common interest". It is likely we will create new problems or muddy the analytical waters on existing problems as well (look at the controversy surrounding the Middle East policy)

The military will likely take the lead (either appointed or by default) since it seems to be the only organ of government that has the necessary expeditionary wherewithal to do so. I'd like to believe that the other agencies will move with the same speed to address capability shortfalls, but I'm not sure they even can. Part of fixing a problem is recognizing you have one, another part is allocating the will to make the necessary changes. A good start would be a larger percentage of the GDP allocated to Military spending, with a good chunk of that going to recruit, train, and retain the best people available. If the majority of what was said comes true, we're going to be very, very busy.

The current percentage of people who volunteer would not seem to be enough for future troop to task requirements. However, we are not just going to need bodies, we are going to need talent. You don't usually get the scale or level of talent you need by taskings or drafts, you get it by enticements. Some talent will volunteer based on altruistic attraction, political ambition, or other things that don't require monetary or calculable incentives (although they will not always stay), many will not "volunteer" unless you make it attractive/competitive.

How many military "renaissance" leaders (I could say pentathletes, innovative, adaptive, multi-faceted, etc) are out there right now? How many does the prognosis for global instability require? Part of our strategy needs to consider the size, type and structure of a force with "people" as its centerpiece.