Defense Management
Actions Needed to Address Stakeholder Concerns, Improve Interagency Collaboration, and Determine Full Costs Associated with the U.S. Africa Command Gao ID: GAO-09-181 February 20, 2009In February 2007, the President directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to establish the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) to help strengthen U.S. security cooperation with African nations and bring peace and stability to the continent. For this review, GAO assessed DOD's (1) efforts to establish the command and communicate its mission, (2) progress in integrating personnel from other U.S. government agencies into AFRICOM, and (3) plans and costs for establishing a permanent headquarters and supporting offices in Africa. In assessing DOD's efforts to establish AFRICOM, GAO analyzed relevant documentation and obtained perspectives from the combatant commands, military services, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of State (State), U. S. Agency for International Development, and nongovernmental organizations.
DOD declared AFRICOM fully operational on September 30, 2008, and had more than 950 military and civilian personnel assigned to the command; however, concerns about its planned mission and activities persist. DOD created AFRICOM to bring a more cohesive and strategic focus to its efforts in Africa. However, initial statements made about its mission and the scope of its activity raised concerns among U.S. and African stakeholders that AFRICOM could militarize diplomacy and development. Since the initial announcement, DOD has taken some steps to clarify its mission and in May 2008 published an approved mission statement. But concerns persist and DOD has not yet finalized a strategy for future communication with the wide range of stakeholders. It will take time for concerns generated by the initial announcement to subside and will largely depend on AFRICOM's actions. Unresolved concerns about AFRICOM's intentions could limit support from key stakeholders like State and potential African partners. GAO's prior work shows that a communications strategy can help address stakeholder concerns and clarify expectations. AFRICOM has begun integrating personnel from other U.S. government agencies into the command but it has not yet determined the ultimate extent of desired interagency representation. DOD officials said that integrating personnel will help AFRICOM develop plans that are more compatible with U.S. agencies. DOD set some initial personnel goals, but continues to revise them. Initially, DOD conceived of a command in which about a quarter of the staff (about 125 people) would be from other agencies. DOD later reduced thegoal to 52 positions, but this number is under review and expected to change. These goals did not fully consider the perspective of contributing civilian agencies, which is important because some face personnel shortages. AFRICOM is now taking steps to involve agencies in determining personnel goals, but this process does not guarantee commitments from agencies to provide personnel. Without agreed-upon interagency personnel commitments, AFRICOM could continue to develop unrealistic targets and ultimately risk losing the knowledge and expertise of interagency personnel. DOD cannot reliably estimate AFRICOM's total future costs because decisions on the locations of a permanent headquarters and supporting offices in Africa have not been made. DOD is re-examining its initial concept for AFRICOM's command presence because of concerns over its initial headquarters concept, authorities under which it would operate, and sensitivities about a U.S. military presence. In the meantime, AFRICOM is increasing its representation in some U.S. embassies in Africa and spending about $140 million to renovate facilities in Stuttgart, Germany, for its interim headquarters. Current cost projections exceed $4 billion through 2015, but these estimates do not include an operations center or component commands, which could increase costs. DOD plans to make decisions in fiscal year 2012 on command locations. GAO's prior work shows that an assessment of tangible and intangible benefits and costs can help organizations decide between alternatives.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-181, Defense Management: Actions Needed to Address Stakeholder Concerns, Improve Interagency Collaboration, and Determine Full Costs Associated with the U.S. Africa Command
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-181
entitled 'Defense Management: Actions Needed to Address Stakeholder
Concerns, Improve Interagency Collaboration, and Determine Full Costs
Associated with U.S. Africa Command' which was released on March 26,
2009.
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.
Report to the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
February 2009:
Defense Management:
Actions Needed to Address Stakeholder Concerns, Improve Interagency
Collaboration, and Determine Full Costs Associated with the U.S. Africa
Command:
Defense Management:
GAO-09-181:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-181, a report to 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 directed the Department of Defense
(DOD) to establish the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) to help strengthen
U.S. security cooperation with African nations and bring peace and
stability to the continent. For this review, GAO assessed DOD‘s (1)
efforts to establish the command and communicate its mission, (2)
progress in integrating personnel from other U.S. government agencies
into AFRICOM, and (3) plans and costs for establishing a permanent
headquarters and supporting offices in Africa. In assessing DOD‘s
efforts to establish AFRICOM, GAO analyzed relevant documentation and
obtained perspectives from the combatant commands, military services,
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of State (State), U. S.
Agency for International Development, and nongovernmental
organizations.
What GAO Found:
DOD declared AFRICOM fully operational on September 30, 2008, and had
more than 950 military and civilian personnel assigned to the command;
however, concerns about its planned mission and activities persist. DOD
created AFRICOM to bring a more cohesive and strategic focus to its
efforts in Africa. However, initial statements made about its mission
and the scope of its activity raised concerns among U.S. and African
stakeholders that AFRICOM could militarize diplomacy and development.
Since the initial announcement, DOD has taken some steps to clarify its
mission and in May 2008 published an approved mission statement. But
concerns persist and DOD has not yet finalized a strategy for future
communication with the wide range of stakeholders. It will take time
for concerns generated by the initial announcement to subside and will
largely depend on AFRICOM‘s actions. Unresolved concerns about
AFRICOM‘s intentions could limit support from key stakeholders like
State and potential African partners. GAO‘s prior work shows that a
communications strategy can help address stakeholder concerns and
clarify expectations.
AFRICOM has begun integrating personnel from other U.S. government
agencies into the command but it has not yet determined the ultimate
extent of desired interagency representation. DOD officials said that
integrating personnel will help AFRICOM develop plans that are more
compatible with U.S. agencies. DOD set some initial personnel goals,
but continues to revise them. Initially, DOD conceived of a command in
which about a quarter of the staff (about 125 people) would be from
other agencies. DOD later reduced the goal to 52 positions, but this
number is under review and expected to change. These goals did not
fully consider the perspective of contributing civilian agencies, which
is important because some face personnel shortages. AFRICOM is now
taking steps to involve agencies in determining personnel goals, but
this process does not guarantee commitments from agencies to provide
personnel. Without agreed-upon interagency personnel commitments,
AFRICOM could continue to develop unrealistic targets and ultimately
risk losing the knowledge and expertise of interagency personnel.
DOD cannot reliably estimate AFRICOM‘s total future costs because
decisions on the locations of a permanent headquarters and supporting
offices in Africa have not been made. DOD is re-examining its initial
concept for AFRICOM‘s command presence because of concerns over its
initial headquarters concept, authorities under which it would operate,
and sensitivities about a U.S. military presence. In the meantime,
AFRICOM is increasing its representation in some U.S. embassies in
Africa and spending about $140 million to renovate facilities in
Stuttgart, Germany, for its interim headquarters. Current cost
projections exceed $4 billion through 2015, but these estimates do not
include an operations center or component commands, which could
increase costs. DOD plans to make decisions in fiscal year 2012 on
command locations. GAO‘s prior work shows that an assessment of
tangible and intangible benefits and costs can help organizations
decide between alternatives.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that AFRICOM include three key elements in its
communications strategy, seek formal commitments for interagency
personnel, and develop a comprehensive assessment of the possible
locations of its permanent command headquarters and offices in Africa.
In responding to a draft of this report, DOD partially agreed with
GAO‘s recommendations and noted that in some cases it was already
taking action.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-181]. For more
information, contact John H. Pendleton at (202) 512-3489 or
pendletonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
AFRICOM Declared Fully Operational but Stakeholder Concerns Persist:
AFRICOM Has Not Determined Needed Interagency Representation:
Total Costs to Establish AFRICOM Are Uncertain, and Depend on the
Location of AFRICOM's Permanent Headquarters and Supporting Offices:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: DOD's Initial Concept for Headquarters Location and
Command Locations in Africa:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Number and Percentage of Military, Civilian, and Interagency
Personnel Planned and Assigned for U.S. Africa Command Headquarters as
of October 2008:
Table 2: Embedded Interagency Personnel on AFRICOM staff as of October
2008:
Figures:
Figure 1: Geographic Combatant Commands and Areas of Responsibility, as
of December 2008:
Figure 2: Areas of Responsibility and Examples of Activities Being
Transferred to AFRICOM from Other Combatant Commands:
Figure 3: AFRICOM's Plans for Interim Headquarters Location and Command
Presence, as of October 2008:
Abbreviations:
AFRICOM: U.S. Africa Command:
DOD: Department of Defense:
State: Department of State:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 20, 2009:
The Honorable John F. Tierney:
Chairman:
The Honorable Jeff Flake:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The 2008 National Defense Strategy describes a spectrum of security
challenges facing the United States that range from violent
transnational extremist networks to natural and pandemic disasters and
growing competition for resources. U.S. experiences in Africa, the
Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq over the last several years have
demonstrated that U.S. government agencies need to improve the
coordination and integration of their activities to address security
challenges. In February 2007, in order to provide a more strategic,
holistic approach to U.S. military activities in Africa, the President
directed the Secretary of Defense to establish the U.S. Africa Command
(AFRICOM), a new geographic combatant command that consolidated the
Department of Defense's (DOD) activities in Africa under one command.
Previously, these activities had been managed by the U.S. European,
Central, and Pacific Commands. AFRICOM is primarily focused on
strengthening U.S. security cooperation with African nations, creating
opportunities to bolster the capabilities of African partners, and
enhancing U.S. efforts to bring peace and stability to the
continent.[Footnote 1] To do this, AFRICOM is integrating personnel
from other U.S. government agencies into the command structure and is
considering options to establish a permanent headquarters outside
Africa as well as placing personnel in Africa.
