Military Training
Actions Needed to Improve Planning and Coordination of Army and Marine Corps Language and Culture Training Gao ID: GAO-11-456 May 26, 2011Today, and in the foreseeable future, military operations require U.S. personnel, in particular Army and Marine Corps ground forces, to communicate and interact with multinational partners and local populations. The committee report accompanying a proposed bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 directed GAO to review several issues related to language and culture training for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces. For this report, GAO evaluated (1) the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps had developed strategies with elements such as goals, funding priorities, and metrics to guide training approaches and investments that were aligned with Department of Defense (DOD) planning efforts and (2) DOD's approach for identifying training requirements for Army and Marine Corps forces that will deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. To do so, GAO analyzed Army and Marine Corps strategies and training requirements and interviewed cognizant officials.
The Army and Marine Corps developed service-specific language and culture strategies, but did not include some key elements to guide their training approaches and investments, and DOD-wide efforts to establish a planning process that could better align service training approaches are incomplete. The Army and Marine Corps developed broad goals and objectives within their strategies and identified some training programs and activities tied to these goals. However, the services did not always identify priorities and the investments needed to implement the training or a set of results-oriented performance metrics to assess the contributions that training programs have made collectively, which GAO and DOD have recognized can help ensure training investments are making progress toward achieving program goals and objectives. GAO found that the Army and Marine Corps did not complete underlying analyses and assign responsibilities for program performance prior to designing and implementing their strategies and associated training programs. DOD has taken steps to develop a strategic planning process to align service training approaches. For example, in February 2011, DOD published a strategic plan for language skills and cultural capabilities that outlines a broad departmentwide planning process. However, DOD has not yet set up internal mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones, by which it can reach consensus with the military services on priorities and investments. Without a clearly defined planning process, DOD does not have the tools it needs to set strategic direction for language and culture training efforts, fully align departmentwide efforts to develop plans and budget requests that reflect its priorities, and measure progress in implementing various initiatives. DOD components identified varying language and culture training requirements for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces that will deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, but the Command did not use a comprehensive process to synchronize these requirements. GAO surveyed 15 documents issued since June 2008 and found several variances with respect to the language to be trained and the type and duration of training. For example, in July 2010 the Army required that all forces deploying to either Afghanistan or Iraq complete a 4- to 6-hour online training program for language and culture. In September 2010, a senior Marine Corps commander directed that ground units preparing for Afghanistan deployments complete a 2-day culture course. Army and Marine Corps officials noted that training requirements changed constantly and this led to some confusion in developing training programs as well as considerable time and resources that were spent adjusting training. GAO found that contrary to DOD guidance, U.S. Central Command had not yet established a comprehensive process to approve training requirements and coordinate them with key stakeholders to ensure alignment with DOD guidance and obtain feedback on service training approaches. Without a comprehensive process, U.S. Central Command will not have a mechanism to identify and synchronize training for current and future operations, which may result in deploying forces that receive training that is inconsistent and may not meet operational needs. GAO recommends that the Army and Marine Corps assign responsibilities for program performance, and identify training investments and metrics; DOD establish a defined planning process with internal mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones, to align training efforts; and U.S. Central Command establish a process to identify and synchronize training requirements. DOD generally agreed with the recommendations.
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: Sharon L. Pickup Team: Government Accountability Office: Defense Capabilities and Management Phone: (202) 512-9619GAO-11-456, Military Training: Actions Needed to Improve Planning and Coordination of Army and Marine Corps Language and Culture Training
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-456
entitled 'Military Training: Actions Needed to Improve Planning and
Coordination of Army and Marine Corps Language and Culture Training'
which was released on May 26, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
May 2011:
Military Training:
Actions Needed to Improve Planning and Coordination of Army and Marine
Corps Language and Culture Training:
GAO-11-456:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-456, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Today, and in the foreseeable future, military operations require U.S.
personnel, in particular Army and Marine Corps ground forces, to
communicate and interact with multinational partners and local
populations. The committee report accompanying a proposed bill for the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 directed GAO
to review several issues related to language and culture training for
Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces. For this report, GAO
evaluated (1) the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps had
developed strategies with elements such as goals, funding priorities,
and metrics to guide training approaches and investments that were
aligned with Department of Defense (DOD) planning efforts and (2) DOD‘
s approach for identifying training requirements for Army and Marine
Corps forces that will deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of
responsibility. To do so, GAO analyzed Army and Marine Corps
strategies and training requirements and interviewed cognizant
officials.
What GAO Found:
The Army and Marine Corps developed service-specific language and
culture strategies, but did not include some key elements to guide
their training approaches and investments, and DOD-wide efforts to
establish a planning process that could better align service training
approaches are incomplete. The Army and Marine Corps developed broad
goals and objectives within their strategies and identified some
training programs and activities tied to these goals. However, the
services did not always identify priorities and the investments needed
to implement the training or a set of results-oriented performance
metrics to assess the contributions that training programs have made
collectively, which GAO and DOD have recognized can help ensure
training investments are making progress toward achieving program
goals and objectives. GAO found that the Army and Marine Corps did not
complete underlying analyses and assign responsibilities for program
performance prior to designing and implementing their strategies and
associated training programs. DOD has taken steps to develop a
strategic planning process to align service training approaches. For
example, in February 2011, DOD published a strategic plan for language
skills and cultural capabilities that outlines a broad departmentwide
planning process. However, DOD has not yet set up internal mechanisms,
such as procedures and milestones, by which it can reach consensus
with the military services on priorities and investments. Without a
clearly defined planning process, DOD does not have the tools it needs
to set strategic direction for language and culture training efforts,
fully align departmentwide efforts to develop plans and budget
requests that reflect its priorities, and measure progress in
implementing various initiatives.
DOD components identified varying language and culture training
requirements for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces that
will deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, but
the Command did not use a comprehensive process to synchronize these
requirements. GAO surveyed 15 documents issued since June 2008 and
found several variances with respect to the language to be trained and
the type and duration of training. For example, in July 2010 the Army
required that all forces deploying to either Afghanistan or Iraq
complete a 4- to 6-hour online training program for language and
culture. In September 2010, a senior Marine Corps commander directed
that ground units preparing for Afghanistan deployments complete a 2-
day culture course. Army and Marine Corps officials noted that
training requirements changed constantly and this led to some
confusion in developing training programs as well as considerable time
and resources that were spent adjusting training. GAO found that
contrary to DOD guidance, U.S. Central Command had not yet established
a comprehensive process to approve training requirements and
coordinate them with key stakeholders to ensure alignment with DOD
guidance and obtain feedback on service training approaches. Without a
comprehensive process, U.S. Central Command will not have a mechanism
to identify and synchronize training for current and future
operations, which may result in deploying forces that receive training
that is inconsistent and may not meet operational needs.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Army and Marine Corps assign responsibilities
for program performance, and identify training investments and
metrics; DOD establish a defined planning process with internal
mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones, to align training
efforts; and U.S. Central Command establish a process to identify and
synchronize training requirements. DOD generally agreed with the
recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-456] or key
components. For more information, contact Sharon Pickup at (202) 512-
9619 or pickups@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Army and Marine Corps Developed Language and Culture Strategies, but
Did Not Include Some Key Elements and Departmentwide Efforts to
Establish a Planning Process Are Incomplete:
U.S. Central Command Did Not Synchronize Varying Language and Culture
Training Requirements for Army and Marine Corps General Purpose Forces:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Examples of Language and Culture Predeployment Training
Requirements for General Purpose Forces Deploying to the U.S. Central
Command Area of Responsibility:
Figures:
Figure 1: Selected DOD, Army, and Marine Corps Documents that
Addressed the Need for Improved Language and Culture Skills:
Figure 2: Soldiers Participating in Training at Fort Carson Language
Training Site:
Abbreviation:
DOD: Department of Defense:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 26, 2011:
Congressional Committees:
Today, and in the foreseeable future, military operations require U.S.
personnel to communicate and interact with multinational partners and
local populations. Referring both to the long-term efforts to prepare
military forces for future conflicts and the near-term needs of
current operations, the Department of Defense (DOD) emphasized in the
2010 Quadrennial Defense Review the importance of developing the
language and culture skills of the military and civilian workforce.
DOD concluded that U.S. forces would be able to perform their missions
more effectively with more and better key enabling capabilities,
including language expertise. On the basis of their operational
experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, ground commanders have expressed
the importance of language and culture skills for general purpose
forces in counterinsurgency and stability operations, stressing, for
example, that language training is as important as marksmanship and
other key training. Reinforcing the importance of language and culture
skills, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness issued guidance in December 2010 setting out DOD policy that
training and personnel processes and programs should be aligned to
prepare deploying units, leaders, and staffs with the language and
cultural knowledge and skills, commensurate with their duties, needed
for the successful conduct of counterinsurgency operations.[Footnote
1] The Army and Marine Corps have taken a variety of steps to develop
language and culture skills for general purpose forces, including the
issuance of servicewide strategies, and implementing predeployment
training programs to address the needs of current operations.
