1. not argument, but for consideration
2. w/ respect to IA efforts and cultures for the American Grand Strategy 'a standing independent strategic review panel'
   1. no one entity is capable of designing grand strat. it is the IA efforts that comes from dif. organizations, institutions, and cultures that attempt to reshape or bend the strat. in their own images. so, understanding cultures in these org. is a first step to understanding the expanding NSE.
   2. expanding the NSC staff, currently at 2500 or so, has been grown up, but Congress and other dep. secretaries have resisted a large NSCS.
   3. one think tank has suggested, 'a standing independent strategic review panel' of joint by the executive and legislative branches, a senior experts to review the strategic environment over the next twenty years and provide prioritized goal and risk-assessment recommendation for the govt.
3. organizational fixes
   1. adding new units on top of existing ones or realigning agencies or their elements... are not enough, rather it often creates another barriers for example, put 20 agencies under DHS, the interagency disputes bwn DNI and CIA inside intelligency community.
   2. so, org. changes are only part of the solution and may be part of the problem if cultures do not adapt and shift along w/ the line charts and reporting responsibilities
4. org. cultures can change only w/ more incentives than the previous
   1. however, those incentives sometimes might weaken over time as new demands on those agencies arise and agencies' priorities shift again. for example, DHS has been buffered by emerging crises, causing it to zigzag from a focus on Counterterrorism to emergency management(Hurricane Katrina) and then border controls(immigration)
5. all models require that those issue leaders understand the org. and the cultures they represent.
   1. whether be they NSC-centric, sing-agency-led, or special-envoy-driven... all required to work as one team for overarching policies through IA