The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on National
Security and Foreign Affairs of the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform requested that we review the establishment of the new
U.S. Africa Command. In July 2008 we provided testimony to the Chairman
and Ranking Member on our preliminary observations on DOD's progress
and challenges associated with establishing AFRICOM.[Footnote 2] We
testified that 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 had encountered some concerns from civilian agencies, African
partners, and nongovernmental organizations over the command's mission
and goals. Second, DOD was having difficulties integrating interagency
personnel in the command, which DOD viewed as critical to synchronizing
military efforts with other U.S. government agencies. Third, DOD had
not yet reached agreement with the Department of State (State) and
potential host nations on the structure and location of the command's
presence on the continent of Africa. This report expands on the
information provided in that testimony and makes recommendations to
enhance DOD's efforts to establish AFRICOM. Specifically, we assessed
DOD's (1) efforts to establish the command and communicate its mission,
(2) progress in integrating personnel from other U.S. agencies into
AFRICOM, and (3) plans and costs for establishing a permanent
headquarters as well as supporting offices in Africa.
To assess DOD's efforts in establishing AFRICOM and communicating its
mission, we met with a variety of DOD officials and reviewed a wide
range of DOD guidance, plans, directives, speeches, testimony
statements, and reports. We interviewed officials at State and the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to obtain
other agencies' perspectives on the establishment of the command and
input into the process. We also interviewed representatives from an
organization representing U.S.-based international nongovernmental
organizations for their perspectives on AFRICOM. In addition, we
interviewed officials from AFRICOM on their efforts to communicate the
mission of the command to multiple audiences. To assess the extent to
which AFRICOM has taken steps to improve interagency collaboration, we
obtained information on its plans and goals for integrating personnel
from other U.S. government agencies and on its efforts to align its
plans and activities with federal agencies. To assess DOD's plans to
establish a permanent headquarters and supporting offices in Africa, we
obtained information related to the initial and current plans for
AFRICOM's presence in Africa, including DOD implementation guidance,
planning documents, budget proposals, and facility renovation plans. We
conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to February 2009 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.
Results in Brief:
DOD designated AFRICOM fully operational on September 30, 2008, and the
command has assumed responsibility for DOD activities in Africa;
however, it continues to face concerns from U.S. government,
nongovernmental, and African stakeholders about its mission and
activities, which could limit support for the command. In October 2007,
AFRICOM began assuming responsibility for existing DOD activities
conducted by U.S. European, Central, and Pacific Commands in Africa and
began to staff its headquarters with DOD military personnel, DOD
civilian personnel, and interagency personnel. DOD subsequently
approved 1,356 positions for the command's headquarters, of which 639
are positions that are to be filled by military personnel, 665 are to
be civilian DOD employees, and 52 are to be filled by non-DOD agencies
like State and USAID. As of October 2008, about 70 percent (959) of the
total personnel were assigned to AFRICOM. Most of the military
personnel were in place, but only about half of the DOD civilians and
about a quarter of the interagency personnel had been assigned. In
addition, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and the Special
Operations Command have each begun to establish component and theater-
level commands that will support AFRICOM's operations and will also
require hundreds of additional personnel. Although DOD declared AFRICOM
fully operational, concerns surrounding the command's mission and
activities persist among its various stakeholders. DOD established
AFRICOM to bring a more cohesive and strategic focus to its activities
in Africa; however, initial statements about the new command's intended
mission and scope of its activities met with concerns from U.S.
government, nongovernmental, and African partner stakeholders. Concerns
are particularly keen in areas like humanitarian assistance and other
non-combat activities that involve non-DOD agencies and organizations.
Their concerns center on the view that AFRICOM could blur traditional
boundaries between diplomacy, development, and defense. In some cases,
these apprehensions stem from DOD having more resources than other
agencies and thus could dominate U.S. activities and relationships in
Africa. In response to the concerns AFRICOM took steps to clarify its
mission and goals, such as shifting its emphasis from a whole-of-
government approach to more traditional military missions, and AFRICOM
now has a mission statement that was approved following consultation
with other U.S. government agencies. Stakeholders remain skeptical
about AFRICOM's intentions, however. Our previous work suggests that to
build trust with stakeholders, clarify misperceptions, and create
shared expectations, a communication strategy can be an effective tool,
although it alone cannot resolve all concerns. A communication strategy
should allow for early and frequent communication, ensure a consistent
message, and encourage two-way communications with stakeholders. DOD
and the State previously issued guidance on communicating AFRICOM's
mission to an early AFRICOM planning team and to U.S. embassies in
Africa, but these documents did not address the full range of AFRICOM's
stakeholders. According to AFRICOM officials, the command is currently
developing an approach to address stakeholder concerns and clarify
expectations for the command, but it is unclear what this approach will
include or when it will be completed. Until AFRICOM has a
communications strategy that ensures a consistent message and
facilitates two-way communication with stakeholders, it may be limited
in its ability to reduce persistent concerns from U.S. government,
nongovernmental, and African stakeholders and garner support for the
command. We are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the
Commander, U.S. Africa Command to include all appropriate audiences,
encourage two-way communication, and ensure consistency of message
related to AFRICOM's mission and goals as it develops and implements
its communications strategy.
AFRICOM has taken initial steps to integrate personnel from other U.S.
government agencies into the command, but it has not yet determined the
ultimate extent of interagency representation. AFRICOM has focused on
integrating personnel from other U.S. government agencies into staff,
management, and leadership positions. According to DOD and AFRICOM
officials, integrating personnel from other U.S. government agencies is
essential to achieving AFRICOM's mission because it will help AFRICOM
develop plans and activities that are more compatible with those
agencies. As of October 1, 2008, AFRICOM had 13 personnel from six
other agencies assigned to the command, including the Deputy to the
Commander for Civil-Military Activities, who is from the State. DOD
continues to revise its interagency personnel goals and has not yet
determined the total number of interagency positions it will ultimately
need in the command. Initially, DOD conceived of a command with about a
quarter of the headquarters staff (roughly 125 people) being filled by
other agencies, but later reduced this goal once it became clear that
other agencies would not be able to provide that level of personnel
support.[Footnote 3] DOD later established a goal of 52 interagency
personnel for fiscal year 2009, but said that this number would also
change as the command learned about the skills other agencies could
provide to the command. Both DOD and AFRICOM officials said that these
initial personnel goals were notional and not based on an analysis of
the skill sets needed to accomplish its mission. In addition, agencies
that would be contributing personnel were not always included in
developing or reviewing AFRICOM's initial personnel targets, and
therefore, personnel shortages at some agencies were not fully taken
into consideration. For example, the State Department, which is facing
a 25 percent shortfall in mid level personnel, did not have the
opportunity to provide input until after the personnel target for that
agency had been established. DOD has officially requested that State
fill 13 positions at AFRICOM in addition to the 2 it has already
filled; however, State officials told us that they would not likely be
able to fill these positions due to personnel shortfalls. Our previous
work indicates that successful organizations need valid and reliable
data about the personnel number and skills required to accomplish their
mission, stakeholder involvement in determining those elements, and
strategies to address gaps in number and skills. AFRICOM has recently
begun taking steps to work with other agencies to help identify the
number of interagency positions by inviting representatives to the
command to survey the need for their personnel to help carry out the
mission of the command. Because contributing agencies ultimately decide
whether or not to provide personnel to fill requested positions, this
process does not guarantee a commitment to contribute personnel to
AFRICOM. In addition, AFRICOM officials told us that they had not
developed action plans or alternative solutions to gain other agencies
perspectives should interagency positions go unfilled. Without
including all relevant stakeholders in assessing needed interagency
skills and obtaining commitments from them, AFRICOM could continue to
develop unrealistic personnel goals that contributing agencies are not
able to support or acquire skill sets that are less relevant for its
mission. We are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the
Commander, U.S. Africa Command to seek formal commitments with
contributing agencies to provide personnel as part of its efforts to
determine interagency personnel requirements and to develop
alternatives for how AFRICOM can obtain interagency perspectives in the
event that interagency personnel cannot be provided due to personnel
shortfalls in contributing agencies.
The total future cost for AFRICOM will be significant but remains
unclear because decisions on the locations of AFRICOM's permanent
headquarters and its supporting offices in Africa have not been made.
DOD is re-examining its initial concept for AFRICOM's command presence
in Africa because issues surrounding the location of AFRICOM's proposed
headquarters and the authorities under which it would operate caused
concern with State and several African nations. In the interim, DOD
located AFRICOM's headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, and now estimates
it will spend about $140 million in fiscal years 2007 through 2009 to
renovate those facilities, which is more than double the initial cost
estimates. In addition to renovation costs, cost projections exceed $4
billion through 2015 to operate AFRICOM's interim headquarters, expand
DOD's presence in 11 U.S. embassies in Africa, and improve existing
facilities for a combined joint task force in Djibouti. However, these
projections do not include the costs to establish AFRICOM's permanent
headquarters or other supporting offices in Africa, a potential joint
operations fusion center to support the headquarters, or costs
associated with its new component and theater special operations
commands.[Footnote 4] DOD officials told us that decisions on command
locations will have a significant effect on future cost projections.
DOD does not intend to decide the locations of AFRICOM's permanent
headquarters and supporting office locations until fiscal year 2012.