Since 2009, we have made recommendations to address a number of
challenges the department faces in developing language and culture
skills in the military. For example, in June 2009, we recommended that
DOD develop a strategic plan that includes measurable performance
goals and objectives and investment priorities and a validated
methodology for identifying language and regional proficiency
requirements, which includes cultural awareness.[Footnote 2]In June
2010, we testified before the House Armed Services Committee,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to provide an update on
DOD's progress in implementing recommendations from our June 2009
report.[Footnote 3] At that time, we noted that DOD had not yet
produced a comprehensive strategic plan to synchronize language and
culture transformation efforts and that the department did not have
complete language and culture requirements data needed to properly
assess capability gaps and associated risks. In February 2011, DOD
published the Department of Defense Strategic Plan for Language
Skills, Regional Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011-2016)
noting that a more detailed implementation plan would be issued
separately with elements such as action plans that detail specific
tasks to be accomplished and performance measures.
The committee report accompanying a proposed bill for the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136) directed us
to review a number of issues related to language and culture training
for the Army's and Marine Corps' respective general purpose forces.
[Footnote 4] For this report, we evaluated (1) the extent to which the
Army and Marine Corps had developed language and culture strategies
with key elements, such as goals, funding priorities, and metrics to
guide training approaches and investments that were aligned with
departmentwide planning efforts; and (2) DOD's approach for
identifying language and culture training requirements for Army and
Marine Corps general purpose forces that will deploy to the U.S.
Central Command area of responsibility. We will report separately at a
later date on other issues related to the House report, including
steps the Army and Marine Corps are taking to incorporate language and
culture in training and personnel processes.
For the first objective, we focused on the Army's and Marine Corps'
general purpose forces. Therefore, excluded from this review were
training programs for language and regional experts (e.g., foreign
area officers and intelligence specialists), special operations
forces, and service efforts (e.g., human terrain teams) to provide
culture experts to deployed forces.[Footnote 5] We examined the Army
Culture and Foreign Language Strategy and the Marine Corps Language,
Regional and Culture Strategy: 2011-2015[Footnote 6] and training
documents to determine training priorities and metrics that have been
used to measure progress in meeting service and DOD capability needs.
We reviewed these documents in the context of our prior work, DOD
budget documents, and service guidance[Footnote 7] to determine the
extent to which the Army and Marine Corps developed strategies that
identified key elements, such as goals and objectives, training
programs and priorities, resource requirements, and approaches for
measuring progress, including results-oriented performance metrics. We
also reviewed Army and Marine Corps funding data associated with the
implementation of the two services' respective language and culture
strategies for fiscal years 2009 through 2012. To corroborate our
understanding of the documents provided, we conducted interviews with
officials responsible for developing the Army's and Marine Corps'
respective language and culture strategies and related training
programs, as well as with Office of the Secretary of Defense officials
responsible for providing strategic direction and programmatic
oversight of the department's language and culture programs. We also
discussed the content and status of ongoing departmental efforts that
are intended to further align language and culture training approaches
with officials representing the Office of the Secretary of Defense and
the Joint Staff.
For the second objective, we focused on training requirements for the
Army's and Marine Corps' respective general purpose forces that are
preparing for deployments in the U.S. Central Command area of
responsibility. We reviewed statutory provisions, including certain
sections of Title 10 of the U.S. Code and related DOD guidance that
characterize the training roles and responsibilities of combatant
commanders and the military services.[Footnote 8] We examined Office
of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Forces
Afghanistan, and Army and Marine Corps documents published from 2008
to 2011 and identified specific language and culture training
requirements. To corroborate our understanding of the documents
provided, we conducted interviews with officials representing the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Forces
Afghanistan, and Army and Marine Corps force provider and training
commands to discuss the processes they use to identify language and
culture requirements for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces
that will deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility
and steps taken to synchronize service predeployment training so that
it addresses operational needs. We assessed these efforts in light of
a DOD strategic plan that describes the importance of establishing a
robust training requirements identification process and synchronizing
service training programs with combatant commander requirements.
[Footnote 9]
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 to May 2011 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. A more
detailed discussion of our scope and methodology can be found in
appendix I.
Background:
DOD, the Army, and the Marine Corps have emphasized the need for
improved language and culture skills in strategic guidance and are
implementing training and education programs to begin to address these
needs.
DOD and Service-Level Guidance on Building Language and Culture Skills:
Before September 11, 2001, DOD generally focused efforts to build
language and culture capabilities on its professional communities.
[Footnote 10] As military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have
continued, DOD has broadened this focus to the general purpose forces.
In figure 1, we show that in departmentwide and service-level
documents issued since 2005, DOD and the Army and Marine Corps
addressed the need for improved language and culture skills.
Figure 1: Selected DOD, Army, and Marine Corps Documents that
Addressed the Need for Improved Language and Culture Skills:
[Refer to PDF for image: time line]
2005:
Defense Language Transformation Roadmap;
DOD Directive 5160.41E on the Defense Language Program.
2006:
2006 Quadrennial Defense Review.
2007:
DOD Instruction 5160.70 on the Management of DOD Language and
Regional Proficiency Capabilities.
2008:
Marine Corps Vision and Strategy 2025.
2009:
Army Culture and Foreign Language Strategy;
Army Regulation 350-1 on Army Training and Leader
Development.
2010:
2010 Quadrennial Defense Review;
Under Secretary of Defense Directive Type Memorandum 11-002 on
Counterinsurgency (COIN) Training and Reporting Guidance for
Preparing U.S. Forces to Succeed in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
2011:
Marine Corps Language, Regional, and Culture Strategy 2011-2015;
DOD Strategic Plan for Language Skills, Regional Expertise and Cultural
Capabilities.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.
[End of figure]
Roles and Responsibilities for Language and Culture Training:
The responsibilities within DOD for identifying, developing, and
maintaining language and culture capabilities are shared among several
components, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
combatant commanders, and the military services. The Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provides
overall policy guidance for the defense language program and is also
responsible for reviewing the policies, plans, and programs of the DOD
components to ensure that foreign language and regional proficiency
needs are adequately addressed.
DOD has designated Senior Language Authorities within the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, the military services, and other DOD
components, and established a governance structure for DOD's language
and culture programs, which consists of a number of entities,
including the following:
* Defense Language Office: provides strategic direction and
programmatic oversight to the DOD components, including the services
and combatant commands, on present and future requirements related to
language as well as regional and cultural proficiency. The Director of
the Defense Language Office, within the Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, has been designated as the DOD
Senior Language Authority.
* Defense Language Steering Committee: comprised of Senior Language
Authorities from the military services and other DOD organizations and
chaired by the DOD Senior Language Authority, the committee provides
senior-level guidance regarding the development of DOD's language
capabilities.[Footnote 11]
* Defense Language Action Panel: comprised of less-senior
representatives from the same entities represented on the Defense
Language Steering Committee, the panel supports the activities,
functions, and responsibilities of the Defense Language Steering
Committee.
Combatant commanders, such as the Commander of U.S. Central Command,
are responsible for identifying foreign language and culture
requirements in support of operations in their geographic areas of
responsibility. In some cases, battlefield commanders, such as the
Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, may publish guidance and
other documents that specify training tasks that should be completed
before military forces deploy to an area where combat operations are
being conducted.
Each military service is responsible for training forces with the
language and culture capabilities necessary to support departmentwide
and service-specific requirements and the needs of combatant
commanders. Army and Marine Corps headquarters staff and service
commands develop guidance and training programs to prepare forces with
required skills, such as language and culture. The Army and Marine
Corps have published language and culture strategies to guide
servicewide efforts. Within the Army, the Training and Doctrine
Command has been designated as the lead agency for implementing the
Army Culture and Foreign Language Strategy and has also established
the Training and Doctrine Command Culture Center. The Marine Corps has
established a culture center--the Center for Advanced Operational
Culture Learning--which is responsible for developing and implementing
the aspects of the Marine Corps Language, Regional and Culture
Strategy: 2011-2015 that apply to general purpose forces.
Overview of Language and Culture-Related Training Programs for Army
and Marine Corps General Purpose Forces:
The Army and Marine Corps provide language and culture training at
various points of a service member's career through formal service
institutions, such as professional military education schools, and
within operational units. The following are examples:
* Training offered during enrollment in formal service institutions:
The Army offers new recruits courses to build basic cultural
competence and is in the process of adjusting training programs at
each of its schools to expand the amount of cultural content in
training. The Army has also provided some soldiers with an opportunity
to study a foreign language in professional military education courses
and develop foreign language skills through self-directed, computer-
based training. The Marine Corps has begun implementing a career
development program for all marines that begins when marines enter
military service and continues throughout their career.[Footnote 12]
During the initial part of the program, marines receive training and
education on general cultural skills that can be applied to any
operational environment and an assignment to 1 of 17 regions around
the world for future instruction. Each sequential part of the program
is designed to deepen understanding of general culture skills and
build specific regional knowledge, including some computer-based
foreign language study. As of December 2010, the Marine Corps had
provided more than 7,000 officers with a regional assignment.
