Force Structure
Preliminary Observations on the Progress and Challenges Associated with Establishing the U.S. Africa Command Gao ID: GAO-08-947T July 15, 2008In February 2007, the President announced the U. S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), a Department of Defense (DOD) geographic combatant command with a focus on strengthening U.S. security cooperation with Africa, creating opportunities to bolster the capabilities of African partners, and enhancing peace and security efforts on the continent through activities such as military training and support to other U.S. government agencies' efforts. DOD officials have emphasized that AFRICOM is designed to integrate DOD and non-DOD personnel into the command to stimulate greater coordination among U.S. government agencies to achieve a more whole-of-government approach. This testimony is based on the preliminary results of work GAO is conducting for the Subcommittee on the establishment of AFRICOM. GAO analyzed relevant documentation and obtained perspectives from the combatant commands, military services, Joint Staff, Department of State, USAID and non-governmental organizations. GAO plans to provide the Subcommittee with a report later this year that will include recommendations as appropriate. This testimony addresses (1) the status of DOD's efforts to establish and fund AFRICOM and (2) challenges that may hinder the command's ability to achieve interagency participation and a more integrated, whole-of-government approach to DOD activities in Africa.
The Department of Defense has made progress in transferring activities, staffing the command, and establishing an interim headquarters for AFRICOM, but has not yet fully estimated the additional costs of establishing and operating the command. To date, AFRICOM's primary focus has been on assuming responsibility for existing DOD activities such as military exercises and humanitarian assistance programs, and DOD plans to have most of these activities transferred by October 1, 2008. DOD has approved 1,304 positions for the command's headquarters, and by October 1, 2008, plans to have filled about 75 percent, or 980 positions. Also, DOD plans to have 13 other positions filled by representatives from non-DOD organizations, such as the State Department. DOD is renovating facilities in Stuttgart, Germany, for interim headquarters and plans to use these facilities for the foreseeable future until decisions are made regarding the permanent AFRICOM headquarters location. The initial concept for AFRICOM, designed and developed by DOD, met resistance from within the U.S. government and African countries and contributed to several implementation challenges. First, DOD has had difficulties integrating interagency personnel in the command, which is critical to synchronizing DOD efforts with other U. S. government agencies. DOD continues to lower its estimate of the ultimate level of interagency participation in the command. According to DOD, other agencies have limited resources and personnel systems which have not easily accommodated DOD's intent to place interagency personnel in the command. Second, DOD has encountered concerns from civilian agencies and other stakeholders over the command's mission and goals. For example, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development officials have expressed concerns that AFRICOM will become the lead for all U.S. efforts in Africa, rather than just DOD activities. If not addressed, these concerns could limit the command's ability to develop key partnerships. Third, DOD has not yet reached agreement with the State Department and potential host nations on the structure and location of the command's presence in Africa. Uncertainties related to AFRICOM's presence hinder DOD's ability to estimate future funding requirements for AFRICOM and raises questions about whether DOD's concept for developing enduring relationships on the continent can be achieved.
GAO-08-947T, Force Structure: Preliminary Observations on the Progress and Challenges Associated with Establishing the U.S. Africa Command
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-947T
entitled 'Force Structure: Preliminary Observations on the Progress and
Challenges Associated with Establishing the U.S. Africa Command' which
was released on July 15, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Tuesday, July 15, 2008:
Force Structure:
Preliminary Observations on the Progress and Challenges Associated with
Establishing the U.S. Africa Command:
Statement of John Pendleton, Director Defense Capabilities and
Management Issues:
GAO-08-947T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-947T, a testimony to the Subcommittee on National
Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In February 2007, the President announced the U. S. Africa Command
(AFRICOM), a Department of Defense (DOD) geographic combatant command
with a focus on strengthening U.S. security cooperation with Africa,
creating opportunities to bolster the capabilities of African partners,
and enhancing peace and security efforts on the continent through
activities such as military training and support to other U.S.
government agencies‘ efforts. DOD officials have emphasized that
AFRICOM is designed to integrate DOD and non-DOD personnel into the
command to stimulate greater coordination among U.S. government
agencies to achieve a more whole-of-government approach.
This testimony is based on the preliminary results of work GAO is
conducting for the Subcommittee on the establishment of AFRICOM. GAO
analyzed relevant documentation and obtained perspectives from the
combatant commands, military services, Joint Staff, Department of
State, USAID and non-governmental organizations. GAO plans to provide
the Subcommittee with a report later this year that will include
recommendations as appropriate. This testimony addresses (1) the status
of DOD‘s efforts to establish and fund AFRICOM and (2) challenges that
may hinder the command‘s ability to achieve interagency participation
and a more integrated, whole-of-government approach to DOD activities
in Africa.
What GAO Found:
The Department of Defense has made progress in transferring activities,
staffing the command, and establishing an interim headquarters for
AFRICOM, but has not yet fully estimated the additional costs of
establishing and operating the command. To date, AFRICOM‘s primary
focus has been on assuming responsibility for existing DOD activities
such as military exercises and humanitarian assistance programs, and
DOD plans to have most of these activities transferred by October 1,
2008. DOD has approved 1,304 positions for the command‘s headquarters,
and by October 1, 2008, plans to have filled about 75 percent, or 980
positions. Also, DOD plans to have 13 other positions filled by
representatives from non-DOD organizations, such as the State
Department. DOD is renovating facilities in Stuttgart, Germany, for
interim headquarters and plans to use these facilities for the
foreseeable future until decisions are made regarding the permanent
AFRICOM headquarters location.