Our prior work provided key business practices that can inform DOD's
decisions on command locations, such as discussing alternatives with
key stakeholders to incorporate their insight and conducting an
analysis of the costs and benefits, both tangible and intangible, of
potential alternatives. Such considerations include infrastructure
costs, risks to the effectiveness of DOD operations, and geopolitical
impact on U.S. relationships with African partners. Until decisions are
made on the structure and locations of AFRICOM's headquarters and
supporting offices in Africa, the total investments required for the
command will remain unclear. The merits of infrastructure investments
in Germany in the interim may be difficult to assess without knowing
how long AFRICOM will use these facilities or how they will be used
after permanent locations are established. We are recommending that the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State as
appropriate, conduct an assessment of the costs and benefits of
potential alternative locations for AFRICOM's permanent headquarters
and supporting offices to help in determining the long-term fiscal
investment for AFRICOM infrastructure and limit additional expenditures
on interim AFRICOM infrastructure until decisions are made or
investment plans developed.
In reviewing a draft of this report, DOD partially agreed with each of
our three recommendations, stating that in some cases, actions were
already underway that would address the issues identified in this
report. Based on these comments we modified two of our recommendations
to incorporate DOD's comments. State did not provide written comments
on our report. In written comments, USAID affirmed its support of
AFRICOM and stated that it had met its personnel requirements in
support of AFRICOM. DOD and USAID's written comments appear in their
entirety in appendix III.
Background:
To perform its military missions around the world, DOD operates
geographic combatant commands that conduct missions and activities
within assigned areas of responsibility (figure 1 illustrates the
boundaries for each of the geographic combatant commands' areas of
responsibility). Combatant commands are responsible for a variety of
functions including tasks such as deploying forces to carry out a
variety of the missions that range from humanitarian assistance to
combat operations; providing administration and support, including
control of resources and equipment and training; and assigning command
functions to subordinate commanders. Combatant commands are supported
by service component commands (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force)
and a theater special operations command. Each of these has a
significant role in preparing the detailed plans and providing the
resources that the combatant commands need to execute operations in
support of their mission and goals. 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 had been shared by U.S. Central Command, U.S. Pacific
Command, and U.S. European Command.[Footnote 5] AFRICOM was officially
established as a sub unified command within the European Command on
October 1, 2007, and designated fully operational as a separate,
independent geographic combatant command on October 1, 2008.
Figure 1: Geographic Combatant Commands and Areas of Responsibility, as
of December 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the geographic combatant commands and areas of
responsibility, as of December 2008.
Geographic Combatant Commands and Areas of responsibility include: U.S.
Pacific Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Southern Command, U.S.
Africa Command, U.S. Central Command, and U.S. European Command.
Source: GAO presentation of DOD data; mapCorelCorp., all rights
reserved.
[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]
In November 2005, DOD directed that stability operations be given
priority on par with combat operations.[Footnote 6] DOD has defined
stability operations as an overarching term encompassing various
military missions, tasks, and activities conducted outside the United
States in coordination with other U.S. government agencies to maintain
or reestablish a safe and secure environment, provide essential
government services, emergency infrastructure reconstruction and
humanitarian relief.[Footnote 7] This new policy emphasized that
integrating civilian and military efforts is key to successful
stability operations and it recognized that these types of activities
will not always be led by the military and that DOD needs to be
prepared to provide support to both government and nongovernmental
organizations when necessary. DOD's efforts to address this shift are
captured in numerous publications and documents, including the 2008
National Defense Strategy, the Guidance for Employment of the Force,
and guidance for joint operations and joint operation
planning.[Footnote 8] AFRICOM is primarily focused on this shift toward
emphasizing the importance of stability operations. Its mission 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. Some of AFRICOM's
programs, activities, and operations are either conducted jointly or
coordinated with State and USAID, and other departments and agencies as
required.
According to the President's National Security Policy, defense,
diplomacy and development comprise three key elements of the U.S.
foreign policy apparatus. While DOD is responsible for national
defense, State plans and implements foreign diplomacy, and USAID leads
foreign development, including efforts to support economic growth and
humanitarian assistance. For example, in implementing the Trans-Sahara
Counterterrorism Partnership in the countries of northwest Africa,
State has hosted educational and cultural exchange programs intended to
marginalize violent extremism; USAID has supported efforts to improve
education and health; and DOD has provided counterterrorism training
and distributed equipment to the program's partner countries.[Footnote
9] Although State and USAID work together closely on strategic and
program planning, they are independent agencies, both of which
coordinate with AFRICOM.
AFRICOM Declared Fully Operational but Stakeholder Concerns Persist:
On September 30, 2008, DOD declared AFRICOM to be fully operational,
but the command continues to face persistent concerns from U.S.
government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and African
partners over its mission and scope of activities. To establish the
command, AFRICOM focused on obtaining staff and building the
capabilities necessary to assume responsibility for all existing DOD
activities in Africa. DOD, however, continues to face persistent
stakeholder concerns, such as fears of AFRICOM militarizing foreign aid
because of initial statements about the new command's intended mission.
Our previous work suggests that to build trust with stakeholders,
clarify misperceptions, and create shared expectations, a communication
strategy can be an effective tool. Although it alone cannot resolve all
concerns. It will take time for concerns generated by the initial
announcement to subside and will largely depend on AFRICOM's actions.
AFRICOM has taken some steps to clarify its mission after it received
initial pushback from stakeholders and, after consultation with other
agencies, now has an approved mission statement. But concerns persist
and DOD has not yet finalized a strategy for future communication with
the wide range of stakeholders. Until AFRICOM has a strategy that
ensures a consistent message and facilitates two-way communication and
that is linked to other U.S. government communication efforts, AFRICOM
may be limited in its ability to address stakeholder concerns and
achieve their acceptance and support for the command.
AFRICOM Has Assumed Responsibility for Existing DOD Missions in Africa:
After the President announced the creation of AFRICOM, the command
focused its efforts on building the capabilities necessary to assume
responsibility for all existing DOD activities inherited from the U.S.
European, Central, and Pacific Commands without disrupting them or
other U.S. government and international efforts. To accomplish this
task, AFRICOM officials created a process to manage the transfer of
ongoing activities that it had identified within its area of
responsibility. These activities ranged from efforts to combat HIV/AIDS
in foreign militaries 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 and Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahara. [Footnote
10],[Footnote 11] 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.
Figure 2: Areas of Responsibility and Examples of Activities Being
Transferred to AFRICOM from Other Combatant Commands:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the 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;
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
interoperabily.
Source: GAO presentation of DOD data; mapCorelCorp., all rights
reserved.
[End of figure]
Beginning in October 2007, AFRICOM began staffing its headquarters with
DOD military personnel, DOD civilian personnel, and personnel from
other U.S. government agencies. Officials explained that staffing the
command's positions was the most critical and limiting factor in the
process for assuming responsibility for activities in Africa because
activities could not be transferred without personnel in place to
execute them. DOD approved 1,356 positions for the command's
headquarters, of which 639 are positions that are to be filled by
military personnel, 665 are to be civilian DOD employees, and 52 are to
be filled by non-DOD agencies like State and USAID. Table 1 illustrates
the number of authorized and assigned positions as of October 2008.
Table 1: Number and Percentage of Military, Civilian, and Interagency
Personnel Planned and Assigned for U.S. Africa Command Headquarters as
of October 2008:
Fiscal year 2009: Military;
Authorized number of positions: 639;
Number assigned: 628;
Percentage of authorized positions with personnel assigned: 98.
Fiscal year 2009: Civilian;
Authorized number of positions: 665;
Number assigned: 318;
Percentage of authorized positions with personnel assigned: 48.
Fiscal year 2009: Interagency;
Authorized number of positions: 52;
Number assigned: 13;
Percentage of authorized positions with personnel assigned: 25.
Fiscal year 2009: Total;
Authorized number of positions: 1356;
Number assigned: 959;
Percentage of authorized positions with personnel assigned: 71.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD budget justification materials, Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and AFRICOM documents.
[End of table]
In addition to establishing AFRICOM as a combatant command, DOD
directed the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and the Special
Operations Command to establish component command or theater-level
headquarters that would support the planning and execution of AFRICOM's
operations. Each of the services and the Special Operations Command has
either initiated or completed steps to identify the organizational
structure and resource requirements to establish the various component
and theater-level commands. For example, in terms of resources,
personnel requirements for the various component commands range from
approximately 90 personnel for the Marine Corps to more than 400 for
the Army.[Footnote 12] Army officials have said that they will likely
face difficulties in filling positions because of the limited number of
personnel with the rank or level of experience required due to the high
demand for these individuals to support operational requirements
already underway around the world.
AFRICOM Faces Persistent Stakeholder Concerns about Its Mission:
AFRICOM continues to face persistent concerns among stakeholders within
the U.S. government, nongovernmental organizations, and African
countries over its mission. Beginning in February 2007, DOD held
numerous press conferences, briefings, and meetings with State, USAID,
and African nations in an effort to convey the purpose and goals for
establishing AFRICOM. According to officials, DOD created AFRICOM to
bring a more cohesive and strategic focus to its activities in Africa.
Although DOD often stated that AFRICOM is intended to support, not
lead, U.S. diplomatic and development efforts in Africa, some State
officials expressed concerns that AFRICOM would become the lead for
U.S. government activities in Africa, even though U.S. embassies lead
decision making on U.S. government non-combat activities conducted in
African countries. 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. At
the same time, however, some saw AFRICOM as a key organization that
could support other U.S. government activities on the continent.
An official from an organization that represents U.S.-based
international nongovernmental organizations told us that many
nongovernmental organizations shared the perception that AFRICOM would
further militarize U.S. foreign aid and lead to greater U.S. military
involvement in humanitarian assistance. An official from another
nongovernmental organization testified before a Senate Foreign
Relations Committee in August 2007 on fears of the military using
humanitarian assistance for its own purposes. Nongovernmental
organizations are concerned that this could put their aid workers at
greater risk if their activities were confused or associated with U.S.
military activities. In our discussions with USAID officials, they
stated that these concerns persist within this community. In some
cases, these concerns stem from the fact that DOD has more resources
and capacity than other U.S. agencies and could therefore overwhelm non-
DOD agencies' and organizations' activities in Africa.