* Predeployment training. The Army and Marine Corps offer
predeployment training programs to provide additional language and
culture instruction focused on the particular area to which a unit
will deploy. The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
and Army and Marine Corps culture centers provide deploying forces
with language survival kits, briefings on culture issues, and mobile
training teams that present more in-depth language and culture
training.[Footnote 13]
DOD and Service-Level Funding for Language and Culture Training
Programs:
Funding for language and culture training programs is provided at the
department and service level in base and Overseas Contingency
Operations portions of the annual budget. In fiscal year 2010, DOD
received about $550 million for major language and culture programs
identified by the Defense Language Office. In addition, the Army and
Marine Corps have received funding to implement their respective
language and culture strategies. For example, in fiscal year 2010, the
Army's Training and Doctrine Command received about $13 million for
activities related to implementing the Army Culture and Foreign
Language Strategy and the Marine Corps' Center for Advanced
Operational Culture Learning received about $10 million to develop
language and culture-related programs for general purpose forces.
Regarding funding for predeployment training, the Office of the
Secretary of Defense directed the Army to include a total of about
$160 million in its budget submissions for fiscal years 2011 through
2015 for language training sites on selected military installations to
teach foreign languages to military and civilian personnel, including
Army and Marine Corps operational units that are preparing for
deployments to Afghanistan. This training includes self-directed
learning, classroom instruction, and role playing (see figure 2).
According to DOD, ultimately approximately 3,500 service members will
learn basic Afghan language skills each year at its language training
sites.
Figure 2: Soldiers Participating in Training at Fort Carson Language
Training Site:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: U.S. Army.
[End of figure]
For Afghanistan deployments, the focus of language training has varied
because of the multiple languages in that country. Among the country's
many ethnic groups (which are known collectively as Afghans), Dari and
Pashto are the dominant and official languages of Afghanistan. Pashto
speakers are found in large numbers in Afghanistan and northern
Pakistan, and the use of the language is generally limited to these
regions. Dari, by contrast, can be understood by anyone proficient in
Persian-Farsi. Although Pashto is the language of the largest ethnic
group in Afghanistan, Dari is the working language for the majority of
Afghans.
Army and Marine Corps Developed Language and Culture Strategies, but
Did Not Include Some Key Elements and Departmentwide Efforts to
Establish a Planning Process Are Incomplete:
Our prior work shows that establishing priorities and results-oriented
performance metrics can help federal agencies target training
investments and assess the contributions that training programs make
toward achieving strategic program goals and objectives.[Footnote 14]
The Army and Marine Corps have developed service-specific strategies
with elements such as broad goals and objectives for building language
and culture capabilities, but the strategies did not fully address
other key elements, such as the identification of training priorities
and investments and results-oriented performance metrics. We found
that the Army and Marine Corps had not conducted comprehensive
analyses to prioritize language and culture training investments and
assign responsibilities for program performance and departmentwide
efforts to establish a planning process for language and culture
capabilities were not yet complete.
The Army and Marine Corps Developed Broad Goals and Objectives within
Language and Culture Strategies and Identified Some Training Programs
and Activities:
The Army and Marine Corps developed broad service-specific goals and
objectives for language and culture training within their respective
language and culture strategies and identified some key training
programs and activities. In the strategy it issued in December 2009,
the Army states that the service's goal is to develop a baseline of
foreign language and culture capabilities for all leaders and soldiers
to support the accomplishment of unit missions.[Footnote 15] The Army
strategy establishes language and culture subject areas and learning
objectives for officers and enlisted soldiers for various stages of a
military career for both career development and predeployment
training.[Footnote 16]According to the Army strategy, the learning
objectives are intended to provide a vision of the desired end state
for soldiers at each career stage. For example, the strategy
identifies three components of cross-cultural competence, which
include culture fundamentals, culture self-awareness, and culture
skills, and a number of learning objectives for each subject area that
are tied to rank and level of responsibility. The Army's strategy
notes that its primary focus is establishing the framework and content
of training, and that additional steps are needed to determine the
methods that are the most appropriate for delivering the education and
training necessary to support the Army's requirements.
In the strategy it issued in January 2011, the Marine Corps
established a broad strategic goal to provide all marines in the
general purpose forces with a baseline in cross-cultural competence
while simultaneously enhancing regional proficiency and functional
language/communication skills throughout the force.[Footnote 17] The
strategy outlines a number of language and culture training areas that
are designed to enhance marines' ability to communicate and interact
with local populations on a basic level and perform core missions in a
culturally complex environment. For example, to support its cross-
cultural competence goal, the strategy discusses the need for marines
to be able to conduct a cultural analysis, incorporate operational
culture into planning, influence a foreign population, apply
operational culture, and interact with a foreign population. In
addition, the strategy identifies specific programs and the training
activities that are available to achieve the Marine Corps' strategic
goal. Additionally, according to the strategy, the service's
operational culture training manual identifies the specific learning
outcomes and objectives across the entire training and education
continuum in the areas of cross-cultural competence, regional
proficiency, and communication skills.[Footnote 18]
The Army's and Marine Corps' Strategies Did Not Fully Identify
Training Priorities and Required Investments or Results-Oriented
Performance Metrics to Assess Language and Culture Training:
The Army's and Marine Corps' respective strategies did not address
some key elements that could guide their training efforts and
investments. Our prior work has found that effective planning includes
a clear identification of training priorities and the investments
required to implement and sustain training programs and activities.
[Footnote 19] These elements provide a framework for decision makers
to assess the extent to which annual budget requests are coordinated
with training priorities and strategic goals and objectives.
Additionally, our work has found that it is important for agencies to
incorporate performance metrics that can be used to assess the
contributions training programs make collectively toward achieving
strategic program goals and objectives. DOD noted in its fiscal year
2012 budget request that every level of the department is accountable
for measuring performance and delivering results that support
departmentwide strategic goals and objectives.[Footnote 20] With
regard to training programs, both the Army and Marine Corps have
included requirements to perform evaluations in their respective
training-related guidance.[Footnote 21]
We found that the Army and Marine Corps did not always identify
training priorities with the proposed investments that are required
for implementing and sustaining the training within their respective
language and culture strategies. Within its strategy, the Army
identifies a number of career development and predeployment training
objectives, for example that all individuals have a basic
understanding of the language used in their potential area of
deployment appropriate to their mission, but the strategy does not
identify training priorities to achieve these objectives. Furthermore,
the Army's strategy does not identify the investments that are needed
to implement and sustain training programs and activities that will
build the Army's desired language and culture capability. The Marine
Corps' strategy identifies two language and culture training
priorities for its general purpose forces--the Regional, Culture, and
Language Familiarization and predeployment training programs and
provides information on training activities, such as language learning
software and language learning centers, that support these training
programs. However, the Marine Corps' strategy did not identify the
total investment required to develop and sustain these training
programs and activities.
In some instances, the Army and Marine Corps have identified language
and culture funding requirements, for example within their annual
budget requests, but this information is not linked with the services'
respective language and culture strategies. Officials with Army and
Marine Corps headquarters and training commands told us that there is
not a cohesive picture of language and culture training investments
and that multiple commands and units have separately developed and
funded language and culture training programs. For example, the Marine
Corps' Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning has funded
language and culture training for all marines in the general purpose
forces, while operational units have also funded predeployment
language training for these marines to attend classes at a local
community college and university. In addition, other DOD
organizations, such as the Defense Language Office, have funded
language and culture training for Army and Marine Corps general
purpose forces. For example, the Defense Language Office has funded
some language and culture predeployment training for Army and Marine
Corps general purpose forces and also the development of interactive
training tools to enhance the cultural proficiency skills of service
members. Because the Army and Marine Corps have not linked their
budget requests with their respective strategies and multiple DOD and
service organizations have funded language and culture training
programs, the department does not have full visibility over the
potential total costs associated with implementing the Army's and
Marine Corps' respective language and culture training strategies.
We also found that the Army and Marine Corps had not yet established a
systematic approach with results-oriented performance metrics to
assess the contributions that training programs have made collectively
in achieving their strategic goals and objectives. Within its
strategy, the Army notes that performance metrics are necessary to
determine the effectiveness of training programs, but the strategy
does not establish any specific metrics or other indicators to
evaluate progress toward the service's strategic goals or an approach
to assess them. Similarly, the Marine Corps' strategy does not discuss
any metrics that the service will utilize to assess language and
culture training programs that are intended to achieve the service's
strategic goals and objectives.