The initial concept for AFRICOM, designed and developed by DOD, met
resistance from within the U.S. government and African countries and
contributed to several implementation challenges. First, DOD has had
difficulties integrating interagency personnel in the command, which is
critical to synchronizing DOD efforts with other U. S. government
agencies. DOD continues to lower its estimate of the ultimate level of
interagency participation in the command. According to DOD, other
agencies have limited resources and personnel systems which have not
easily accommodated DOD‘s intent to place interagency personnel in the
command. Second, DOD has encountered concerns from civilian agencies
and other stakeholders over the command‘s mission and goals. For
example, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development
officials have expressed concerns that AFRICOM will become the lead for
all U.S. efforts in Africa, rather than just DOD activities. If not
addressed, these concerns could limit the command‘s ability to develop
key partnerships. Third, DOD has not yet reached agreement with the
State Department and potential host nations on the structure and
location of the command‘s presence in Africa. Uncertainties related to
AFRICOM‘s presence hinder DOD‘s ability to estimate future funding
requirements for AFRICOM and raises questions about whether DOD‘s
concept for developing enduring relationships on the continent can be
achieved.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-947T]. For more information,
contact John H. Pendleton at (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of Defense's
(DOD) efforts to establish the U. S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), a new
geographic command that consolidates responsibility for DOD activities
in Africa under one command. Previously, responsibility was split among
the U.S. European, Central, and Pacific commands. Security challenges
the U.S. faces in the 21st century are fundamentally different from the
Cold War era, and non-warfighting security cooperation activities are
an increasingly important aspect of U.S. national security
policy.[Footnote 1] U.S. government experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq,
and the Balkans over the last several years have demonstrated that U.S.
government entities need to improve the coordination and integration of
their activities. In recognition of these experiences and the
increasing importance DOD is placing on non-warfighting activities,
AFRICOM is intended to strengthen U.S. security cooperation with
African nations, create opportunities to bolster the capabilities of
U.S. partners in Africa, and enhance U.S. efforts to bring peace and
security to the continent. AFRICOM officials have stated that ongoing
and future DOD activities in Africa are and will be based on an
overarching concept of "active security," which is defined as a
"persistent and sustained level of effort focused on security
assistance programs that prevent conflict in order to foster dialogue
and development." In Africa, U.S. security assistance programs include
a wide range of activities such as the sale of military equipment to
African countries, combined military training exercises, humanitarian
assistance, and programs to help prevent the spread of disease such as
HIV/AIDs.
DOD officials have emphasized that AFRICOM is intended to be unique
from any other combatant command because its focus is on strengthening
stability and security in Africa and fostering a whole-of-government
approach to help achieve this goal. In this regard, the command is
intended to integrate DOD and non-DOD personnel to address security
issues broadly, stimulate greater coordination among U.S. government
agencies, and increase DOD's ability to execute its mission in support
of overall U.S. government policy. Realizing this vision is a complex
process, involving not only the Department of Defense, but many other
U.S. government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, multinational
partners, and ultimately sovereign African countries. Previous GAO work
suggests that implementations of large-scale transformations, such as
AFRICOM, are complex endeavors that can take 5 to 7 years to complete,
and DOD officials have stated that AFRICOM is evolving and will
continue to change over the next several years. However, as AFRICOM
approaches full operational capability[Footnote 2] scheduled for
September 30, 2008, fundamental issues that can play an important role
in the success or failure of DOD's effort to establish this command
should be addressed. Therefore, my testimony today will discuss two
areas: (1) the status of DOD's efforts to establish the command and (2)
challenges that can hinder the command's ability to achieve interagency
participation and an integrated approach to DOD stability and security
activities in Africa.