Among African countries, there is some 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 as 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.
AFRICOM has taken some steps to clarify its mission after it received
initial pushback from stakeholders. For example, initial stakeholder
concerns led to a shift in how DOD portrayed AFRICOM's mission, moving
from an emphasis on a whole-of-government approach to a reorganization
within DOD with an emphasis on traditional military missions, like
exercises with African militaries. AFRICOM's mission statement also
went through several iterations between February 2007 and May 2008,
ranging in its emphasis on humanitarian-oriented activities to more
traditional military programs. The mission statement was approved
following DOD's consultation with U.S. government stakeholders, but
some stakeholders remain skeptical of AFRICOM's intentions. According
to an official from an organization representing nongovernmental
organizations, the emphasis on humanitarian assistance as part of
AFRICOM's mission early on has contributed to their fears that AFRICOM
would be engaged in activities that are traditionally the mission of
civilian agencies and organizations.
Our prior work notes that during large-scale organizational
transformations, such as the establishment of AFRICOM, a communications
strategy can be an effective tool for building trust with stakeholders,
clarifying misperceptions, and creating shared expectations.[Footnote
13] Such a strategy should include early and frequent communication
with stakeholders, a consistent message, and two-way communication. By
communicating early and often, organizations help build an
understanding of the purpose of planned changes and trust among
stakeholders. Ensuring that the message is consistent in tone and
content can help reduce stakeholder misperceptions and uncertainties.
Encouraging two-way communication that facilitates an honest exchange
with and allows feedback from stakeholders can help organizations make
appropriate changes and create effective partnerships that are vital to
the organization's success.
DOD and State developed two separate documents to guide U.S. government
communication on the establishment of AFRICOM, but neither document
addressed the widely varying interests among U.S. government,
nongovernmental, and African stakeholders. DOD's initial planning team
on AFRICOM included in its December 2006 final report a section on
strategic communications, but this document was focused on government-
to-government interactions and did not include shaping public
opinion.[Footnote 14] DOD officials noted that negative public opinion
in Africa has influenced African governments' public responses. AFRICOM
officials also noted that this document was also focused more on
process, rather than the messages that would be communicated. State,
which has a role in strategic communications through its Office of
Public Diplomacy and embassies, issued an interagency strategic
communications strategy in December 2007 for use in U.S. embassies in
Africa. This document was issued about 10 months after AFRICOM had been
announced and was facing significant stakeholder concerns. According to
DOD officials, it emphasized strategic communications tools but did not
provide guidance on how to use them. Both DOD and State officials noted
that neither document included efforts to communicate with other U.S.
government agencies on the establishment of AFRICOM or its mission and
goals.
According to AFRICOM officials, the command recognizes the need to
address persistent concerns and is working on a strategic
communications approach. However, at the time our review, it was
unclear what the effort would include or how the views of State and
other stakeholders would be incorporated. Officials told us that they
plan to complete this effort in early 2009 but the publication date is
not firm. Officials told us that the approach will be based on DOD-wide
guidance on strategic communications and draw on State's interagency
strategic communications documents. Given the underlying concerns
inside and outside the U.S. government about AFRICOM and its mission,
we believe a communications strategy is an important first step in
reducing stakeholders' concerns, but we also recognize that it alone
may not be able to resolve all of them. It will take time for concerns
generated by the initial announcement to subside and will largely
depend on AFRICOM's actions. Until AFRICOM has a comprehensive
communications strategy that includes all appropriate audiences,
encourages two-way communication with stakeholders, and ensures a
consistent message, the command may continue to be limited in its
ability to reduce persistent skepticism and garner support for the
command.
AFRICOM Has Not Determined Needed Interagency Representation:
AFRICOM has taken initial steps to improve interagency collaboration,
focusing mainly on integrating interagency personnel into the command,
but it has not yet determined the extent of interagency representation
it ultimately needs. DOD officials have said that embedding personnel
from other agencies is essential to AFRICOM carrying out its mission
because it will help its plans and activities to be more compatible
with other agencies. DOD set some initial interagency personnel goals,
but they were notional and did not take into consideration perspectives
or resource constraints of potential contributing agencies. AFRICOM has
recently taken steps to involve stakeholders by inviting
representatives to the command to survey the need for their personnel
in achieving AFRICOM's mission. This process, however, does not
guarantee that other agencies will commit to filling interagency
positions. In addition to seeking interagency participation at its
headquarters, AFRICOM is also adjusting its planning to involve other
agencies and better align its plans and activities with those agencies.
Without interagency collaboration and synchronized effort with its U.S.
government partners, AFRICOM may not be able to achieve the level of
effectiveness it expects from its plans and activities.
AFRICOM Has Some Interagency Personnel in Place, but Has Not Yet Fully
Identified Positions to Be Filled by Other Federal Agencies:
To facilitate interagency collaboration, AFRICOM initially focused on
integrating personnel from other U.S. government agencies into the
command, which according to DOD and AFRICOM officials, is essential to
AFRICOM carrying out its mission. By bringing knowledge of their home
agencies into the command, personnel from other federal agencies, such
as USAID and the Departments of the 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. Unlike liaisons in other combatant commands, AFRICOM is
integrating personnel from other federal agencies into leadership,
management, and staff positions throughout the command
structure.[Footnote 15] For example, AFRICOM's Deputy to the Commander
for Civil-Military Activities, one of two deputies in the command, is a
senior Foreign Service officer from State. As members of the AFRICOM
staff, embedded interagency personnel are intended to be involved at
the beginning of AFRICOM's planning process to help ensure that
AFRICOM's plans and activities are compatible and aligned with plans
and activities of other agencies. DOD will reimburse agencies for the
salaries and expenses for these personnel.
As of October 1, 2008, AFRICOM had filled 13 embedded interagency
positions with personnel from six federal agencies into the command, as
seen in table 2. These positions constitute about 1 percent of
AFRICOM's authorized headquarters staff level, which is in sharp
contrast with DOD's original concept of a command with significant
interagency involvement.
Table 2: Embedded Interagency Personnel on AFRICOM staff as of October
2008:
Agency: Department of State;
Number of Positions Filled: 2;
Position Titles for Filled Positions: Deputy to the Commander for Civil-
Military Activities;
Director for Outreach.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Number of Positions Filled: 2;
Position Titles for Filled Positions: Deputy Director for Strategy,
Plans, and Programs;
Humanitarian Assistance Branch Chief.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Number of Positions Filled: 3;
Position Titles for Filled Positions: Acting Illicit Traffic Branch
Chief;
Operations and Logistics Directorate;
Strategy, Plans, & Programs Directorate, Engagement Division.
Agency: Director for National Intelligence;
Number of Positions Filled: 3;
Position Titles for Filled Positions: Unspecified.
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Number of Positions Filled: 2;
Position Titles for Filled Positions: Treasury Terrorist Finance Policy
Advisor;
AFRICOM Liaison Specialist.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
Number of Positions Filled: 1;
Position Titles for Filled Positions: Deputy Director for Resources.
Agency: Total;
Number of Positions Filled: 13;
Position Titles for Filled Positions: [Empty].
Source: GAO from AFRICOM data.
[End of table]
Establishing AFRICOM with interagency involvement is more challenging
than establishing a command staffed only with DOD personnel because DOD
has to rely on other federal agencies to help meet its personnel needs.
Our prior work has shown that valid and reliable data about the number
of personnel required to meet an agency's needs are critical because
personnel shortfalls can threaten an organization's ability to perform
missions efficiently and effectively. To build a staff with the
necessary skills and competencies to accomplish strategic goals,
successful organizations should involve stakeholders in the workforce
planning process and conduct systematic assessments and analysis to
determine the critical skills and competencies needed to achieve
results.[Footnote 16] Involving stakeholder agencies in developing
personnel goals is important for ensuring goals are realistic and for
gaining stakeholder commitment. Getting buy-in is especially critical
in an interagency context because DOD cannot compel civilian agencies
to assign personnel to fill interagency positions in a DOD command.
Even though AFRICOM has begun integrating interagency personnel into
the command, it has not yet finalized the number of interagency
positions it will ultimately need in the command. DOD set some initial
personnel targets, but continues to revise them. Initially, DOD
conceived of a command that had about a quarter of its headquarters
staff filled with personnel from other U.S. government
agencies.[Footnote 17] After recognizing that agencies would not be
able to provide that level of personnel support, AFRICOM established a
new goal of 52 interagency positions for fiscal year 2009, which is 4
percent of its staff. Both DOD and AFRICOM officials, however, told us
that this goal will also change as they learn more about what skills
they need and what other agencies can provide. According to DOD and
AFRICOM officials, these initial goals were notional and were not based
on an analysis of specific skill sets needed to accomplish its mission.
AFRICOM's personnel goals continue to change in part because DOD did
not always involve stakeholder agencies in developing personnel
targets. As a result, personnel shortfalls in contributing agencies
were not fully taken into consideration. State officials said that the
interagency personnel goals were not evaluated or accepted by those
agencies that would be providing personnel to AFRICOM and could be
unrealistic in light of personnel shortfalls in other agencies. For
example, DOD has requested that State fill 13 mid level positions in
AFRICOM in addition to the two senior positions already filled. State
and DOD officials told us, however, that DOD had requested State input
only after the positions had been established. Moreover, State
officials told us that they would not likely be able to provide active
employees to fill the positions requested because they are already
facing a 25 percent shortfall in mid level personnel. Given these
shortfalls, State officials are considering alternatives to filling
positions, such as technological tools, as a way to engage in AFRICOM's
plans and activities without having to physically locate personnel in
the command in Stuttgart.
