Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series.RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.Peter Schirmer, James C. Crowley, Nancy E. Blacker, Leader Development in Army Units Views from the FieldThe RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. R AND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.R ® is a registered trademark.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RANDMake a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr1034Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.

The vienot expreuwd in fte pwpe us ' I ACCESSION NO. TITLE (Include Security Classification)Risky Business: Fundamentals for a Security Consensus in the 1990's and Beyond PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)Leonard, Henry A., COL ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)This paper applies the concepts of comprehensive security and risk analysis to the problem of building a new national consensus in support of our reoriented national security strategy. The paper starts with a review of comprehensive security and demonstrates its applicability to analysis of the full spectrum of American political, economic, and military objectives. After looking at some of the prerequisites for consensus and discussing the trends that work against it, the analysis turns to elements of the strategy where our ability to achieve a fundamental consensus is most at risk. The most significant general risk derives from newly revived domestic pressures for us to disengage ourselves from the rest of the world and turn more to solving our domestic problems. Such a policy orientation would be self defeating; analysis of U.S. interests worldwide, including particularly our dependence on gains from international trade, supports this holding. Recognizing, however, that domestic needs in fact have (Continued) Previous editions are ohsolete. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEUnclassified legitimate claims on the attention of our leadership and on our resources, the analysis indicates that these needs can best be met by a growing economy. The paper then discusses policy options for creating an environment more conducive to economic growth, and the arguments that would help form a basis for consensus. In addition, Risky Business looks at some of the ways in which short-term and local domestic political considerations lead to suboptimal allocations of defense resources. This puts the military strategy at risk and at the same time rewards factional politics, the enemy of consensus. Here, the analysis considers force posture issues for the short term, and defense technology and industrial base issues for the longer term. In each case the overriding principles are established and their application demonstrated, including a discussion of the needed elements of consensus on each contentious issue. and Beyond applies the concepts of comprehensive security and risk analysis to the problem of building a new national consensus in support of our reoriented national security strategy. The paper starts with a review of comprehensive security and demonstrates its applicability to analysis of the full spectrum of American political, economic, and military objectives. After looking at some of the prerequisites for consensus and discussing the trends that work against it, the analysis turns to elements of the strategy where our ability to achieve a fundamental consensus is most at risk. RISKY BUSINESS FUNDAMENTALS FOR A SECURITY CONSENSUS IN THE 1990'S ANDThe most significant general risk derives from newly revived domestic pressures for us ...

No abstract

Limited Print and Electronic Distribution RightsThis document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.