My comments are based on preliminary results of work we are conducting
for the Subcommittee on the establishment of AFRICOM. We plan to
provide the Subcommittee with a report later this year that will
include recommendations as appropriate to address the issues we discuss
today. To assess the DOD's efforts to establish AFRICOM, we obtained
and analyzed relevant documentation, including AFRICOM's manpower,
facilities, and funding requirements and periodic progress reports. To
identify challenges that could hinder AFRICOM's ability to achieve
interagency participation and an integrated approach to African
security, we obtained information related to the initial and current
plans for interagency representation in the command and AFRICOM's
presence in Africa. We also obtained the perspectives of cognizant
officials from the U.S. European and Africa commands and the related
military service component commands in Europe as well as from the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, Joint Forces Command,
military service headquarters, Department of State, the U.S. Agency for
International Development, and Interaction, an organization
representing U.S. based non-government organizations. We are conducting
our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Summary:
The Department of Defense has made progress in transferring activities,
staffing the command, and establishing an interim headquarters, but has
not yet fully estimated the additional costs of establishing and
operating the command. Since the President announced the establishment
of the command, AFRICOM's primary focus has been on assuming the
responsibility for DOD activities such as military exercises and
humanitarian assistance programs, previously managed in Africa by the
U.S. European, Pacific, and Central commands. DOD plans to transfer
most of these activities to the new command by September 30, 2008, but
at that point in time, DOD does not anticipate that AFRICOM will have
the desired interagency skill sets, the ability to strategically engage
with African countries beyond the established level, or the capacity to
take on new initiatives. In addition, DOD has approved 1,304 positions
for the command's headquarters, and by September 30, 2008, plans to
have filled 75 percent, or 980 positions. Also, DOD plans to have 13
other command positions filled by representatives from non-DOD
organizations. AFRICOM and Department of State officials told us that
these interagency personnel at AFRICOM are intended to play a more
significant role than interagency representatives at other commands
(which have numbered from 5 to 7 individuals), because they will be
integrated into the command headquarters' organizational structure. DOD
is also renovating existing facilities in Stuttgart, Germany, to
provide an interim headquarters for the new command at an estimated
cost of $40 million. However, this sum does not reflect the full cost
of establishing the command, which DOD has yet to fully estimate, but
has the potential to involve billions of dollars over the next several
years. While DOD has taken important first steps in establishing the
command and reaching the full operational capability milestone, DOD
also recognizes that achieving its vision of a command that has
significant interagency integration and is capable of building
partnership capacity with African nations will be a work in progress
for many years into the future.
The initial concept for AFRICOM designed and developed by DOD met
resistance from within the U. S. government and African countries and
contributed to several implementation challenges. First, DOD has had
difficulties integrating interagency personnel in the command, which is
critical to synchronizing DOD efforts with other U.S. government
agencies. DOD continues to lower its estimate of the ultimate level of
interagency participation in the command. According to DOD officials,
other agencies have limited resources and incompatible personnel
systems which have not easily accommodated DOD's intent to place
interagency personnel in the command. Second, DOD has encountered some
concerns from civilian agencies, African partners, and nongovernmental
organizations over what the command is and what it hopes to accomplish.
For example, State and U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) officials noted that the creation of AFRICOM could blur
traditional boundaries between diplomacy, development, and defense,
thereby militarizing U.S. foreign policy. If stakeholder concerns are
not addressed, these concerns could limit the command's ability to
develop key partnerships in carrying out its mission. Third, DOD has
not yet reached agreement with the State Department and potential host
nations on the structure and location of the command's presence on the
continent of Africa. DOD officials have previously stated that a
command presence within Africa was important because it would provide
AFRICOM staff with a more comprehensive understanding of the regional
environment, deepen their understanding of African needs, and help the
command build relationships and partnerships with African nations,
regional economic communities and associated regional standby forces.
Although the question of presence is one that the command believes will
resolve itself over time, uncertainties related to AFRICOM's presence
hinders DOD's ability to estimate future funding requirements for
AFRICOM and raises questions about whether DOD's concept of developing
enduring relationships on the continent can be achieved.
Background:
The President has established, and DOD operates geographic combatant
commands to perform military missions around the world. Geographic
combatant commands are each assigned an area of responsibility in which
to conduct their missions and activities (see fig. 1 below). Combatant
commands are responsible for a variety of functions including tasks
such as (1) deploying forces as necessary to carry out the missions
assigned to the command; (2) coordinating and approving those aspects
of administration, support (including control of resources and
equipment, internal organization, and training), and discipline
necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command; and (3)
assigning command functions to subordinate commanders. Combatant
commands are supported by Service component commands (Army, Navy,
Marine Corps, and Air Force) and Special Operations Command. Each of
these component commands has a significant role in planning and
supporting operations.
Figure 1: Geographic Combatant Commands' Proposed Areas of
Responsibilities on September 30, 2008:
This figure is a map of the geographic combatant commands' proposed
areas of responsibilities on September 30, 2008.
U.S. Northern Command;
U.S. Pacific Command;
U.S. Southern Command;
U.S. Africa Command;
U.S. European Command;
U.S. Central Command.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO presentation of DOD data.
[A] The state of Alaska is assigned to the U.S. Northern Command's Area
of Responsibility. Forces based in Alaska, however, may be assigned to
multiple commands.
[End of figure]
On February 6, 2007, the President directed the Secretary of Defense to
establish a new geographic combatant command to consolidate the
responsibility for DOD activities in Africa that have been shared by
U.S. Central Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. European
Command.[Footnote 3] AFRICOM was officially established on October 1,
2007, with a goal to reach full operational capability as a separate,
independent geographic combatant command by September 30, 2008. Full
operational capability was defined as the point at which the AFRICOM
commander will accept responsibility for executing all U.S. military
activities in Africa currently being conducted by the U.S. European,
Central, and Pacific commands; have the capability to plan and conduct
new operations; and have the capability to develop new initiatives.
AFRICOM's mission statement, which was approved by the Secretary of
Defense in May 2008, is to act in concert with other U. S. government
agencies and international partners to conduct sustained security
engagement through military-to-military programs, military-sponsored
activities, and other military operations as directed to promote a
stable and secure African environment in support of U.S. foreign
policy.