AFRICOM has recently begun taking steps to involve stakeholder agencies
in identifying the number of interagency positions and skill sets
needed in each position. Agencies are now sending representatives to
AFRICOM on a temporary basis to develop a better understanding of the
command and its mission, survey the need for their personnel to help
carry out AFRICOM's mission, and help determine their level of
participation and the role their personnel could play in the command.
These representatives work with the AFRICOM staff to identify the skill
sets for their agencies' personnel within the AFRICOM structure. DOD
then sends a formal request inviting the contributing agency to provide
personnel. While this process does allow other agencies to provide
input into the development of interagency positions, it does not
guarantee commitments in filling those positions. Contributing agencies
ultimately decide whether or not to provide personnel after weighing
DOD's request against their own resource priorities.
Without taking into consideration stakeholder agencies as it determines
its level of needed interagency representation, AFRICOM could develop
unrealistic personnel goals that agencies may not be able to support,
acquire skill sets that are less relevant for its mission, or be unable
to obtain commitments from agencies to provide needed skills. Our
previous work on effective workforce planning recognizes the need for
strategies to address gaps in critical skills and
competencies.[Footnote 18] If AFRICOM is not able to fill interagency
positions or lacks necessary skill sets, AFRICOM risks losing the full
benefit of the knowledge, skills, and expertise it can derive from
other federal agencies' personnel, which is the cornerstone of
interagency collaboration for the command. And even though integrating
interagency personnel is considered essential to its mission, AFRICOM
officials told us that they have not developed specific action plans to
fill needed personnel slots or alternative solutions to address the
growing likelihood of shortfalls in interagency personnel.
AFRICOM Is Taking Steps to Involve Other Agencies in Its Strategic
Planning Process:
In addition to its efforts to integrate interagency personnel into the
command, AFRICOM has also taken steps to reach out to other agencies in
developing its first theater strategy and theater campaign
plan.[Footnote 19] DOD strategic documents call for collaboration among
federal agencies to ensure that their activities are integrated and
synchronized in pursuit of common goals, and DOD guidance notes that
the quality of DOD planning can improve with early and regular
involvement from relevant U.S. government agencies. In developing its
theater campaign plan, AFRICOM is one of the first combatant commands
to employ DOD's new planning approach to involve other U.S. government
agencies at the beginning of the planning process and may result in a
better informed DOD plan for its activities in Africa.[Footnote 20] As
part of the campaign planning process, AFRICOM met with representatives
from 16 agencies in a series of workshops in the summer of 2008
designed to gain interagency input on the plan's strategic end states
and on how to align the plan with other agencies. For example,
participants noted that security cooperation activities to enhance
African military professionalism needed complementary efforts from
other agencies in law enforcement, judicial, and economic reform.
However, it is important to emphasize that the end result of this
process will be a DOD product and not reflect an overarching national
strategy or whole-of-government approach, one of many current national
security system issues that are discussed in detail in the November
2008 report by the Project on National Security Reform.[Footnote 21]
Our past work indicates that AFRICOM may encounter some challenges as
it moves forward in seeking to align its plans and activities with U.S.
government agencies. For example, DOD planning guidance acknowledges
that U.S. government agencies have their own unique approaches and
processes for planning, which may be based on different time frames and
different purposes. Our 2007 report on stability operations also noted
that a lack of understanding of planning processes and capabilities
among DOD and other federal agencies and differing planning cultures
and capacities limited the effectiveness of interagency collaboration
efforts.[Footnote 22] U.S. Joint Forces Command reported in 2007 that
military campaign planning assumes a starting point and an established
end state, which can be compatible with USAID's planning process, but
other civilian planning is continuous and seeks to achieve certain
thresholds, such as an acceptable level of criminal activity. In a 2008
report on the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership, a multi-agency
program in Africa led by the State, we found that the program lacked a
comprehensive, integrated strategy to guide the implementation of
State, USAID, and DOD activities aimed at strengthening country and
regional counterterrorism capabilities and inhibiting the spread of
extremist ideology in northwest Africa.[Footnote 23] Our work showed
that, as a result, State, USAID, and DOD developed separate plans
focused on their respective program activities. Although these plans
reflected some collaboration, such as in assessing a country's
development needs, they did not constitute an integrated approach and
may have hampered the ability of key agencies to collaboratively
implement their activities.
In addition, different agencies involved in diplomatic, development, or
defense activities can have varying strategic priorities based on their
respective agency missions, and definitions of success can vary. One
Joint Staff official said that deconflicting differing priorities among
federal agencies has been a significant challenge over the last few
years and will likely pose a challenge for AFRICOM in the future.
Furthermore, according to Joint Forces Command, restrictions exist on
how funding for many programs can be used, which can result in stove-
piped funding streams that inhibit the integration of programs and
activities into comprehensive solutions. Given the differences in
planning cultures, strategic priorities and definitions of success, the
outcome of AFRICOM's efforts to involve federal agencies in its
planning efforts and the ability of AFRICOM to align its plans and
activities with other agencies remains to be seen.
Total Costs to Establish AFRICOM Are Uncertain, and Depend on the
Location of AFRICOM's Permanent Headquarters and Supporting Offices:
DOD cannot reliably estimate AFRICOM's total future costs because
decisions on the locations of the permanent headquarters and supporting
offices in Africa have not been made. AFRICOM has already projected
that its current plans for an interim headquarters in Stuttgart,
Germany, and expanded presence in U.S. embassies in Africa could exceed
$4 billion through 2015. However, the location of AFRICOM's permanent
headquarters and its supporting offices in Africa will have a
significant effect on AFRICOM's total future costs. DOD initially
delayed decisions on its command presence after concerns arose
surrounding the location of the headquarters, the authorities under
which some supporting offices would operate, and resistance from a
number of African countries. DOD has since postponed decisions on
command locations until fiscal year 2012. Without deciding on the
locations of AFRICOM's permanent headquarters and supporting offices,
DOD will be unable to estimate the future costs of the command.
Future Costs for AFRICOM Are Unknown but Likely Significant:
AFRICOM's total future costs are still unknown but will likely be
significant and could expand dramatically once decisions are made on
the locations of AFRICOM's permanent headquarters and supporting
offices in Africa. Senior Office of the Secretary of Defense officials
stated that preparing budget estimates for future fiscal years is
difficult without a clear plan for AFRICOM's headquarters and
supporting offices because DOD will derive the assumptions it uses to
estimate future costs from such a plan.
Current cost estimates for operating AFRICOM's interim headquarters in
Stuttgart, Germany, and expanding DOD's presence in 11 U.S. embassies
in Africa already exceed $4 billion for fiscal years 2010-2015;
however, these estimates do not include potential cost for establishing
a permanent AFRICOM headquarters or its supporting offices. During this
time period, DOD projects that AFRICOM will require a total of $2.1
billion to operate its headquarters, pay for interagency personnel,
fund improvements to computer and communications systems, conduct
exercises and training for headquarters personnel, and cover operating
costs in Africa such as leases and transportation. Facilities costs are
also projected to be significant. DOD projects that improvements to
facilities used by AFRICOM personnel in Africa on a temporary basis and
Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa will total $2 billion. In
addition, AFRICOM estimates that the construction of offices and
housing for AFRICOM personnel in Africa will cost $179 million.
The infrastructure requirements for AFRICOM's interim headquarters in
Stuttgart, Germany, have already proved more costly than anticipated.
Altogether, completed and future renovations for AFRICOM's interim
headquarters are estimated at $140 million. In fiscal year 2007, DOD
spent more than $28 million to renovate facilities for AFRICOM's
interim headquarters. In fiscal year 2008, they spent an additional $62
million to continue renovating pre-World War II facilities to meet
minimum military standards, such as providing adequate ventilation and
asbestos remediation. These renovation costs were more than double the
initial cost estimates. AFRICOM is projecting future renovations in
Stuttgart will cost approximately $50 million more. AFRICOM plans to
keep its headquarters in Stuttgart at least until its permanent
location is determined in fiscal year 2012.
Other potential costs are not included in DOD's estimates. For example,
these estimates do not include constructing a joint operations fusion
center to support the headquarters and improve coordination and
collaboration among AFRICOM and key partners, which could cost $200
million or more to construct; the long term costs to meet health care,
education, and housing requirements for AFRICOM's soldiers and
families; or the costs to establish and operate AFRICOM's four service
component commands and theater special operations command which are not
included in AFRICOM's initial cost estimates because they are
considered service expenditures. These costs are expected to be
substantial, however.
DOD Postponed Decisions on the Location of AFRICOM's Permanent
Headquarters and Supporting Offices:
DOD has scaled back its initial concept for AFRICOM's headquarters and
regional presence in Africa and postponed making decisions on the
location of its permanent headquarters and supporting offices until
fiscal year 2012. Decisions about the ultimate location of AFRICOM's
permanent headquarters and its supporting offices in Africa will have a
significant impact on the command's future costs.