While the Army and Marine Corps had not established comprehensive
metrics within their strategies to assess progress towards achieving
their overall strategic goals and objectives, the services have
established limited metrics to inform the development of specific
language and culture training programs. For example, in July 2010, the
Army set out a requirement for at least one leader per platoon
deploying to Afghanistan and Iraq that will have regular contact with
a local population to have more advanced language training and set
standards for the leader's language capability using DOD's agreed upon
method of measuring proficiency.[Footnote 22] Army officials reported
that, based on their testing, nearly 100 percent of soldiers who have
completed the language training program intended to support this
requirement are meeting or exceeding the performance metric. The
Marine Corps published an operational culture training manual in April
2009 with language-and culture-related training tasks and the Center
for Advanced Operational Culture Learning has developed training
programs to assist Marine Corps units in accomplishing the tasks
called for in the manual.[Footnote 23] These training programs include
individual and unit-level performance metrics, such as student exams
and training evaluation scorecards. However, the Army and Marine Corps
have not yet established a comprehensive set of metrics for their
respective language and culture training programs. For example, the
Army had not established performance metrics for its culture training
programs and the Marine Corps had not established metrics for
predeployment language training.
We found that the Army and Marine Corps did not include these key
planning elements within their respective strategies because they did
not fully analyze their training efforts to identify a clear
prioritization of training investments and formalize responsibilities
for ensuring the accountability for program performance prior to the
design and implementation of their language and culture strategies and
related training programs. Both the Army and the Marine Corps note
that their respective language and culture strategies will be updated
as needed. The Army is taking steps to further define the investments
it requires to implement the service's language and culture strategy
and develop performance metrics to determine language and culture
proficiency gaps that would inform the development of training and
education programs. Once these analyses are completed, the Army plans
to revise its servicewide strategy. An official from the Marine Corps'
Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning told us that the
Marine Corps had not formally assigned it or any other service
organization with the responsibility and accountability for language
and culture program performance. For example, the center is
responsible for developing training programs of instruction and other
materials, but not for ensuring that operational units complete the
training programs in total or assessing training programs in meeting
strategic goals and objectives. The Marine Corps plans to develop a
concept of operations document that will formalize stakeholder roles
and responsibilities for implementing its strategy and conduct
additional analyses to identify language and culture capability needs
that are not currently being addressed by current training programs.
However, at the time of our review, these efforts were in the planning
stage and are not yet complete. Without a complete understanding of
the actions and investments that are necessary to achieve their
strategic goals and objectives, the Army and the Marine Corps cannot
provide DOD and the Congress with a reasonable assurance that their
approaches and funding requests are building a capability that meets
service and DOD long-term needs.
Departmentwide Efforts to Establish a Planning Process to Further
Align Service Language and Culture Training Approaches Are Not Yet
Complete:
In June 2009, we reported that DOD did not have a comprehensive
strategic plan to transform language and culture capabilities with
measures to assess the effectiveness of its transformation efforts. At
that time, we recommended that DOD develop a strategic plan or set of
linked plans that contain measurable performance goals and objectives
and investment priorities that are linked to these goals to guide the
military services' efforts to transform language and culture
capabilities.[Footnote 24] In February 2011, DOD published the
Department of Defense Strategic Plan for Language Skills, Regional
Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011-2016). The strategy
outlines a broad planning process that includes a vision, goals, and
objectives and notes that the department will review the strategy
annually and modify it when needed to ensure alignment with
overarching DOD guidance. While the strategy broadly describes a
strategic planning process, the department has not yet set up internal
mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones, which our prior work
has found can assist the department reach consensus with the military
departments and others on priorities, synchronize the development of
department-and servicewide plans with each other and the budget
process, and guide efforts to monitor progress and take corrective
action.[Footnote 25] DOD officials told us that a more detailed
implementation plan will be issued separately and the plan would
likely include action plans that define responsibilities and time
frames for completing specific tasks, as well as performance measures
to assess progress and guide the allocation of resources, but it is
unclear if this plan will provide the department with the clearly
defined planning process needed to achieve it goals. During the course
of our review, officials with the Army and Marine Corps told us that
there has been a lack of strategic direction and coherent
departmentwide policy on language and culture capability needs, which
has limited the services' ability to train service personnel in the
general purpose forces with the right mix of skills to meet combatant
commander requirements and develop service-specific strategies that
align with departmentwide goals.
In June 2009, we also reported that DOD did not have the information
it needs to identify gaps and make informed investment decisions about
language and culture capability needs, in part because DOD did not
have a standardized methodology to determine language and regional
proficiency requirements. We recommended that DOD develop a validated
methodology for identifying language and regional proficiency
requirements, which includes cultural awareness.[Footnote 26] Citing
our June 2009 recommendation, DOD has taken steps to develop a new,
standardized methodology to define geographic combatant commander
language and culture capability requirements and plans to implement
the methodology by March 2012.[Footnote 27] However, since these
requirements are still incomplete, the Army's and Marine Corps'
strategies do not yet address the specific actions that the services
will be required to take to address DOD-wide language and culture
capability requirements.
Without a clearly defined planning process that includes internal
mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones, and a validated set of
language and culture capability requirements, the department does not
have the tools it needs to set strategic direction for language and
culture training efforts, fully align departmentwide efforts to
develop plans and budget requests that reflect its priorities, and
measure progress in implementing various initiatives.
U.S. Central Command Did Not Synchronize Varying Language and Culture
Training Requirements for Army and Marine Corps General Purpose Forces:
DOD components identified language and culture training requirements
for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces that will deploy to
the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, but these
requirements varied among and within DOD components. Within recent
planning guidance, DOD describes the importance of establishing a
robust training requirements identification process and synchronizing
training among DOD components. However, we found that U.S. Central
Command did not clearly identify and approve predeployment language
and culture training requirements and synchronize them among and
within DOD components, because the command has not yet developed a
comprehensive, analytically based process for identifying and
synchronizing training requirements.
Language and Culture Training Requirements Intended to Guide Service
Predeployment Training Programs for General Purpose Forces Varied in
Documents Published by DOD Components:
Given the dynamic security environment presented by current operations
in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, DOD components
have been required to rapidly respond to changing capability needs for
language and culture. This has resulted in multiple DOD components
promulgating language and culture predeployment training requirements
that are intended to prepare forces for operations in the U.S. Central
Command area of responsibility. Since 2008, the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Forces Afghanistan,
and the Army and the Marine Corps have utilized various means to
articulate joint force and service-specific language and culture
predeployment training requirements, including combatant commander
orders, battlefield commander guidance, departmentwide memorandums,
and service-level orders and administrative messages.
We surveyed 15 documents issued since June 2008 that address language
and culture predeployment training requirements. In table 1, we list
the documents we reviewed and include descriptions of language and
culture training requirements, which are not intended to be
comprehensive descriptions of the documents. Within these documents,
we found several examples of variances in language and culture
training requirements among and within DOD components. In particular,
we identified examples of language and culture predeployment training
requirements that varied even at similar points in time with respect
to the specific language to be trained--whether Dari, Pashto, or both
languages, as well as variances in the type and duration of training.
For example, the language designated as the focus of training varied
amongst multiple pieces of guidance issued since 2009. In November
2009, U.S. Forces Afghanistan issued guidance recommending that all
forces deploying to Afghanistan focus their predeployment language
training on Dari. In that same month, the Marine Corps issued an
administrative message directing that certain commanders deploying to
Afghanistan develop a basic language capability in Pashto. From
November 2009 to March 2011, the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
U.S. Central Command, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, and the Army and the
Marine Corps issued additional guidance addressing language training,
and the language focus has continued to vary among the different
pieces of guidance. For example, in October 2010, U.S. Forces
Afghanistan published an order that required all forces to complete
training with a focus on Dari, and included an option for commanders
to specify training with a focus on Pashto in certain cases. In
November 2010, the Secretary of Defense approved Afghanistan
counterinsurgency training standards that include a requirement that
U.S. forces understand basic phrases in both Dari and Pashto.
Additionally, just as the focus of training has varied, the type and
duration of training has varied as well. For example, in July 2010,
the Army required that all forces deploying to either Afghanistan or
Iraq complete a 4-to 6-hour online training program for language and
culture. In September 2010, the Marine Corps directed that all ground
units assigned to the I Marine Expeditionary Force preparing for
Afghanistan deployment complete a 2-day culture course and receive an
introduction to software used for self-paced study. During the course
of our review, Army and Marine Corps officials noted that language and
culture predeployment training requirements changed constantly, which
led to some confusion over the training that was needed to meet
operational needs and that considerable time and resources were spent
adjusting training programs.
Table 1: Examples of Language and Culture Predeployment Training
Requirements for General Purpose Forces Deploying to the U.S. Central
Command Area of Responsibility:
Date: June 2008;
DOD component: U.S. Central Command;
Description of requirements[A]: Requires that all forces deploying to
the area of responsibility complete training on cultural aspects of
host countries.
Date: Nov. 2009;
DOD component: U.S. Forces Afghanistan;
Description of requirements[A]: Recommends that all forces learn basic
language and that each platoon with regular contact with the
population have at least one leader with a measurable language
capability. Focus language is Dari.