DOD Has Focused on Transferring Existing Activities from Other Commands
to AFRICOM:
Since the President announced the establishment of AFRICOM, DOD has
focused on building the capabilities necessary for AFRICOM to
systematically assume responsibility for all existing military
missions, activities, programs, and exercises in the area of
responsibility it is inheriting from the U.S. European, Central, and
Pacific commands.[Footnote 4] From the outset, AFRICOM has sought to
assume responsibility for these existing activities seamlessly, without
disrupting them or other U.S. government and international efforts in
Africa. To accomplish this task, AFRICOM officials created a formal
process to manage the transfer of activities it initially identified as
ongoing within AFRICOM's area of responsibility. These range from
activities to combat HIV/AIDS to programs that provide training
opportunities for foreign military personnel and include the two
largest U.S. military activities in Africa, the Combined Joint Task
Force-Horn of Africa[Footnote 5] and Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans
Sahara.[Footnote 6] DOD plans to transfer most activities to the new
command by September 30, 2008. The areas of responsibility and examples
of activities being transferred to AFRICOM from the U.S. European,
Central and Pacific commands are presented in figure 2. In cases
involving State Department-led activities where DOD plays a primary
role in its execution, such as the International Military Education and
Training program, AFRICOM is assuming only the execution of the program
from other combatant commands--the State Department still maintains
overall authority and responsibility for the program.
Figure 2: Areas of Responsibility and Examples of Activities Being
Transferred to AFRICOM from Other Combatant Commands:
This figure is a map and text showing areas of responsibility and
examples of activities being transferred to AFRICOM from other
combatant commands.
U.S. European Command;
Number of Countries involved: 42.
Examples of Activities Being Transferred:
* Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahara:
- A series of military-to-military exercises designed to strengthen the
ability of regional governments to police the large expanses of remote
terrain in the trans-Sahara;
* Africa Partnership Station:
- A program to enhance maritime safety and security through ship
visits, training and the provision of equipment to African host
nations;
* Medical Exercises:
- Exercises in which U.S. military doctors and other medical personnel
interchange medical information and techniques with African host nation
medical personnel and provide humanitarian assistance such as
immunizations to the population;
* International Military Education and Training:
- Program that provides military education, training, and professional
development to African military personnel on a grant basis through
funding from the Department of State;
* Humanitarian Assistance Activities:
- Various activities including providing HIV/AIDS prevention education
to African military personnel, drilling wells, improving school
buildings, and developing infrastructure;
[See PDF for image]
U.S. Central Command;
Number of Countries Involved: 7.
Examples of Activities Being Transferred:
* Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa:
- One of the two largest military programs in Africa, includes
operations, training, and humanitarian activities to help nations
improve their capacity to combat terrorism and prepare for challenges
such as natural disasters;
U.S. Pacific Command;
Number of Countries Involved: 3.
Examples of Activities Being Transferred:
* Pacific Endeavor:
- Workshops that bring nations together to test the compatibility and
interoperability of their communications systems and assist in their
integration;
* Tempest Express:
- Biannual workshop with multinational military personnel aimed to
increase the speed of multinational crisis response and improve force
interoperability.
Source: Copyright Corel Corp. All rights reserved (map); GAO
presentation of DOD data.
[End of figure]
Since the initial establishment of the command in October 2007, AFRICOM
has also sought to staff its headquarters, which will include DOD
military personnel, DOD civilian personnel, and interagency personnel.
Officials explained that staffing the command's positions is the most
critical and limiting factor in the process for assuming responsibility
for activities in Africa because activities cannot be transferred
without personnel in place to execute them. DOD has approved 1,304
positions (military and DOD civilian) for the command's headquarters,
of which about 270 military positions are being transferred from other
commands. By September 30, 2008, DOD plans to have filled 75 percent,
or 980 of these positions. In addition, DOD plans to have 13 command
positions filled by representatives from non-DOD agencies. As a result,
on September 30, 2008, 1 percent of AFRICOM headquarters positions will
be filled by representatives from non-DOD organizations (see fig. 3).
At this point, the number of interagency representatives in AFRICOM
headquarters will be only slightly more than the number of
representatives in other geographic commands, but AFRICOM has been
designed to embed these interagency personnel at all levels in the
command, including in leadership and management roles.[Footnote 7]
Figure 3: Projected Composition of AFRICOM's Headquarters Manpower for
September 30, 2008 (as of Jul 2008):
This figure is a pie chart showing projected composition of AFRICOM's
headquarters manpower for September 30, 2008.
622 military positions: 63%;
358 DID civilian positions: 35%;
13 interagency positions: 1%.
993 total filled positions.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of figure]
While AFRICOM expects to fill 622 (97 percent) of its military
personnel positions by September 30, 2008, it only expects to fill 358
(54 percent) of its DOD civilian positions, and 13 out of 52 (25
percent) targeted interagency positions by this time.[Footnote 8] DOD
officials explained that unlike military positions, hiring civilians
may include conducting security clearance investigations and overcoming
the logistics necessary to physically relocate civilians overseas as
well as other administrative requirements. Figure 4 compares the
positions DOD has approved for AFRICOM, the targeted interagency
positions, the command's progress in filling them as of July, 2008, and
the progress it expects to make by October 1, 2008.