Originally, DOD intended to have a forward headquarters element in
Africa where the commander would be located, a rear headquarters
element outside of Africa where the bulk of the staff would be located,
5 regional offices, and an expanded presence in 11 U.S. embassies in
Africa. In addition, the military services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps,
and Air Force) and the Special Operations Command would establish
headquarters outside of Africa to provide operational and planning
support to AFRICOM. DOD's initial concept for AFRICOM is illustrated in
Appendix II. According to DOD officials, having a command presence in
Africa would provide a better understanding of the regional environment
and African needs, help build relationships with Africa partners and
regional economic communities and associated standby forces, and
promote a regional dimension to U.S. security assistance.[Footnote 24]
After encountering resistance from stakeholders on its initial concept,
AFRICOM shifted its focus to maintaining an interim headquarters in
Stuttgart, Germany, and establishing 5 new offices in U.S. embassies in
fiscal years 2008 and 2009. These offices provide in-country management
support and oversight for U.S. security assistance programs. Figure 3
illustrates DOD's near term plans for AFRICOM's command presence,
including its interim headquarters in Stuttgart, component and theater
supporting commands outside of Africa, and embassy-level offices in
Africa.
Figure 3: AFRICOM's Plans for Interim Headquarters Location and Command
Presence, as of October 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure shows AFRICOM's plans for interim headquarters location and
command presence, as of October 2008. A map of Africa is accompanied by
the following information:
Type of Presence: Headquarters;
New Term Plan for AFRICOM Presence: * Permanent headquarters location
and structure undetermined;
- Analysis of alternatives underway for a command headquarters location
outside of Africa for implementation no earlier than fiscal year 2012;
- Interim headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany to serve as its central,
main operating base through at least fiscal year 2011;
- No headquarters element located in Africa for the foreseeable future.
Type of Presence: Supporting Commands;
New Term Plan for AFRICOM Presence: * Establish headquarters for a
Theater Special Operations Command and four service component commands
(Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force);
- DOD and State are in the process of negotiating locations for these
headquarters outside of Africa.
Type of Presence: Country Level;
New Term Plan for AFRICOM Presence: * Establish 11 new offices in U.S.
embassies by fiscal year 2012;
- Three new offices approved by State for establishment in fiscal year
2008;
- DOD and State negotiating locations for the remaining 8 offices.
Existing:
Algeria:
Botswana:
Djibouti:
Ethiopia:
Ghana:
Kenya:
Liberia:
Morocco:
Nigeria:
Senegal:
South Africa:
Tunisia:
Proposed[A]
Angola:
Cameron:
Chad:
Democratic Republic of the Congo:
Gabon:
Tanzania:
Mali:
Mauritania:
Niger:
Rwanda:
Uganda:
Refer to accompanying map for further information.
Source: GAO presentation of DOD data; Copyright Corel Corp. All rights
reserved (map).
[A] AFRICOM has not confirmed whether these 11 embassies are the same
embassies in which it currently intends to establish offices, but is
still negotiating with State.
[End of figure]
AFRICOM postponed decisions on the location of AFRICOM's permanent
headquarters and supporting offices in Africa after concerns arose
among its U.S. government stakeholders and African partners. As DOD
coordinated its initial concept for a headquarters and regional offices
in Africa with the State, concerns surfaced over where AFRICOM's
headquarters element in Africa would be located and how the AFRICOM
commander and State would exercise their respective authorities.
Although State officials were involved in DOD's early planning teams
for AFRICOM, the agencies did not reach agreement on a location for
AFRICOM's proposed headquarters in Africa, and State officials voiced
concerns about DOD's regional office concept. Locating AFRICOM
headquarters and supporting offices in Africa requires an international
agreement with host nations; however, an international agreement may
not be signed or otherwise concluded on behalf of the United States
without prior consultation with the Secretary of State.[Footnote 25]
One State official who participated in the planning process described
selecting a headquarters location for AFRICOM as a contentiously
debated issue between State and DOD. In addition, DOD and State
officials said that State was not comfortable with DOD's concept of
regional offices because they would not be operating under the
ambassador's chief of mission authority and preferred DOD expand its
presence in U.S. embassies in Africa.[Footnote 26] DOD also experienced
resistance from some African nations after it announced its intention
to establish a headquarters on the continent. This resistance was the
result of concerns over greater U.S. influence in the region and a
perceived increase in U.S. military troops in the region.
DOD officials told us that after reviewing a number of alternatives the
Secretary of Defense decided in October 2008 to delay decisions
regarding AFRICOM's permanent headquarters until fiscal year 2012.
According to officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Africa, the Secretary determined that it was
more important to build relationships at this stage of the command and
that postponing the decision for three years would allow AFRICOM to
better understand its headquarters and operational requirements. Our
prior work has identified key practices that can help agencies identify
and decide between alternatives, such as those for headquarters' and
supporting offices' locations, in a manner that promotes stakeholder
buy-in, maximizes benefits, and minimizes costs given the constraints
and barriers agencies face. These practices include conducting an
analysis of potential alternatives to provide a basis for decision
makers to use in selecting feasible options that meet performance
goals. An analysis includes quantitative and qualitative estimates of
the expected tangible and intangible benefits and costs; utilizes
clearly articulated criteria, methodology, and assumptions; considers
the potential of each alternative to achieve desired performance goals;
takes into account the full cost and timeframes of implementation; and
assesses barriers and risks in implementing each alternative. For
example, infrastructure costs, effects on the effectiveness of DOD
operations, and geopolitical impact on U.S. relationships with African
partners could be taken into consideration in such an analysis.
Unless DOD understands the costs and benefits of its alternatives, sets
a long-term strategy based on that analysis, and is judicious in its
infrastructure and other investments in the meantime, the delays in
deciding AFRICOM's future locations could unnecessarily drive up
overall costs. Renovations to the interim headquarters in Stuttgart are
estimated to cost about $140 million by the time they are completed but
these interim facilities will not include state-of-the-art
capabilities, like a fusion center. Until decisions are made on the
structure and locations of AFRICOM's headquarters and supporting
offices in Africa, the total investment that the command will require
will remain unclear and will make it difficult to assess the merits of
additional investments and create uncertainty about the future of
AFRICOM.
Conclusions:
DOD established AFRICOM with many unanswered questions about what role
the command would ultimately play in helping to stabilize the African
continent. The military's large size brings the promise of increased
resources but has also created worries among some stakeholders about
potential encroachment into civilian responsibilities like development
and diplomacy. On one level, AFRICOM can be viewed as an internal
reorganization of DOD's combatant command structure to clarify lines of
authority and provide focus on Africa. Early on, however, DOD did not
effectively reach out to key stakeholders in communicating its plans
for the command and this contributes to lingering concerns today. While
DOD has taken steps to clarify AFRICOM's intended goals and mission,
AFRICOM will also need to demonstrate that its actions are consistent
with its stated mission. Given the interagency nature of the command
and its activities, AFRICOM will need to be clear in communications
with stakeholders, be consistent in message, and listen to stakeholders
in crafting a message during this period. At a broader level, AFRICOM
is viewed by many as a test bed for a new focus on interagency
collaboration in promoting stability in the region. However, AFRICOM
should not be viewed as the U.S. government's vehicle for creating an
overarching strategy for Africa or ensuring a whole-of-government
approach to the region.
This report addresses three challenges that could affect the ultimate
success of AFRICOM. First, DOD has not yet fully allayed concerns about
the command's role and mission both inside the U.S. government and with
potential African partners. Second, AFRICOM has not yet determined how
many personnel it needs from other U.S. government agencies or what
functions they will perform, and interagency planning processes are
still immature. Third, DOD has not yet decided the locations for
AFRICOM's permanent headquarters and presence on the continent, or
agreed upon criteria with stakeholders for making such decisions,
leaving considerable uncertainty about future costs at a time when
defense budgets are projected to become increasingly constrained. DOD
and AFRICOM are working to address these challenges but it is unclear
when their efforts will be completed. Unless these challenges are
addressed, the effectiveness of the command may suffer and costs are
likely to escalate.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To establish a more effective means to communicate with all
stakeholders, clarify perceptions and create shared expectations of
what stakeholders can realistically expect from AFRICOM; and to address
personnel resource constraints of agencies that are intended to fill
interagency positions in the command, we recommend the Secretary of
Defense direct the Commander, U.S. Africa Command to take the following
two actions:
* Include all appropriate audiences, encourage two-way communication,
and ensure consistency of message related to AFRICOM's mission and
goals as it develops and implements its communications strategy.
* Seek formal commitments from contributing agencies to provide
personnel as part of the command's efforts to determine interagency
personnel requirements, and develop alternative ways for AFRICOM to
obtain interagency perspectives in the event that interagency personnel
cannot be provided due to resource limitations.
To determine the long-term fiscal investment for AFRICOM's
infrastructure, we recommend the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, as appropriate, conduct an assessment of
possible locations for AFRICOM's permanent headquarters and any
supporting offices in Africa that:
* is based on transparent criteria, methodology, and assumptions,
* includes the full cost and time-frames to construct and support
proposed locations,
* evaluates how each location will contribute to AFRICOM's mission
consistent with the criteria and methodology of the study,
* considers geopolitical and operational risks and barriers in
implementing each alternative, and:
* limits expenditures on temporary AFRICOM infrastructure until
decisions are made on the long-term locations for the command.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report DOD partially agreed with
each of our three recommendations, stating that in some cases, actions
were already underway that would address the issues identified in this
report. State did not provide written comments on our report. In its
written comments, USAID affirmed its support for AFRICOM and stated
that it had met its personnel requirements in support of AFRICOM. DOD
and USAID's written comments appear in their entirety in appendix III.