Date: Nov. 2009;
DOD component: U.S. Marine Corps;
Description of requirements[A]: Requires that battalion and regimental
commanders deploying to Afghanistan develop a basic language
capability through 40 hours of language training. Focus language is
Pashto.
Date: Dec. 2009;
DOD component: U.S. Army;
Description of requirements[A]: Establishes language training sites on
Ft. Campbell, Ft. Carson, and Ft. Drum for select soldiers deploying
to Afghanistan. Training at these sites began in February 2010. Focus
languages are "Afghan languages."
Date: Jan. 2010;
DOD component: U.S. Forces Afghanistan;
Description of requirements[A]: Re-emphasizes prior recommendation
that all forces learn basic language and each platoon with regular
contact with the population have at least one leader with a measurable
language capability. Focus language remains Dari.
Date: Feb. 2010;
DOD component: U.S. Marine Corps;
Description of requirements[A]: Requires that all marines receive
predeployment culture training and selected marines receive basic
language training for all deployments with the amount determined by a
mission analysis.
Date: July 2010;
DOD component: U.S. Army;
Description of requirements[A]: Requires that all soldiers deploying
to Afghanistan and Iraq complete a 4-to 6-hour online language and
culture training program and at least one leader per platoon develop a
measurable language capability through 16 weeks (at least 480 hours)
of on-site language training or 100 hours of online training. For
Afghanistan deployments, focus language is Dari.
Date: Sept. 2010;
DOD component: U.S. Central Command;
Description of requirements[A]: Endorses counterinsurgency training
standards for Afghanistan that include, for example, a requirement
that all forces understand basic Dari and Pashto phrases.
Date: Sept. 2010;
DOD component: U.S. Marine Corps;
Description of requirements[A]: Directs that marines assigned to the I
Marine Expeditionary Force preparing for Afghanistan deployment take a
2-day culture course and that selected marines take basic language
training.
Date: Oct. 2010;
DOD component: U.S. Forces Afghanistan;
Description of requirements[A]: Requires that all deploying forces
complete a 4-to 6-hour online training program for language and
culture. Focus language is Dari, with a focus on another language to
be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Date: Nov. 2010;
DOD component: Office of the Secretary of Defense;
Description of requirements[A]: Directs implementation of Afghanistan
counterinsurgency training standards--e.g., that U.S. forces
understand basic Dari and Pashto phrases.
Date: Dec. 2010;
DOD component: Office of the Secretary of Defense;
Description of requirements[A]: Requires that the military services
ensure that forces are trained to Afghanistan counterinsurgency
standards and that at least one leader per platoon that will have
regular contact with the population will have a measurable language
capability in the language of the region to which they will be
assigned.
Date: Dec. 2010;
DOD component: U.S. Army;
Description of requirements[A]: Reinforces and incorporates training
guidance provided in July 2010 that requires all soldiers complete
training in the basics of the culture of the country to which the unit
is planning to deploy and that at least one leader per platoon develop
a measurable language capability through about 16 weeks of on-site
language training or 100 hours of online training. For Afghanistan
deployments, focus language is Dari, with a focus on another language
to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Date: Mar. 2011;
DOD component: U.S. Central Command;
Description of requirements[A]: Requires that all nonstandard
forces[B] deploying to the area of responsibility complete cultural
training that includes a general overview of the political and
religious conditions of the country and that all forces deploying to
Afghanistan complete a 4-to 6-hour online training program for
language and culture. Focus language is Dari or Pashto.
Date: Mar. 2011;
DOD component: U.S. Central Command;
Description of requirements[A]: Requires that all standard forces
deploying to the area of responsibility complete cultural training
that includes a general overview of the political and religious
conditions of the country and that all forces deploying to Afghanistan
complete a 4-to 6-hour online training program for language and
culture. Focus language is Dari or Pashto.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.
Note: Several squads form a platoon, and several platoons form a
company. Several companies with a headquarters form a battalion.
[A] The descriptions of language and culture training requirements
included in this table are not intended to be comprehensive
descriptions of the documents.
[B] Nonstandard forces are defined as joint sourced, in lieu of, and
ad hoc forces as well as individual augmentees. These forces support
ground-based operations in the areas of policing, detainee operations,
and customs and border patrol, among others.
[End of table]
U.S. Central Command Did Not Clearly Identify and Approve
Predeployment Training Requirements and Synchronize Them among and
within DOD Components:
According to DOD guidance, the Commander of U.S. Central Command is to
coordinate and approve training necessary to carry out missions
assigned to the command.[Footnote 28] DOD's 2010 strategic plan calls
for the establishment of a robust, relevant requirements process that
includes investing in front-end analysis and supporting requirements
identification activities and synchronizing service training programs
with combatant commander requirements.[Footnote 29] Moreover, in 2011
guidance, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that DOD
will convert requirements into deployable capabilities more quickly
and effectively, synchronizing force-providers with force-commander
needs.[Footnote 30]
At the time of our review, we found that U.S. Central Command had not
yet developed a comprehensive, analytically based process for
identifying and synchronizing predeployment training requirements
among DOD components. In the absence of a comprehensive process, we
identified instances in which U.S. Central Command did not clearly
identify and approve training requirements and coordinate them with
key stakeholders, such as the military services and subordinate
commands, to ensure that requirements are synchronized among and
within DOD components and with departmentwide guidance. We also
observed instances in which U.S. Central Command did not obtain
feedback to determine the extent to which predeployment training
approaches met battlefield commander needs. For example:
* U.S. Central Command did not formally approve U.S. Forces
Afghanistan's January 2010 language training guidance requiring
language training.[Footnote 31] For example, the command did not
conduct front-end analyses of feasibility or cost of the training
requirements or release a message validating U.S. Forces Afghanistan's
language predeployment training requirements.
* U.S. Central Command, as the combatant commander responsible for
coordinating training requirements for the geographic area of
responsibility, had not coordinated U.S. Forces Afghanistan's October
2010 order mandating online language and culture training for all U.S.
forces and DOD civilians currently deployed and deploying to
Afghanistan with the Army and Marine Corps prior to its release.
[Footnote 32] U.S. Forces Afghanistan officials told us that
coordination with the services on the requirements would have provided
better insight as to potential issues associated with its
implementation. During the course of our review, U.S. Forces
Afghanistan reissued the October 2010 order once to clarify confusion
over the training requirements and was considering another revision to
the order to further clarify its requirements.
* U.S. Central Command had not synchronized language and culture
predeployment training requirements with departmentwide guidance. For
example, in December 2010, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
released a directive type memorandum on counterinsurgency training and
reporting guidance that requires the services to ensure that at least
one leader per platoon that will have regular contact with the
population will have a measurable language capability in the language
of the region to which they will be assigned.[Footnote 33] According
to senior officials within the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
this guidance is based on their understanding of U.S. Forces
Afghanistan's requirements, a subordinate command of U.S. Central
Command, and is the authoritative department policy on training
requirements for ongoing operations and is considered mandatory
training. However, U.S. Central Command did not explicitly include the
requirement established by the Office of the Secretary of Defense
within either of its March 2011 orders on training requirements for
standard and nonstandard forces.
* U.S. Central Command had not coordinated with the Army and Marine
Corps to obtain feedback on the services' language and culture
predeployment training approaches in meeting operational needs prior
to issuing new training requirements. For example, until December
2010, neither U.S. Central Command nor U.S. Forces Afghanistan had
obtained feedback from the Marine Corps on language and culture
training approaches that were developed by the Marine Corps to address
service-specific requirements. We were told that informal efforts
exist among DOD components to receive feedback on service training
approaches, such as training forums and action officer-level
communication, but U.S. Forces Afghanistan training officials told us
that these informal processes had not provided them with full
visibility over the services' training programs.
In its March 2011 order establishing theater predeployment training
requirements for standard forces, U.S. Central Command consolidated
predeployment training requirements that have been published in
various documents in a single source.[Footnote 34] Refinements to
training requirements occur over time due to changing operational
conditions, and one aspect of this new order calls for an annual
review and validation of U.S. Central Command's consolidated training
requirements followed by the publication of an order announcing
updates. In addition, the order assigns responsibilities within U.S.
Central Command for approving new requirements, describes how
organizations can request modifications to existing requirements, and
identifies how decisions on training requirements will be communicated
within the command through official messages. While this appears to be
a positive step in identifying predeployment training requirements,
including those for language and culture, the order does not provide
details on the analysis that is required to support these decisions, a
coordination process with key stakeholders, such as the military
services and subordinate commands, to ensure that requirements are
synchronized among and within DOD components and with departmentwide
guidance and to solicit feedback on service training approaches in
meeting operational needs. Without a comprehensive process, U.S.
Central Command will not have a mechanism to identify and synchronize
training for current and future operations, which may result in
deploying forces that receive training that is inconsistent and may
not meet operational needs.