Figure 4: Staffing Progress at AFRICOM Headquarters (as of July 2008):
This figure is a combination bar graph showing staffing progress at
AFRICOM headquarters (as of July 2008). The X axis represents the
personnel type, and the Y axis represents the number of personnel.
Personnel type: Military;
On board as of July 1, 2008: 524;
Expected on board by October 1, 2008: 662;
DOD Approved Positions and Targeted Interagency Positions for FY 2009:
639.
Personnel type: DOD Civilian;
On board as of July 1, 2008: 222;
Expected on board by October 1, 2008: 358;
DOD Approved Positions and Targeted Interagency Positions for FY 2009:
665.
Personnel type: Interagency;
On board as of July 1, 2008: 11;
Expected on board by October 1, 2008: 13;
DOD Approved Positions and Targeted Interagency Positions for FY 2009:
52.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of figure]
In order to meet infrastructure needs, AFRICOM is renovating existing
facilities in Stuttgart, Germany, to establish an interim headquarters
at a projected cost of approximately $40 million. DOD also projects an
investment of approximately $43 million in command, control,
communications, and computer systems infrastructure to enable AFRICOM
to monitor and manage the vast array of DOD activities in Africa.
Decisions related to the location of AFRICOM's permanent headquarters
and the overall command presence in Africa will be decided at a future
date; therefore, DOD expects the command will operate from the interim
headquarters in Germany for the foreseeable future.
In total, DOD budgeted approximately $125 million to support the
establishment of AFRICOM during fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and has
requested nearly $390 million more for fiscal year 2009. This does not
reflect the full cost of establishing the command over the next several
years, a cost that is projected to be substantial and could range in
the billions of dollars. For example, although DOD has not fully
estimated the additional costs of establishing and operating the
command, AFRICOM officials said that as the command is further
developed and decisions are made on its permanent headquarters, it will
need to construct both enduring facilities and meet other operational
support requirements. DOD's preliminary estimates for the command's
future infrastructure and equipping costs over the next several years
exceed several billion dollars, excluding the cost of activities
AFRICOM will be performing.
The progress AFRICOM intends to make in establishing the command by
September 30, 2008, will provide it a foundation for working toward
DOD's goal to promote whole-of-government approaches to building the
capacity of partner nations. However, AFRICOM officials recognize the
command will need to continue to develop after its September 30, 2008,
milestone to move beyond episodic security cooperation events to more
strategic, sustained efforts. The AFRICOM commander has described the
command as a "—listening, growing, and developing organization." In
addition, senior DOD officials told us that on September 30, 2008, DOD
does not anticipate that AFRICOM will have the desired interagency
skill sets, the ability to strategically engage with African countries
beyond the established level, or the capacity to take on new
initiatives.
In addition to DOD's efforts to establish the combatant command, the
military services and Special Operations Command are also working to
establish component commands that will be subordinate to
AFRICOM.[Footnote 9] They are in the process of developing
organizational structures and determining facilities, personnel, and
other requirements, such as operational support aircraft, that have yet
to be fully defined, but could be challenging for the services to meet.
For example, personnel requirements for each component command range
from approximately 100 personnel to more than 400, and Army officials
said they will likely face difficulties in filling positions because
many of the positions require a certain level of rank or experience
that is in high demand. At the time that AFRICOM is estimated to reach
full operational capability (September 30, 2008), only two component
commands (Navy, Marine Corps) are expected to be fully operational. The
Army, Air Force, and Special Operations component commands are expected
to reach full operational capability by October 1, 2009.
DOD Faces Significant Challenges to Achieve Its Transformational Vision
of AFRICOM:
The initial concept for AFRICOM designed and developed by DOD met
resistance from within the U. S. government and African countries and
contributed to several implementation challenges. First, AFRICOM has
had difficulties in filling interagency positions in the command, a
difficulty that could limit its ability to facilitate collaboration
with civilian agencies. Second, AFRICOM has encountered concerns from
civilian agencies, African partners, and nongovernmental organizations
over what AFRICOM is and what it hopes to accomplish. If not addressed,
these concerns could limit AFRICOM's ability to develop key
partnerships in carrying out its mission. Third, DOD has faced
difficulty attaining agreement with State Department and potential host
nations on the size, composition, and location of AFRICOM's presence on
the continent of Africa. Uncertainties related to AFRICOM's presence
hinder DOD's ability to estimate future funding requirements for
AFRICOM and raises questions about whether DOD's concept of developing
enduring relationships on the continent can be achieved:
Limited Interagency Participation to Date:
DOD's first challenge to achieving its vision for AFRICOM is in
integrating personnel from civilian agencies into AFRICOM's command and
staff structure. According to AFRICOM, strategic success in Africa
depends on a whole-of-government approach to stability and security. A
whole-of-government approach necessitates collaboration among federal
agencies to ensure their activities are synchronized and integrated in
pursuit of a common goal. Integrating personnel from federal civilian
agencies is intended to facilitate collaboration among agencies, but
AFRICOM has had difficulties in filling its interagency positions.