Regarding our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct the
Commander, U.S. Africa Command to develop a comprehensive
communications strategy that includes all appropriate audiences,
encourages two-way communication, and ensures consistency of message
related to AFRICOM's mission and goals, DOD partially agreed and stated
that AFRICOM has already been directed, through existing guidance, to
develop a comprehensive communications strategy and therefore
additional direction is not necessary. DOD noted that, subsequent to
our draft report, AFRICOM has developed a Strategic Communications
Roadmap and Instruction guidance and a strategic communications annex
to its Theater Campaign Plan that is under development. DOD's response
also indicated that these documents had not yet been released but did
not provide any detail about the content of these documents or the
extent to which they address the specific elements outlined in our
recommendation. Therefore, until they are completed and released, we
have no basis for determining whether they will address the issues
raised in our report or the intent of our recommendation. We believe
our recommendation is still warranted, but we modified it to emphasize
that DOD's communications strategy that is currently being developed
should include all appropriate audiences; encourage two-way
communication; and ensure consistency of message related to AFRICOM's
mission and goals.
In response to our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense direct
the Commander, AFRICOM, as it develops its interagency personnel
requirements, to develop an action plan with contributing agencies to
fill agreed-upon interagency positions and, as necessary, develop
alternative approaches to obtain perspectives and expertise from other
U.S. government stakeholders to mitigate any interagency personnel
shortfalls, DOD partially agreed and stated that AFRICOM has been
working with all potential contributing agencies to fill identified
positions, and therefore an action plan is not needed. To address
potential shortfalls in contributing agencies' ability to fill
positions, DOD commented that the command has directed two of its
directorates to work on such issues as they arise. As stated in our
report, we acknowledge that AFRICOM has involved other agencies in
identifying interagency requirements and is refining its processes for
determining interagency goals for the command. However, we also point
out that AFRICOM's approach does not guarantee a commitment from
contributing agencies to fill identified positions, and significant
personnel shortfalls exist in some agencies such as State which can
limit their contributions to AFRICOM's personnel requirements. DOD's
response provides little information as to how the department will
obtain specific commitments from other agencies for meeting interagency
personnel requirements or outline alternative ways for AFRICOM to
obtain interagency perspectives. We continue to believe a more formal
approach is needed to achieve these objectives and have modified our
recommendation to more clearly reflect our position.
DOD partially agreed with our recommendation that the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, conduct an
assessment of possible locations for AFRICOM's permanent headquarters
and any supporting offices in Africa that (1) is based on transparent
criteria, methodology, and assumptions; (2) includes the full cost and
time-frames to construct and support proposed locations; (3) evaluates
how each location will contribute to AFRICOM's mission consistent with
the criteria and methodology of the study; (4) considers geopolitical
and operational risks and barriers in implementing each alternative;
and (5) limits expenditures on temporary AFRICOM infrastructure until
decisions are made on the long-term locations for the command. In its
comments, DOD stated that it plans to use those broader criteria in its
decision. However, DOD comments did not address how its plans to limit
expenditures on temporary AFRICOM infrastructure until long term
decisions are made. Given the significant and growing costs associated
with AFRICOM's temporary stationing and DOD's intent to apply the
elements listed in the recommendation in future decisions for the
command's headquarters and supporting offices in Africa, we believe
that our recommendation is still warranted.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from the issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense;
the Secretary of State; the Administrator, United States Agency for
International Development; and the Director, Office of Management and
Budget. The report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-3489 or at pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to
this report are listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Pendleton Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To assess DOD's efforts to establish the United States Africa Command
(AFRICOM) and address stakeholder concerns, we reviewed a wide range of
Department of Defense (DOD) and command documentation including AFRICOM
guidance, plans, directives, speeches and testimony statements, and
reports; implementation plans and directives for creating its new
mission organizations; and documentation related to DOD's efforts to
create the new command. We also spoke with various officials involved
in the command's implementation efforts about their roles, related
plans, and actions. When possible, we met with the command and other
organizations' senior leadership to discuss and obtain their views on
various command issues. Specifically within DOD, we interviewed
officials at the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy,
Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, Undersecretary of Defense
Comptroller; the Joint Staff; the Services; two Geographic Combatant
Commands (European Command and Africa Command); and U.S. Joint Forces
Command. We also interviewed officials at the Department of State's
Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Bureau of African Affairs, and
the Office of Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication, as well as
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to
obtain other agencies' perspectives regarding DOD's process of
establishing the command and the inclusion of non-DOD perspectives in
establishing of the command. In these interviews, we reviewed relevant
information and discussed implementing guidance for establishing the
command and the range of stakeholder concerns, the interviewees'
understanding of their roles and responsibilities in establishing the
command, progress in establishing the command, and challenges that have
been encountered. To gain an understanding of African perspectives, we
interviewed U.S. government agencies that worked with representatives
of African governments on issues related to AFRICOM. Finally, we
interviewed InterAction, an organization that represents U.S.-based
international governmental organizations on these organizations
perspectives on AFRICOM's mission and goals.
To assess the extent to which AFRICOM has taken steps to improve
interagency collaboration, we obtained information on its plans and
goals for integrating personnel from other U.S. government agencies and
on its efforts to align its plans and activities with other federal
agencies. We interviewed officials from DOD, the Department of State,
and USAID. Within DOD, we spoke with officials from the AFRICOM
transition team, the U.S. Africa and Joint Forces Command, the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the Joint Staff.
During these interviews, we obtained information on AFRICOM's initial
and current interagency personnel targets; the process for identifying
positions and requesting personnel from other agencies, including
memorandums of agreement and position descriptions; personnel systems;
and host nation agreements. We also received documentation on Joint
Forces Command's interagency mission analysis, including preliminary
reports, and on AFRICOM's Theater Campaign Plan, including briefings,
guidance, and workshop proceedings. During interviews with the
Department of State and USAID, we discussed their personnel resource
shortfalls and their roles in providing input to AFRICOM's interagency
personnel goals, its plans and activities, and Joint Forces Command's
interagency mission analysis.
To assess DOD's plans to establish a permanent headquarters and
supporting offices in Africa, we obtained information related to the
initial and current plans for AFRICOM's presence in Africa, including
DOD implementation guidance, planning documents, budget proposals, and
facility renovation plans. We also interviewed officials from DOD, the
Department of State, and InterAction, an organization representing U.S.-
based international nongovernmental organizations. Within DOD, we
interviewed officials from the AFRICOM transition team; the U.S.
European and Africa Commands; the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, Undersecretary of Defense
Comptroller, and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; the Joint Staff;
and the U.S. Army Installation Management Command. During these
interviews, we received information on the status of DOD's
determination of an initial and future command headquarters location,
locations for its components' headquarters and its determination of a
presence in Africa. We also discussed its process for making these
determinations, its plans for their implementation, their anticipated
budget implications, and feedback DOD has received from stakeholders.
During interviews with the Department of State officials we discussed
the agency's involvement in the determination of AFRICOM's command
locations, its role in negotiating an AFRICOM presence outside of the
United States, and its views on various alternatives for AFRICOM's
command presence. Finally, we interviewed InterAction, and during those
interviews we discussed the positions of nongovernmental organizations
on AFRICOM's presence in Africa and relevant feedback these
organizations have received from representatives of African nations. We
did not, however, consult directly with representatives of African
nations to elicit their views on AFRICOM's command presence in Africa.
[End of section]
Appendix II: DOD's Initial Concept for Headquarters Location and
Command Locations in Africa:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure shows DOD's initial concept for headquarters location and
command locations in Africa.
Type of Presence: Headquarters;
New Term Plan for AFRICOM Presence: * Permanent headquarters location
and structure undetermined;
- Analysis of alternatives underway for a command headquarters location
outside of Africa for implementation no earlier than fiscal year 2012;
- Interim headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany to serve as its central,
main operating base through at least fiscal year 2011;
- No headquarters element located in Africa for the foreseeable future.
Type of Presence: Supporting Commands;
New Term Plan for AFRICOM Presence: * Establish headquarters for a
Theater Special Operations Command and four service component commands
(Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force);
- DOD and State are in the process of negotiating locations for these
headquarters outside of Africa.
Type of Presence: Country Level;
New Term Plan for AFRICOM Presence: * Establish 11 new offices in U.S.
embassies by fiscal year 2012;
- Three new offices approved by State for establishment in fiscal year
2008;
- DOD and State negotiating locations for the remaining 8 offices.
Existing:
Algeria:
Botswana:
Djibouti:
Ethiopia:
Ghana:
Kenya:
Liberia:
Morocco:
Nigeria:
Senegal:
South Africa:
Tunisia:
New:
Angola:
Cameron:
Chad:
Democratic Republic of the Congo:
Gabon:
Tanzania:
Mali:
Mauritania:
Niger:
Rwanda:
Uganda:
Refer to accompanying map for further information.
Source: GAO presentation of DOD data; Copyright Corel Corp. All rights
reserved (map).
[A] AFRICOM has not confirmed whether these 11 embassies are the same
embassies in which it currently intends to establish offices, but is
still negotiating with State.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Assistant Secretary Of Defense:
2400 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-2400:
International Security Affairs:
January 1, 2009:
Mr. John H. Pendleton:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Pendleton:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report GAO-09-181, "Defense Management: Actions Needed to Address
Stakeholder Concerns, Improve Interagency Collaboration, and Determine
Full Costs Associated with the U.S. Africa Command," (GAO Code
351071/GAO-09-181).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide you the information you
requested. Our detailed response is attached.
Please contact us if we can provide any additional information.