Conclusions:
DOD continues to emphasize the importance of language and culture
training and, along with the military services, is investing millions
of dollars to provide it to general purpose forces. However, the Army
and Marine Corps have not established investment priorities, assigned
responsibilities for training program performance, or developed
comprehensive metrics to gauge progress in achieving their strategic
goals and objectives and therefore cannot provide DOD and the Congress
with a reasonable assurance that their approaches and funding requests
are building a capability that meets service and DOD long-term needs.
Further, without a clearly defined planning process, the department
does not have the tools it needs to set strategic direction for
language and culture training efforts, fully align departmentwide
efforts to develop plans and budget requests that reflect its
priorities, and measure progress in implementing various initiatives.
Regarding predeployment language and culture training, over the last
several years multiple DOD components have issued requirements for
deploying forces, resulting in the Army and Marine Corps expending
considerable time and resources adjusting service training programs.
U.S. Central Command has taken some steps to consolidate training
requirements, but the command has not yet established a comprehensive,
analytically based process for identifying and synchronizing
predeployment training requirements. Without a comprehensive process,
U.S. Central Command will not have a mechanism to identify and
synchronize training for current and future operations, which may
result in deploying forces that receive training that is inconsistent
and may not meet operational needs.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend the Secretary of Defense take the following three actions.
To help ensure that the Army's and Marine Corps' strategies address
key planning elements and are aligned with departmentwide efforts, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the
Army and the Secretary of the Navy to assign responsibilities for
training program performance and include in subsequent updates of the
Army's and Marine Corps' respective language and culture strategies:
* training priorities and investments that are necessary to achieve
strategic goals and objectives:
* results-oriented performance metrics to measure progress in
achieving the strategic goals and objectives:
To enhance DOD's ability to set strategic direction for its language
and culture training efforts, and better align its efforts to develop
and implement plans and measure progress against established goals, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness to:
* issue guidance to establish within the implementation plan for the
Department of Defense Strategic Plan for Language Skills, Regional
Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011-2016) a clearly defined
planning process with mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones,
by which it can reach consensus with the military departments,
coordinate and review approval of updates to plans, synchronize the
development of plans with the budget process, monitor the
implementation of initiatives, and report progress, on a periodic
basis, towards achieving established goals:
To provide a consistent approach for identifying predeployment
language and culture training requirements for the U.S. Central
Command area of responsibility, we recommend that the Secretary of
Defense direct the Commander of U.S. Central Command to establish a
comprehensive, analytically based process to:
* identify and approve predeployment training requirements and include
in this documentation a description of the analysis to be conducted
prior to approving the requirements:
* coordinate with key stakeholders, such as the military services and
subordinate commands to ensure that requirements are synchronized
among and within DOD components and with departmentwide guidance, and
solicit feedback on service training approaches in meeting operational
needs:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with two
recommendations and partially concurred with one recommendation. DOD's
comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II. DOD also
provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as
appropriate.
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of
Defense direct the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy
to assign responsibilities for training program performance and
include in subsequent updates of the Army's and Marine Corps'
respective language and culture strategies training priorities and
investments that are necessary to achieve strategic goals and
objectives and results-oriented performance metrics to measure
progress in achieving their strategic goals and objectives. In its
comments, DOD separately addressed the two elements in our
recommendation--training priorities and investments, and results-
oriented performance metrics. With regard to identifying training
priorities and investments, DOD stated that linking strategy
development with training and resource prioritization would better
identify the resources that are necessary to address goals,
objectives, and programs outlined in the language, regional, and
culture strategy. DOD noted that this would allow senior leaders to
obtain a better understanding of the time and resources necessary to
implement the strategy and may prompt modifications early in the
process when viewed against time and fiscal realities. DOD also
stated, however, that the department develops strategy and
capabilities separately from the resource allocation process to
capture the required operational capability and determine the gaps,
independent of the fiscal environment. It noted that capability
requirements are then prioritized and compete for resources. DOD
stated that before definitive measures are implemented to more closely
integrate requirements development and resource allocation at a much
earlier stage, it is necessary to assess potential negative
consequences and then weigh costs versus benefits. Our report did not
address the timing of the requirements development and resource
allocation processes, but rather emphasized the importance of a
clearly defined planning process that produces outcomes that clearly
link strategy development with training prioritization and resource
allocation. As noted in our report, the Army and Marine Corps had not
yet fully defined the language and culture capabilities needs of their
general purpose forces; prioritized the investments required to
implement their respective language and culture strategies; or clearly
linked their funding requests with their respective strategies. We
therefore continue to believe that as the Army and Marine Corps update
their strategies, the services should fully identify the language and
culture capabilities and the training priorities and needed
investments in order to provide DOD and the Congress with a reasonable
assurance that their approaches and funding requests are building a
capability that meets service and DOD long-term needs.
With regard to results-oriented performance metrics, DOD stated that
several efforts are being pursued to enhance and fully implement
metrics that accurately capture programmatic performance and utility,
to include initiatives to more closely link training and readiness
standards with operational readiness through the Defense Readiness
Reporting System and other reporting mechanisms. DOD noted that any
effort to start measuring and tracking individual performance with
"hard" metrics such as cultural proficiency should be thoroughly
reviewed before implementation and that such metrics may not provide
an accurate assessment tied to operational effectiveness. Lastly, DOD
stated that the actual administrative and logistical costs associated
with the effort may far outweigh any benefits that are potentially
gained. We agree that it is important for the Army and Marine Corps to
establish metrics that accurately capture programmatic performance and
utility in a manner that provides an accurate assessment of
operational effectiveness. As stated in our report, the Army and
Marine Corps have established limited metrics focused on individual
and unit-level assessments, but had not established comprehensive
metrics that would enable them to assess the contributions that
training programs are making collectively toward achieving their
overall strategic goals and objectives. We also noted that the Army
and Marine Corps are planning to make additional investments to build
the language and culture capabilities of their general purpose forces.
We recognize that there is a cost associated with the time and effort
required to establish metrics and implement efforts to measure
progress against any metrics. However, developing comprehensive
metrics is a key element needed to provide DOD and the Congress with
the assurance that the services' training approaches and funding
requests are building a capability that meets service and DOD long-
term needs. Therefore, we continue to believe the development of such
metrics would better inform the services' investment decisions and
enhance their ability to maximize available resources.
DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to
issue guidance to establish within the implementation plan for the
Department of Defense Strategic Plan of Language Skills, Regional
Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011-2016) a clearly defined
planning process with mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones,
by which it can reach consensus with the military departments,
coordinate and review approval of updates to plans, synchronize the
development of plans with the budget process, monitor the
implementation of initiatives, and report progress, on a periodic
basis, towards achieving established goals. DOD stated that the DOD
Implementation Plan for Language Skills, Regional Expertise, and
Cultural Capabilities for FY 2011-2016 will include a clearly defined
planning process for working with the military departments to
coordinate plans, synchronize plans with resources, and evaluate and
report performance as the department works toward its strategic goals.
DOD stated that it planned to complete the implementation plan by June
2011.
DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commander of U.S. Central Command to establish a
comprehensive, analytically based process to (1) identify and approve
predeployment training requirements that includes a description of the
analysis to be conducted prior to approving the requirements and (2)
coordinate with key stakeholders, such as the military services and
subordinate commands to ensure that requirements are synchronized
among and within DOD components and with departmentwide guidance, and
solicit feedback on service training approaches in meeting operational
needs. In its comments, DOD separately addressed our recommendation on
conducting analysis as part of the requirements identification process
and coordinating with key stakeholders to ensure that requirements are
synchronized. DOD stated that U.S. Central Command agreed that such a
process was necessary at the time of our review and noted that U.S.
Central Command has established and instituted a process to coordinate
and synchronize requirements among the service components and
subordinate commands, to include cross directorate coordination within
U.S. Central Command headquarters, to ensure all training requirements
are meeting operational needs. Specifically, DOD stated that U.S.
Central Command utilized this process in the development of U.S.
Central Command Fragmentary Order 09-1700, USCENTCOM Theater Training
Requirements, dated March 28, 2011. DOD also stated that U.S. Central
Command assessed it is a service responsibility to determine the
training approach they utilize to meet training requirements for the
U.S. Central Command's area of responsibility. As stated in our
report, we recognize that DOD has taken positive steps in developing
the fragmentary order, but continue to believe that additional actions
are needed to ensure that U.S. Central Command has a comprehensive,
analytically based process to coordinate and synchronize predeployment
training requirements. For example, in its current form, U.S. Central
Command Fragmentary Order 09-1700 order does not provide details on
the analysis that is required to support decisions on the
identification of training requirements, despite the fact that DOD's
September 2010 Strategic Plan for the Next Generation of Training for
the Department of Defense calls for the establishment of a robust,
relevant requirements process that includes investing in front-end
analysis and supporting requirements identification activities.