Unlike liaison positions in other combatant commands, AFRICOM has been
designed to embed personnel from non-DOD agencies in leadership,
management, and staff positions at all levels in the command. For
example, AFRICOM's Deputy to the Commander for Civil-Military
Activities, one of two co-equal Deputies to the Commander, is a senior
Foreign Service officer from the Department of State. By bringing
knowledge of their home agencies, personnel from other agencies, such
as the USAID and the departments of Treasury and Commerce, are expected
to improve the planning and execution of AFRICOM's plans, programs, and
activities and to stimulate collaboration among U.S. government
agencies.
Initially, DOD established a notional goal of 25 percent of AFRICOM's
headquarters' staff would be provided by non-DOD agencies. According to
State officials, however, this goal was not vetted through civilian
agencies and was not realistic because of the resource limitations in
civilian agencies. Subsequently, AFRICOM reduced its interagency
representation to 52 notional interagency positions and as displayed in
figure 5, would be approximately 4 percent of the AFRICOM staff. As
previously discussed, however, DOD officials have indicated that the
target of 52 interagency positions for the command will continue to
evolve as AFRICOM receives input from other agencies.
Figure 5: Projected Composition of Manpower for AFRICOM's Headquarters
When Fully Staffed (as of July, 2008):
This figure is a pie chart showing projected composition of manpower
for AFRICOM's headquarters when fully staffed (as of July 2008).
665 DOD civilian positions: 49%;
639 military positions: 47%;
52 interagency positions for AFRICOM's headquarters: 4%.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of figure]
Even with a reduction in the number of interagency positions, according
to DOD officials, some civilian agencies have limited personnel
resources and incompatible personnel systems that have not easily
accommodated DOD's intent to place interagency personnel in the
command. AFRICOM is looking to civilian agencies for skills sets that
it does not have internally, but many of the personnel who have these
skills sets and experience outside of DOD are in high demand. Officials
at the State Department, in particular, noted their concern about the
ability to fill positions left vacant by personnel being detailed to
AFRICOM since it takes a long time to develop Foreign Service officers
with the requisite expertise and experience. In fact, according to
State Department officials, some U.S. embassies in Africa are already
experiencing shortfalls in personnel, especially at the mid-level. DOD
officials also said that personnel systems among federal agencies were
incompatible and do not readily facilitate integrating personnel into
other agencies, particularly into non-liaison roles. In addition, many
non-DOD agencies have missions that are domestically focused and
therefore will need time to determine how best to provide personnel
support to AFRICOM. To encourage agencies to provide personnel to fill
positions in AFRICOM, DOD will pay the salaries and expenses for these
personnel.
As previously discussed, while DOD has focused initially on
establishing AFRICOM's headquarters, the services and Special
Operations Command are also working to establish component commands to
support AFRICOM, but the extent of interagency participation at these
commands has not been fully defined. Neither OSD nor AFRICOM has
provided guidance on whether AFRICOM's component commands should
integrate interagency representatives, and among the services, plans
for embedded interagency personnel varied. The Army has proposed
including four interagency positions in AFRICOM's Army service
component command, U.S. Army, Africa. Officials from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the Joint Forces Command, Marine Corps, and the
Air Force stated that component commands would receive interagency
input from AFRICOM headquarters and embassy country teams. One OSD
official added that the level of interagency input at the headquarters
was sufficient because component commands are responsible for executing
plans developed by the combatant command headquarters where interagency
personnel would be involved in the planning process.
In the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Execution Roadmap, Building
Partnership Capacity, DOD recognized the importance of a seamless
integration of U.S. government capabilities by calling for strategies,
plans, and operations to be coordinated with civilian
agencies.[Footnote 10] One of AFRICOM's guiding principles is to
collaborate with U.S. government agencies, host nations, international
partners, and nongovernmental organizations. AFRICOM officials told us
that they had not yet developed the mechanisms or structures to ensure
that their activities were synchronized or integrated with those of
civilian agencies to ensure a mutually supportive and sustainable
effort, but would turn their attention to this synchronization after
October 2008. Barriers to interagency collaboration, however, could
arise as AFRICOM develops mechanisms, processes, and structures to
facilitate interagency collaboration, since both AFRICOM and the
agencies will likely encounter additional challenges that are outside
their control, such as different planning processes, authorities, and
diverse institutional cultures. For example, according to State and DOD
officials, the State Department is focused on bilateral relationships
with foreign governments through its embassies overseas, while the
Defense Department is focused regionally through its geographic
combatant commands. With relatively few interagency personnel on the
AFRICOM staff, such coordination mechanisms could be critical for the
command to achieve its vision.