My point of contact on this issue is Mr. Dan Pike at (703) 614-0421 or
electronic mail address: dan.pike@osd.mil.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Theresa Whelan:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs:
Attachment:
As stated:
GAO Draft Report ” Dated December 23, 2008 GAO Code 351071/GAO-09-181:
"Defense Management: Actions Needed to Address Stakeholder Concerns,
Improve Interagency Collaboration, and Determine Full Costs Associated
with the U.S. Africa Command"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations:
Recommendation: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct
the Commander, U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) to develop a
comprehensive communications strategy that includes all appropriate
audiences, encourages two-way communication, and ensures consistency of
message related to AFRICOM's mission and goals.
DOD Response: Partially concur ” The Secretary of Defense directed
USAFRICOM in the Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF, Page 37)
dated May 1, 2008 to develop a comprehensive communications strategy.
Therefore, this recommendation for the Secretary of Defense to re-
direct the commander is not necessary. Subsequent to the GAO request
for information, USAFRICOM has developed a Strategic Communications
(SC) Roadmap and Instruction guidance as well as appropriate SC annexes
for USAFRICOM's Theater Campaign Plan, which is currently being staffed
and will be released upon the commander's approval.
Recommendation 2: As U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) develops its
interagency personnel requirements, we recommend that the Secretary of
Defense direct USAFRICOM to also develop an action plan with
contributing agencies to fill agreed-upon interagency positions and, as
necessary, develop alternative approaches to obtain perspectives and
expertise from other U.S. government stakeholders to mitigate any
interagency personnel shortfalls.
DOD Response: Partially concur - USAFRICOM, in line with OSD guidance,
has been working with all potential contributing agencies to continue
plan development to fill those positions as stated in the
recommendation. Therefore there is no need for the Secretary of Defense
to direct USAFRICOM to develop an action plan. As for developing
alternative approaches to mitigate agency shortfalls, USAFRICOM has
directed two of its directorates (Outreach and Resource) to work such
issues as they arise. This includes working with inter- agency partners
when identifying personnel shortfalls.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, conduct an assessment of
possible locations for U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) permanent
headquarters and any supporting offices in Africa that:
* is based on transparent criteria, methodology, and assumptions:
* includes the full cost and timeframes to construct and support
proposed locations;
* evaluates how each location will contribute to USAFRICOM's mission
consistent with the criteria and methodology of the study;
* considers geopolitical and operational risks and barriers in
implementing each alternative, and;
* limits expenditures on temporary USAFRICOM infrastructure until
decisions are made on the long-term locations for the Command.
DOD Response: Partially concur – DoD has been in consultations with the
Department of State on potential USAFRICOM locations in Africa since
November 2006 using similar criteria. When DoD takes up this issue for
re-evaluation in 2011, DOD should, in collaboration with the Department
of State, use this broader criteria to identify possible overseas
locations as the permanent headquarters location in Africa. The
decision, however, on USAFRICOM's permanent headquarters location
resides with the Secretary of Defense.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development:
USAID:
From The American People:
January 27, 2009:
John Pendleton:
Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Pendleton:
I am pleased to provide the U.S. Agency for International Development's
(USAID) formal response on the draft GAO report entitled Defense
Management: Actions Needed to Address Stakeholder Concerns, Improve
Interagency Collaboration, and Determine Full Costs Associated with the
U.S. Africa Command (GAO-09-181). USAID has been supportive of Africa
Command from its inception by providing initial and sustained planning
assistance in determining the Command's mission and development
personnel requirements. We are also pleased to report that USAID has
met its personnel requirement for Africa Command. We look forward to a
continued partnership with Africa Command as it addresses military to
military requirements for a more secure Africa.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this
review.
Sincerely,
Drew Luten:
Acting Assistant Administrator:
Bureau for Management:
U.S. Agency for International Development:
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW:
Washington, DC 20523:
[hyperlink, http://wmw.usaid.gov]
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John H. Pendleton, (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Robert L. Repasky, Assistant
Director; Tim Burke; Leigh Caraher; Taylor Matheson; Amber Simco; Grace
Coleman; Ron La Due Lake and Lonnie McAllister made key contributions
to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Enhance Implementation of Trans-
Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership. GAO-08-860. Washington, D.C.: July
31, 2008.
Force Structure: Preliminary Observations on the Progress and
Challenges Associated with Establishing the U.S. Africa Command.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-947T]. Washington,
D.C.: July 15, 2008.
Stabilization and Reconstruction: Actions Are Needed to Develop a
Planning and Coordination Framework and Establish the Civilian Reserve
Corps. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-39].
Washington, D.C.: November 6, 2007.
Stabilization and Reconstruction: Actions Needed to Improve
Governmentwide Planning and Capabilities for Future Operations.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-228T]. Washington,
D.C.: October 30, 2007.
Military Operations: Actions Needed to Improve DOD's Stability
Operations Approach and Enhance Interagency Planning. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-549]. Washington, D.C.: May
31, 2007.
Combating Terrorism: Improved Training and Guidance Needed to More
Effectively Address Host Nation Support and Enhance DOD's Force
Protection Efforts. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
07-200NI]. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2007.
Defense Management: Comprehensive Strategy and Annual Reporting Are
Needed to Measure Progress and Costs of DOD's Global Posture
Restructuring. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-
852]. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2006.
Military Transformation: Additional Actions Needed by U.S. Strategic
Command to Strengthen Implementation of Its Many Missions and
Organization. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-
847]. Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2006.
Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and
Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15]. Washington, D.C.: October
21, 2005.
21st Century Challenges: Transforming Government to Meet Current and
Emerging Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
05-830T]. Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2005.
Military Transformation: Clear Leadership, Accountability, and
Management Tools Are Needed to Enhance DOD's Efforts to Transform
Military Capabilities. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-05-70]. Washington, D.C.: December 16, 2004.
Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce
Planning. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-39].
Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003.
Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and
Organizational Transformations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-03-669]. Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003.
Overseas Presence: More Data and Analysis Needed to Determine Whether
Cost-Effective Alternatives Exist. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/NSIAD-97-133]. Washington, D.C.: June 3, 1997.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] A security cooperation activity is defined as military activity
that involves other nations and is 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.
[2] GAO, Force Structure: Preliminary Observations on the Progress and
Challenges Associated with Establishing the U.S. Africa Command,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-947T] (Washington, D.C.:
July 15, 2008).
[3] AFRICOM's initial interagency personnel goal was based on a
headquarters size of 500-600 personnel; therefore, one quarter would be
approximately 125 people.
[4] 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; U.S. Marine Forces, Africa; U.S. Air Forces
Africa Command; and Special Operations Command, Africa.
[5] 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 memorandum of
agreement.
[6] DOD Directive 3000.05, Military Support for Stabilization,
Security, Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations (Washington,
D.C. November. 28, 2005).
[7] Joint Publication 1-02, DOD's Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms (Washington, D.C. September. 2008).
[8] Guidance for Employment of the Force (May 2008), Joint Publication
3-0, Joint Operations (Washington, D.C. September. 2006), and Joint
Publication 5-0, Joint Operation Planning (Washington, D.C.: December.
2006).
[9] GAO, Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Enhance Implementation
of Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-860] (Washington, D.C.:
July 31, 2008).
[10] The Horn of Africa countries include Kenya, Somalia, Sudan,
Seychelles, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Yemen. 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.
[11] 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.
[12] The staff for these component commands are in addition to the
staff the military departments are providing for the headquarters. For
example, in fiscal year 2009, Department of Army is providing 260
personnel for AFRICOM headquarters and approximately 400 personnel to
staff its component command to support AFRICOM.
[13] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669] (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).
[14] DOD defines strategic communication as focused U.S. government
efforts to understand and engage key audiences in order to create,
strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of
U.S. government interests, policies, and objectives through the use of
coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and products
synchronized with the actions of all instruments of national power.
Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations (Washington, D.C. September.
2006).
[15] AFRICOM also has several non-DOD personnel in non reimbursable
liaison positions, such as the Foreign Policy Advisor and the
Humanitarian Assistance Advisor.
[16] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Workforce
Planning, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39]
(Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003).
[17] AFRICOM's initial interagency personnel goal was based on a
headquarters size of 500-600 personnel; therefore, one quarter would be
approximately 125 people.
[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39].
[19] A theater strategy outlines concepts and courses of action for
achieving the objectives established in national policies and
strategies through the synchronized and integrated use of military
forces and other instruments of national power. See Joint Publication 1-
02. A theater campaign plan encompasses the activities of a geographic
combatant command and translates national or theater strategy into
operational concepts and those concepts into unified action. See Joint
Publications 1-02 and 5-0.
[20] DOD planning guidance provides for a process that enables
combatant commands to attain headquarters level involvement of other
departments and agencies in DOD campaign and contingency plans. AFRICOM
is one of two combatant commands that will be the prototype test cases
for campaign planning. Guidance for Employment of the Force (May 2008).
[21] Project on National Security Reform, Forging A New Shield,
(Arlington, VA: Nov 26, 2008)
[22] GAO, Military Operations: Actions Needed to Improve DOD's
Stability Operations Approach and Enhance Interagency Planning,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-549] (Washington, D.C.:
May 2007).
[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-860].
[24] Africa has 5 regional economic communities, which are the Arab
Magreb Union in the north, the Economic Community of West African
States, the Economic Community of Central African States, the Inter-
Governmental Authority on Development in the east, and the Southern
African Development Community. The African Union, a continent-wide
intergovernmental organization, established the African Standby Force,
which has 5 regional brigades corresponding to each of the regional
economic communities. The African Standby Force is intended to conduct
peacekeeping operations.
[25] 1 U.S.C. § 112b(c).
[26] A Chief of Mission is the principal officer, usually the
ambassador, in charge of a U.S. diplomatic mission abroad, and has full
responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of all
U.S. government executive branch employees in that country. See 22
U.S.C. § 3927.
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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