Moreover, in developing its March 2011 order, U.S. Central Command did
not fully synchronize language and culture predeployment training
requirements with departmentwide guidance. Specifically, U.S. Central
Command did not explicitly include the language training requirement
established by the Office of the Secretary of Defense in December 2010
counterinsurgency training and reporting guidance that requires the
services to ensure that at least one leader per platoon that will have
regular contact with the population will have a measurable language
capability in the language of the region to which they will be
assigned. We therefore continue to believe that additional actions are
necessary for U.S. Central Command to establish a comprehensive,
analytically based process to identify training requirements and
coordinate with key stakeholders to ensure that requirements are
synchronized among and within DOD components and with departmentwide
guidance.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Secretary
of Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Commandant of the Marine
Corps, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command. This report also is
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have any questions about
this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors
to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Sharon L. Pickup:
Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
List of Committees:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Howard P. "Buck" McKeon:
Chairman:
The Honorable Adam Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To address our objectives, we met with officials from the Office of
the Secretary of Defense; the Joint Staff; U.S. Central Command; U.S.
Forces Afghanistan; U.S. Joint Forces Command; and the Army and the
Marine Corps. To evaluate the extent to which the Army and Marine
Corps had developed language and culture strategies with key elements,
such as goals, funding priorities, and metrics to guide training
approaches and investments that were aligned with departmentwide
planning efforts, we focused on the Army's and Marine Corps' general
purpose forces. Therefore, excluded from this review were training
programs for language and regional experts, such as foreign area
officers, intelligence specialists, special operations forces, and
other service efforts to provide culture experts to deployed forces,
such as "human terrain teams."[Footnote 35] We examined the Army
Culture and Foreign Language Strategy and the Marine Corps Language,
Regional and Culture Strategy: 2011-2015 and training documents to
determine training priorities and metrics that have been used to
measure progress in meeting service and departmentwide capability
needs.[Footnote 36] We reviewed these documents in the context of our
prior work, Department of Defense (DOD) budget documents, and service
guidance to determine the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps
were developing strategies that identified goals and objectives,
training programs and priorities, resource requirements, and
approaches for measuring progress, including results-oriented
performance metrics.[Footnote 37]We also reviewed funding data for
fiscal years 2009 through 2012 provided by the Army's Training and
Doctrine Command and the Marine Corps' Center for the Advanced
Operational Culture Learning that are associated with the
implementation of the Army's and Marine Corps' respective language and
culture strategies. To corroborate our understanding of the documents
provided, we conducted interviews with officials responsible for
developing the Army's and Marine Corps' language and culture
strategies and related training programs, as well as Office of the
Secretary of Defense officials that are responsible for providing
strategic direction and programmatic oversight of the department's
language and culture programs. We also discussed the content and
status of ongoing departmental efforts that are intended to further
align Army and Marine Corps language and culture training approaches
with officials representing the Office of the Secretary of Defense and
the Joint Staff. These efforts include the implementation of a new,
departmentwide methodology for determining geographic combatant
commander language and regional proficiency requirements, which
includes culture, and the development of DOD's strategic plan for
language skills and cultural capabilities.[Footnote 38]
To evaluate DOD's approach for identifying language and culture
predeployment training requirements for Army and Marine Corps general
purpose forces that will deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of
responsibility, we reviewed relevant provisions of Title 10 of the
U.S. Code[Footnote 39] and related DOD guidance that characterize the
training roles and responsibilities of combatant commanders and the
military services.[Footnote 40] We examined Office of the Secretary of
Defense, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, and Army and
Marine Corps documents published from 2008 to 2011 and identified
specific language and culture training requirements. To corroborate
our understanding of the documents provided, we conducted interviews
with officials representing the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
U.S. Central Command, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, and Army and Marine
Corps force provider and training commands to discuss the processes
they use to identify language and culture training requirements for
ongoing operations in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility,
including any analyses that were conducted to identify the feasibility
of implementing the training and associated costs. We also discussed
the processes used by DOD components to synchronize battlefield
commander operational needs with training conducted by the services to
prepare forces to conduct military operations. We analyzed these
processes to determine the level of coordination among DOD components
with respect to joint and service-specific predeployment training
requirements for language and culture. We assessed these efforts in
light of DOD guidance that describes the importance of establishing a
robust training requirements identification process and synchronizing
service training programs with combatant commander requirements.
[Footnote 41]
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 to May 2011 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.
We interviewed officials, and where appropriate obtained
documentation, at the following locations:
Office of the Secretary of Defense:
* Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness:
- Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness:
- Defense Language Office:
* Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy:
Department of the Army:
* Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1:
* Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G2:
* Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G3/5/7:
* Army Central Command:
* Army Forces Command:
* Army Reserve Command:
* Army Training and Doctrine Command:
- Center for Army Lessons Learned:
- Combined Arms Center:
- Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center:
- Training and Doctrine Command Culture Center:
* First United States Army:
Department of the Navy:
* Marine Corps Training and Education Command:
- Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning:
- Marine Corps Air-Ground Task Force Training Command:
* Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned:
* Marine Corps Forces Central Command:
* Marine Corps Forces Command:
* Marine Corps Forces, Pacific:
* I Marine Expeditionary Force:
* II Marine Expeditionary Force:
* III Marine Expeditionary Force:
Other DOD Components:
* Joint Center for International Security Force Assistance:
* Joint Chiefs of Staff Manpower and Personnel, J1:
* Joint Chiefs of Staff Operational Plans and Joint Force Development,
J7:
* U.S. Central Command:
- U.S. Forces Afghanistan:
* U.S. Joint Forces Command:
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Personnel And Readiness:
4000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000:
May 9, 2011:
Ms. Sharon L. Pickup:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Pickup,
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report, GAO-11-456, "Military Training: Actions Needed to Improve
Planning and Coordination of Army and Marine Corps Language and
Culture Training," dated April 8, 201 1 (GAO Code 351586).
DoD concurs with most of the recommendations made in the draft report.
Detailed responses to those recommendations are contained in the
enclosure.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft report. We look
forward to receiving the final report, when available.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Samuel D. Kleinman:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness):
Enclosure: As stated:
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report Dated April 8, 2011:
GAO-11-456 (GAO Code 351586):
"Military Training: Actions Needed To Improve Planning And
Coordination Of Army And Marine Corps Language And Culture Training"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to
assign responsibilities for training program performance and include
in subsequent updates of their respective service-specific language
and culture strategies training priorities and investments that are
necessary to achieve strategic goals and objectives.
DoD Response: Partially concur. Linking strategy development with
training and resource prioritization across the enterprise would
better identify, up front, what resources are necessary to address
goals, objectives, and programs outlined in the language, regional,
and culture strategy. This would allow senior leadership to obtain a
better understanding of the rough order of magnitude in time and
resources necessary to implement the strategy being presented, and may
prompt modifications early in the process when viewed against time and
fiscal realities. Currently, strategy and capability requirements
within the Department and Services are developed separately from the
resource allocation/Program Objective Memorandum process. The purpose
is to accurately capture the required operational capability and
determine the gaps, independent of the fiscal environment. From there,
those capability requirements are then prioritized and compete for
resources. This approach has some advantages that could be negated if
the two processes were more closely linked early on. Consequently,
before definitive measures are implemented to more closely integrate
requirements development and resource allocation at a much earlier
stage, assessing potential negative consequences and then weighing
costs versus benefits will need to be conducted.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to
assign responsibilities for training program performance and include
in subsequent updates of their respective service-specific language
and culture strategies results-oriented performance metrics to measure
progress in achieving their strategic goals and objectives.
DoD Response: Partially concur. Enhancing and fully implementing
metrics that accurately capture programmatic performance and utility
remains a consistent focus for the Army and Marine Corps. Several
efforts are being pursued to achieve this objective, to include
current initiatives to more closely link training and readiness
standards outlined in training and readiness manuals with operational
readiness through the Defense Readiness Reporting System and other
reporting mechanisms. However, any effort to start measuring and
tracking individual performance with "hard" metrics such as cultural
proficiency scale/rating should be thoroughly studied and reviewed
before implementation. There is significant data to suggest this is
far from an exact science, and may not be able to provide an accurate
assessment tied to operational effectiveness. Furthermore, even if it
is achievable, the actual administrative and logistical costs
associated with the effort may far outweigh any benefits that are
potentially gained.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to
issue guidance to establish within the implementation plan for the
Department of Defense Strategic Plan of Language Skills, Regional
Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011-2016) a clearly defined
planning process with mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones,
by which it can reach consensus with the military departments,
coordinate and review approval of updates to plans, synchronize the
development of plans with the budget process, monitor the
implementation of initiatives, and report progress, on a periodic
basis, towards achieving established goals.
DoD Response: Concur. The DoD Implementation Plan for Language Skills,
Regional Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities for FY 2011-2016 will
include a clearly defined planning process for working with the
Military Departments to coordinate plans, synchronize plans with
resources, and evaluate and report performance as the Department works
toward its strategic goals. The target date for its completion is June
2011.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commander of the U.S. Central Command to establish a
comprehensive, analytically-based process to identify and approve
predeployment training requirements and include in this
documentation a description of the analysis to be conducted prior to
approving the requirements.