Stakeholder Concerns Regarding the Command's Mission:
DOD's second challenge to achieving its vision for AFRICOM is in
overcoming stakeholder concerns of the command's mission. This could
limit its ability to develop key partnerships. Since its establishment
was announced in early 2007, AFRICOM has encountered concerns from U.S.
civilian agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and African partners
about what AFRICOM is and what it hopes to accomplish in Africa. Many
of the concerns from U.S. government agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and African partners stem from their interpretations of
AFRICOM's intended mission and goals. Although DOD has often stated
that AFRICOM is intended to support, not lead, U.S. diplomatic and
development efforts in Africa, State Department officials expressed
concern that AFRICOM would become the lead for all U.S. government
activities in Africa, even though the U.S. embassy leads decision-
making on U.S. government non-combat activities conducted in that
country. Other State and USAID officials noted that the creation of
AFRICOM could blur traditional boundaries among diplomacy, development,
and defense, thereby militarizing U.S. foreign policy. An organization
that represents U.S.-based international nongovernmental organizations
told us that many nongovernmental organizations shared the perception
that AFRICOM would militarize U.S. foreign aid and lead to greater U.S.
military involvement in humanitarian assistance. Nongovernmental
organizations are concerned that this would put their aid workers at
greater risk if their activities are confused or associated with U.S.
military activities. Among African countries, there is apprehension
that AFRICOM will be used as an opportunity to increase the number of
U.S. troops and military bases in Africa. African leaders also
expressed concerns to DOD that U.S. priorities in Africa may not be
shared by their governments. For example, at a DOD-sponsored
roundtable, a group of U.S.-based African attachés identified their
most pressing security issues were poverty, food shortages, inadequate
educational opportunities, displaced persons, and HIV/AIDS, while they
perceived U.S. priorities were focused on combating terrorism and
weakened states.
One factor contributing to persistent concerns among U.S. government
agencies, non governmental organizations, and African partners is the
evolution of how DOD has characterized AFRICOM's unique mission and
goals. Between February 2007 and May 2008 AFRICOM's mission statement
went through several iterations that ranged in its emphasis on
humanitarian-oriented activities to more traditional military programs.
According to an official from an organization representing
nongovernmental organizations, the emphasis on humanitarian assistance
as part of AFRICOM's mission early on contributed to their fears that
AFRICOM would be engaged in activities that are traditionally the
mission of civilian agencies and organizations. Additionally, the
discussion of AFRICOM's mission evolved from highlighting its whole-of-
government approach to referring to it as a bureaucratic reorganization
within DOD. When articulating its vision for AFRICOM, DOD also used
language that did not translate well to African partners and civilian
agency stakeholders. For civilian agencies use of the words
"integrating U.S. government activities" led to concerns over AFRICOM's
assuming leadership in directing all U.S. government efforts. Likewise,
DOD's use of the term "combatant command" led some African partners to
question whether AFRICOM was focused on non-warfighting activities.
State Department officials said that they had difficulty in responding
to African concerns because of their own confusion over AFRICOM's
intended mission and goals.
Another factor contributing to concerns over AFRICOM's mission and
goals can be attributed to unclear roles and responsibilities. Although
DOD has long been involved in humanitarian and stability-related
activities, AFRICOM's emphasis on programs that prevent conflict in
order to foster dialogue and development has put a spotlight on an
ongoing debate over the appropriate role of the U.S. military in non-
combat activities. Consequently, civilian agencies are concerned about
the overlap of DOD missions with their own and what impact DOD's role
may have on theirs. DOD is currently conducting a mission analysis to
help define roles and responsibilities between AFRICOM and civilian
agencies operating in Africa, but broader governmentwide consensus on
these issues has not been reached.
An additional factor contributing to U.S. government perceptions that
AFRICOM could militarize U.S. foreign policy is in part based on DOD's
vast resources and capacity compared to the civilian agencies. Civilian
agencies and some African partners are concerned that the strategic
focus AFRICOM could bring to the continent would result in AFRICOM
supplanting civilian planning and activities. One USAID official told
us that an increase in funding executed by AFRICOM could change the
dynamic in relationships among U.S. federal agencies and in
relationships between individual U.S. agencies and African partners.
Uncertainty about DOD Presence in Africa:
DOD has not yet reached agreement with the State Department and
potential host nations on the structure and location of AFRICOM's
presence in Africa. Initially, an important goal of AFRICOM was to
establish a command presence in Africa that would provide a regional
approach to African security and complement DOD's representation in
U.S. embassies. AFRICOM is planning to increase its representation in
11 U.S. embassies by establishing new offices to strengthen bilateral
military-to-military relationships. It is also planning to establish
regional offices in five locations on the continent that would align
with the five regional economic communities in Africa. DOD, however,
has faced difficulty reaching agreement with the State Department on
AFRICOM's future presence on the continent. Therefore, AFRICOM will be
based in Stuttgart, Germany, for the foreseeable future and plans to
focus on increasing its representatives in embassies until decisions on
the structure and location of AFRICOM's presence are made. In testimony
to the Congress in March of this year, the AFRICOM Commander stated
that he considers command presence in Africa an important issue, but
states that it is not considered a matter of urgency.
DOD officials have previously stated that the command's presence in
Africa was important. Specifically, DOD officials have indicated that
the structure and location of AFRICOM's presence in Africa is important
because being located in Africa would provide AFRICOM staff with a more
comprehensive understanding of the regional environment and African
needs. Second, having staff located in Africa would help the command
build relationships and partnerships with African nations and the
regional economic communities and associated regional standby forces.
Enduring relationships are an important aspect of building African
partner security capacity and in successfully planning and executing
programs and activities. Third, regional offices are intended to
promote a regional dimension to U.S. security assistance through their
coordination with DOD representatives who manage these programs in
multiple U.S. embassies. As DOD continues to evolve its plans for a
presence in Africa and decisions involving presence are delayed, DOD
officials have indicated that other coordinating mechanisms may be
established as a substitute for a physical presence on the continent.
In addition, senior DOD officials have stated that preparing budget
estimates for future fiscal years is difficult without an agreed upon
AFRICOM presence on the continent. For example, although DOD requested
$20 million in fiscal year 2009 to begin establishing the presence in
Africa, AFRICOM has not been able to identify total funding
requirements for headquarters infrastructure and operations in Africa.
Furthermore, a senior official from the Office of the Secretary of
Defense for Program Analysis and Evaluation stated that AFRICOM's
future presence in Africa was one of the most important policy
decisions that could affect the ability of the department to estimate
future costs for the command. For example, in developing the fiscal
year 2009 budget request, DOD estimated the costs to operate the
interim headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, was approximately $183
million, but these costs may change significantly, according to DOD
officials, if the headquarters were located in an African country with
more limited infrastructure than currently available in Stuttgart,
Germany. Therefore, without an agreed-upon U.S. government strategy for
establishing AFRICOM's presence on the continent of Africa that is
negotiated with and supported by potential host nations, the
potentially significant fiscal implications of AFRICOM's presence and
impact on its ability to develop relationships and partnerships at the
regional and local levels will remain unclear.
Concluding Observations:
As AFRICOM nears the October 2008 date slated for reaching full
operational capability, DOD is working to shape expectations for the
emergent command--both inside and outside the United States. Confronted
by concerns from other U.S. agencies and African partners, AFRICOM is
focused on assuming existing military missions while building capacity
for the future. The ultimate role of AFRICOM in promoting a whole-of-
government approach to stability and security on the continent is still
uncertain, but initial expectations that the command would represent a
dramatic shift in U.S. approach to security in Africa are being scaled
back. Two key precepts of the command--that it would have significant
interagency participation and would be physically located in Africa to
engage partners there--will not be realized in the near term. Looking
to the future, the difficulties encountered in staffing the command,
sorting out the military's role in policy, and establishing a presence
in Africa are emblematic of deeper cultural and structural issues
within the U.S. government. Having such a command will likely help DOD
focus military efforts on the African continent, but the extent to
which an integrated approach is feasible remains unclear. Over the next
few years, DOD intends to invest billions in this new command--
including devoting hundreds of staff--and sustained attention will be
needed to ensure that this substantial investment pays off over time.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. We would be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
For questions regarding this testimony, please call John Pendleton at
(202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this testimony. Other key contributors to this statement were
Robert L. Repasky, Tim Burke, Leigh Caraher, Grace Colemen, Taylor
Matheson, Lonnie McAllister, and Amber Simco.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Security cooperation activities are defined as military activity
that involves other nations and are intended to shape the operational
environment in peacetime. Activities include programs and exercises
that the U.S. military conducts with other nations to improve mutual
understanding and improve interoperability with treaty partners or
potential coalition partners. These activities are designed to support
a combatant commander's theater strategy as articulated in the theater
security cooperation plan.
[2] DOD defines AFRICOM's full operational capability as "the date
USAFRICOM attains its ability to singularly or collaboratively (through
the use of reachback or pre-arranged cooperative agreements) execute
all Africa-based contingency plans, African components of existing
regional war on terror operations orders, other operations; plan and
conduct newly assigned missions with its defined area of
responsibility; and develop new initiatives."
[3] AFRICOM's area of responsibility will include the African continent
and its island nations, with the exception of Egypt. Egypt will remain
within U.S. Central Command's area of responsibility, and AFRICOM and
U.S. Central Command will have overlapping but distinct relationships
with Egypt, which will be addressed under separate memoranda of
agreement.
[4] For simplicity, we refer to these missions, activities, programs,
and exercises collectively as "activities."
[5] The Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa was formed to work
with Horn of Africa governments to promote capacity building, support
professionalization of militaries, and counter the proliferation of
terrorism.
[6] Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahara is designed to strengthen
the ability of regional governments to police large expanses of remote
terrain in the Trans-Sahara
[7] We have previously reported that interagency coordination groups in
the U.S. European, Central, and Pacific commands had ranged from 5 to 7
non-DOD representatives. See Military Operations: Actions Needed to
Improve DOD's Stability Operations Approach and Enhance Interagency
Planning, GAO-07-549 (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2007).
[8] Recently, DOD officials have indicated that the notional goal of 52
interagency positions for the command is now being reassessed and may
change based on input from other agencies as they learn more about the
AFRICOM and the role non-DOD personnel will be asked to perform within
the command.
[9] AFRICOM will have four service component commands and a Theater
Special Operations Command. They are: U.S. Army Africa (USARAF); U.S.
Naval Forces, Africa (USNAVAFRICA); U.S. Marine Forces, Africa
(USMARFORAFRICA); U.S. Air Forces Africa Command (USAFAC); and Special
Operations Command, Africa (SOCAFRICA).
[10] Department of Defense, Building Partnership Capacity, QDR
Execution Roadmap (May 2006).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