DoD Response: Concur. US Central Command (USCENTCOM) concurs that an
analytically-based process by which to identify and approve
predeployment training requirements was necessary at the time of this
study. USCENTCOM Commander approved USCENTCOM FRAGO 09-1700, USCENTCOM
Theater Training Requirements, dated March 28, 2011, which establishes
the process for Service Components and Sub-Unified Commands to
nominate training requirements for approval, modification, or deletion
for approval by the Director of Operations, USCENTCOM. This document
will be reviewed annually to ensure requirements are updated and
promulgated to USCENTCOM Service Components, Sub-Unified Commands,
Service Force Providers, and the Joint Staff.
Recommendation 5: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commander of the U.S. Central Command to establish a
comprehensive, analytically-based process to coordinate with key
stakeholders, such as the military services and subordinate commands
to ensure that requirements are synchronized among and within DOD
components and with department wide guidance, and solicit feedback on
service training approaches in meeting operational needs.
DoD Response: Concur. USCENTCOM concurs that a process to ensure that
requirements are synchronized among the Service Components and
Subordinate commands was necessary at the time of this study.
USCENTCOM has established and instituted a process that synchronizes
requirements among the Service Components and Subordinate Commands.
USCENTCOM coordinates with all Service Components and Sub-Unified
Commands, to include cross-directorate coordination within
Headquarters USCENTCOM, to ensure all training requirements are
meeting operational needs. USCENTCOM utilized this process in the
development of USCENTCOM FRAGO 09-1700, USCENTCOM Theater Training
Requirements. USCENTCOM assesses it is a Service responsibility to
determine the training approach they utilize to meet the training
requirements for the USCENTCOM area of responsibility.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Sharon Pickup, 202-512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Patricia Lentini, Assistant
Director; Nicole Harms; Mae Jones; Susan Langley; Michael Silver;
Matthew Ullengren; and Chris Watson made significant contributions to
this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Department of Defense Directive Type Memorandum 11-002,
Counterinsurgency (COIN) Training and Reporting Guidance for Preparing
U.S. Forces to Succeed in Afghanistan and Pakistan (Dec. 9, 2010).
[2] GAO, Military Training: DOD Needs a Strategic Plan and Better
Inventory and Requirements Data to Guide Development of Language
Skills and Regional Proficiency, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-568] (Washington, D.C.: June 19,
2009).
[3] GAO, Military Training: Continued Actions Needed to Guide DOD's
Efforts to Improve Language Skills and Regional Proficiency,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-879T] (Washington,
D.C.: June 29, 2010).
[4] H.R. Rep. No. 111-491 at 259 (2010).
[5] According to DOD, "foreign area officers" are commissioned
officers who, in addition to their primary military specialty, also
possess a combination of strategic focus, regional expertise, cultural
awareness, and foreign language skills. "Human terrain teams" are
comprised of sociocultural experts that are deployed to Afghanistan
and Iraq to help improve Army and Marine Corps commanders' and staffs'
understanding of local populations.
[6] See Army Culture and Foreign Language Strategy (Dec. 2009) and
Marine Corps Language, Regional and Culture Strategy: 2011-2015 (Jan.
2011).
[7] See, for example, GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing
Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 2004); Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2012 Budget
Request (Feb. 4, 2011); Army Regulation 350-1, Army Training and
Leader Development (Dec. 18, 2009); and Marine Corps Order P3500.72A,
Marine Corps Ground Training and Readiness Program (Apr. 18, 2005).
[8] See, for example, 10 U.S.C. §164 for responsibilities of
commanders of combatant commands and 10 U.S.C. §§3013, 5013, and 8013
for the responsibilities of the service secretaries; and Department of
Defense Directive 5100.01, Functions of the Department of Defense and
Its Major Components (Dec. 21, 2010).
[9] Department of Defense, Strategic Plan for the Next Generation of
Training for the Department of Defense (Sept. 23, 2010).
[10] DOD's professional communities of linguists and regional experts
generally include personnel--such as foreign area officers, human
intelligence collectors, and signal intelligence analysts--who require
language and culture skills to perform their primary functions.
[11] The Defense Language Steering Committee includes representatives
from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); the Office of the
Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Office
of the Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation; the combatant
commands; the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the
Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force; the Defense Intelligence
Agency; the Defense Security Cooperation Agency; the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency; the National Security Agency; and the National
Geospatial Intelligence Agency.
[12] The Marine Corps refers to this concept as the Regional, Culture,
and Language Familiarization program.
[13] The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center provides
culturally based foreign language education, training, evaluation,
research and sustainment for DOD personnel.
[14] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G].
[15] Army Culture and Foreign Language Strategy (Dec. 2009).
[16] The Army strategy defines these stages as: stage 1: new recruit
through the end of initial military training; stage 2: the end of
initial military training through the 7th year of a career; stage 3:
the 8th year of a career through the 16th year; and stage 4: the 17th
year of a career and beyond.
[17] Marine Corps Language, Regional and Culture Strategy: 2011-2015
(Jan. 2011).
[18] Navy Marine Corps Directive 3500.65, Operational Culture and
Language Training and Readiness Manual (Apr. 8, 2009).
[19] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G].
[20] Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request (Feb. 4,
2011).
[21] See, for example, Army Regulation 350-1, Army Training and Leader
Development (Dec. 18, 2009); and Marine Corps Order P3500.72A, Marine
Corps Ground Training and Readiness Program (Apr. 18, 2005).
[22] Soldiers who complete language training may be given an
Interagency Language Roundtable score for listening, reading, and
speaking proficiency in foreign languages as measured on a scale from
0 (no proficiency) to 5 (functionally native proficiency). The Army
standard is for at least one leader per platoon to achieve a level 0+
in speaking and listening, described as memorized proficiency, with a
goal of a level 1, described as elementary proficiency.
[23] Navy Marine Corps Directive 3500.65, Operational Culture and
Language Training and Readiness Manual (Apr. 8, 2009).
[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-568].
[25] GAO, Defense Business Transformation: DOD Needs to Take
Additional Actions to Further Define Key Management Roles, Develop
Measurable Goals, and Align Planning Efforts, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-181R] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 26,
2011).
[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-568].
[27] At the time of our work, DOD was training the geographic
combatant commands to implement the new requirements methodology. Once
implemented, DOD intends to update the geographic combatant command
requirements on an annual basis and also apply the methodology to
other DOD components, such as the functional combatant commands and
combat support agencies.
[28] Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, Functions of the
Department of Defense and Its Major Components (Dec. 21, 2010).
[29] Department of Defense, Strategic Plan for the Next Generation of
Training for the Department of Defense (Sept. 23, 2010).
[30] Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Guidance for 2011 (Jan. 5,
2011).
[31] Commander International Security Assistance Force/U.S. Forces
Afghanistan Memorandum, Training Guidance for Language Training (Jan.
24, 2010).
[32] U.S. Forces Afghanistan Fragmentary Order 10-371 (Oct. 29, 2010).
[33] Department of Defense Directive Type Memorandum 11-002,
Counterinsurgency (COIN) Training and Reporting Guidance for Preparing
U.S. Forces to Succeed in Afghanistan and Pakistan (Dec. 9, 2010).
[34] U.S. Central Command Fragmentary Order 09-1700, USCENTCOM Theater
Training Requirements (Mar. 28, 2011).
[35] According to the Department of Defense, "foreign area officers"
are commissioned officers who, in addition to their primary military
specialty, also possess a combination of strategic focus, regional
expertise, cultural awareness, and foreign language skills. "Human
terrain teams" are comprised of socio-cultural experts that are
deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq to help improve Army and Marine Corps
commanders' and staffs' understanding of local populations.
[36] See Army Culture and Foreign Language Strategy (Dec. 2009) and
Marine Corps Language, Regional and Culture Strategy: 2011-2015 (Jan.
2011).
[37] See, for example, GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing
Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 2004); Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2012 Budget
Request (Feb. 4, 2011); Army Regulation 350-1, Army Training and
Leader Development (Dec. 18, 2009); and Marine Corps Order P3500.72A,
Marine Corps Ground Training and Readiness Program (Apr. 18, 2005).
[38] Department of Defense, Department of Defense Strategic Plan for
Language Skills, Regional Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities, 2011-
2016 (Feb. 2011).
[39] See 10 U.S.C. §164 for responsibilities of commanders of
combatant commands; and 10 U.S.C. §§3013, 5013, and 8013 for the
responsibilities of the service secretaries.
[40] See, for example, Department of Defense Directive 5100.01,
Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major Components (Dec.
21, 2010) and Department of Defense Directive 1322.18, Military
Training (Jan. 13, 2009).
[41] Department of Defense, Strategic Plan for the Next Generation of
Training for the Department of Defense (Sept. 23, 2010).
[End of section]
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:
