GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture
July 2, 2009
The Honorable Tim Johnson Chairman The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison Ranking Member Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States Senate
The Honorable Chet Edwards Chairman The Honorable Zach Wamp Ranking Member Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Subject: Force Structure: Actions Needed to Improve DOD’s Ability to Manage, Assess, and Report on Global Defense Posture Initiatives
In its ongoing global realignment of U.S. forces and installations, the Department of Defense (DOD) plans to reduce the number of troops permanently stationed overseas, consolidate overseas bases, and establish a network of smaller forward locations with limited personnel. Realigning the U.S. overseas posture involves closing obsolete and redundant bases, constructing new facilities costing billions of dollars, and ensuring that other needed infrastructure is in place to support realigned forces and missions. These significant changes to force structure both in the United States and overseas are being implemented to enhance operational efficiencies and ensure access during future contingency operations. DOD requests for overseas military construction projects extend around the world including Europe, the Pacific, Southwest Asia, and Central America. For fiscal year 2010, DOD requested approximately $1.5 billion, or 7 percent, of the regular military construction request for overseas military construction. The Congress has supported the DOD’s efforts to reassess and realign its overseas posture to better respond to emerging security challenges, but the Senate Appropriations Committee has expressed concerns about the department's ability to effectively manage and accomplish such an ambitious program as well as the fidelity of the global basing plan given the rapidly changing global security environment.
The Senate reports accompanying the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 military construction appropriation bills directed DOD to prepare updated reports on the Global Defense Posture initiative to accompany the department’s budget submission through fiscal year 2014.1 In October 2008, DOD transmitted a report to Congress entitled Strengthening U.S. Global Defense Posture responding to the Senate report requirement.
The Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2008 military construction appropriation bill also directed GAO to assess the department's updated 2008 Report to Congress and the department’s progress in implementing the strategy, with an emphasis on certain specific matters from which GAO derived the following three objectives: (1) determine whether the department has an integrated process for reassessing and adjusting its overseas presence and basing strategy; (2) identify the extent of DOD progress in establishing its proposed network of future Forward Operating Sites (FOS) and Cooperative Security Locations (CSL); and (3) compare how DOD's projected costs for implementing its overseas presence and basing strategy compare with initial estimates. On May 28, 2009, we provided your office with a briefing on the above matters (see enclosure I). This letter summarizes the results of that briefing, which has been modified to reflect discussions with DOD officials during our exit conference on June 4, 2009. Our scope and methodology are also discussed in the attached briefing slides.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2008 through July 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Summary of Results
DOD Process for Adjusting Global Posture
The Department of Defense has taken positive steps toward establishing an integrated process to assess and adjust global defense posture; however, we identified two shortcomings in the department’s approach. In February 2008, DOD established the Global Posture Executive Council to be the first formal governance body responsible for facilitating posture decisions and overseeing the assessment and implementation of posture plans. The Executive Council and the supporting Global Posture Integration Team include senior and staff-level representatives, respectively, from OSD offices and Joint Staff directorates, the combatant commands, the services, and the State Department. In the past year, the Executive Council has contributed to DOD decisions on significant posture-related matters, such as the location of the U.S. Africa Command headquarters and global mobility infrastructure. Stakeholder organizations we communicated with have consistently characterized the Executive Council’s establishment as an improvement over the previously informal approach.
Despite these positive steps, we identified two weaknesses in DOD’s approach. First, DOD has not reported on global posture matters in a comprehensive manner. DOD strategic planning guidance defines global defense posture in terms of three elements: host nation relationships, DOD’s facilities and military presence in country, and DOD activities overseas. Stakeholders we contacted described global defense posture in terms of their primary functions, such as U.S. Southern Command’s reference to conducting military operations in coordination with interagency partners or the U.S. Navy’s depiction of posture in terms of where its maritime platforms and assets are stationed around the world. However, OSD Policy officials acknowledged DOD’s global posture reports have emphasized only initiatives that have a direct impact on facility requirements, because the congressional direction to produce the report emphasized military construction costs. As a result, Congress may not have the full context in which to consider DOD’s global posture requirements. Second, geographic combatant commands have not established a consistent approach to monitor initiative implementation, assess progress, and periodically report on results because DOD has not yet developed global posture implementation guidance. When the Executive Council was established, the Deputy Secretary of Defense required OSD Policy to develop an implementing instruction that would address in more detail the global defense posture process and components' roles. OSD Policy officials stated this guidance has not yet been developed because their initial focus was on establishing the Executive Council and the Integration Team, supporting significant DOD decisions on posture-related matters, and preparing the 2008 Global Defense Posture Report to Congress. OSD Policy officials indicated they plan on developing such guidance after the conclusion of the Quadrennial Defense Review, but did not specify by what date. Therefore, as combatant commands implement complex and interrelated initiatives, they lack guidance from OSD regarding the management of stakeholder concerns, the identification of potential challenges, or the status of mitigation strategies.
Progress in Establishing Operating Locations
In the 2008 Report to Congress, the department reiterated its intent to establish a network of Forward Operating Sites and Cooperative Security Locations and summarized diplomatic efforts to date, but did not provide a full listing of the current number of planned locations. According to DOD officials who prepared the report, they focused the report on updating the status of initiatives contained in DOD’s original 2004 Report to Congress, omitting new and emerging requirements. DOD strategic planning guidance issued in 2008 requires each geographic combatant command to produce a theater campaign plan and specific posture requirements for
Page 3 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture
itsgivenareaofresponsibility.2 Theseplansandposturerequirementsaretobe updated annually, and posture requirements will continue to be modified based on these plans. Because of the potentially significant operating and support costs that future locations may entail, the services resist assuming management and funding responsibilities for them. We have previously reported that DOD lacks specific criteria or a process for assigning lead responsibility at future locations, and DOD has yet to resolve this issue.3 Without criteria or a process to assign responsibilities, management and funding for future locations may continue to be a contentious issue as the services face increasing demands for the resources they are provided.
Global Posture Costs
DOD has not fully defined or reported total costs for DOD’s global posture strategy. DOD’s 2008 Report to Congress estimates the total cost for all global defense posture initiatives at $9 to $12 billion, which is essentially unchanged from the amount reported in 2004. DOD’s cost estimate for the 2008 Report to Congress was based on the data used to develop the DOD fiscal year 2009 budget request. Approximately $3.4 billion of DOD’s estimate covers funding from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2013. The remainder of the $9 to $12 billion cost estimate is allocated to an unspecified period beyond 2013. However, the DOD’s cost estimate likely understates the total costs associated with restructuring DOD’s global posture, because it does not report the total cost of each initiative, assumptions about host nation support, the full share of U.S. obligations, or sustainment costs. For example, regarding the relocation of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam, which is part of a larger effort to realign U.S. military forces in Japan, data supporting the 2008 Global Defense Posture Report to Congress identifies $2.3 billion programmed for this initiative, but costs could be much higher.4 An agreement signed in February 2009 between the U.S. and Japan for the relocation of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam reaffirmed a previous estimate of the U.S. share of costs as over $4 billion.5 However, as we testified in May 2008, the U.S. costs are estimated to be at least $7.5 billion, and this estimate does not include other related costs, such as the costs to move and accommodate Marine Corps units from locations other than Okinawa to Guam, the costs associated with the development of training ranges and facilities on nearby islands, or the additional funding the Governor of Guam has recently testified is necessary for fiscal year 2010 to help fund Guam’s needs in support of the military buildup.6,7 The Office of Management and Budget and professional cost analysis organizations have identified key characteristics of a high-quality, reliable cost estimate, which GAO recently summarized in a cost estimating and assessment guide.8 A high-quality, reliable cost estimate should be well documented, comprehensive, accurate, and credible. The 2008 Report to Congress does not reflect these characteristics because DOD lacks a reliable process for developing credible global defense posture cost estimates. OSD initiated the cost estimate by issuing data calls to approximately 40 service components, whereby the lack of a common definition for posture permitted each component to decide subjectively which elements to include. Furthermore, OSD did not provide specific guidance on how to treat assumptions regarding host nation contributions. Moreover, according to the officials, the congressional direction to produce the 2008 Report to Congress required DOD to provide only the cost to date of implementing the military construction elements of the strategy.
Conclusions
Insufficient information exists to fully evaluate DOD’s progress in implementing the Global Posture Strategy, and Congress has not received a comprehensive view of the department’s efforts or related total costs to realign its global defense posture. Additionally, global defense posture realignment efforts will continue to evolve as department objectives, priorities, and combatant command plans adapt to a dynamic international security environment. While the department has taken some positive steps to establish an approach to manage this effort, the weaknesses we have identified may limit its effectiveness and the information the department provides to Congress.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To build on the steps taken by DOD toward establishing an integrated process to assess and adjust global defense posture and more fully report on progress and costs, we are recommending that the Secretary of Defense take the following five actions:
• Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to:
o issue guidance establishing a definition and common terms of reference for global defense posture;
o develop guidance, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, requiring the geographic combatant commands to establish an approach to monitor initiative implementation, assess progress, and report on results;
o establish criteria and a process for selecting and assigning lead service responsibilities for future locations; and
o modify the annual DOD Global Defense Posture Report to Congress to include the following elements: ␣ a definition of global defense posture and how this is applied in identifying initiatives in the report; ␣ a comprehensive list of all locations that fall under the definition; ␣ the identification of lead service responsibilities to manage and fund each location; and, a total cost estimate to complete each initiative, including expected U.S. government funding and anticipated host nation contributions.
• Direct the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller to develop a requirement and appropriate guidance for constructing an estimate of total global defense posture costs, which reflects the basic characteristics of a credible cost estimate as discussed in GAO’s Cost Estimating Guide.
Agency Comments
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with our five recommendations, and indicated specific steps will be taken to address them. The department stated the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) is developing a definition and framework for the global defense posture in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. A working definition will be published in the 2009 DOD Global Defense Posture Report to Congress and finalized with the completion of the Quadrennial Defense Review. The department also stated guidance will be developed to establish an integrated approach to monitor initiative implementation, assess progress, and report results. Furthermore, DOD commented that the Secretary of Defense will direct the Undersecretary of Defense (Policy) to establish a criteria and process for selecting and assigning lead service responsibilities, which will leverage existing business rules that govern the financial management arrangements between combatant command support agents and combatant commands. The department also agreed the DOD Global Defense Posture Report should be modified to provide a definition, a list of posture locations, and an identification of lead service responsibilities. However, the department was not clear on how it would modify the report to reflect the total costs to complete each initiative. Reporting these costs is an important component of our recommendation. The department did, however, agree with our fifth recommendation to develop a requirement and appropriate guidance for developing an estimate of global defense posture costs which reflects the basic characteristics of a credible cost estimate. The department agreed that understanding the costs associated with ongoing global defense posture initiatives/realignments or new global defense posture initiatives is an important piece of the decision-making process, and stated the department’s guidance for upcoming submission of Theater Posture Plans includes a requirement for combatant commands to provide credible cost estimates for global defense posture initiatives. If future DOD Global Defense Posture Reports include credible cost estimates developed through this process, and the department takes the other steps outlined in its comments, we believe these actions will address the intent of our recommendations. DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in enclosure II.
---
Technorati Tags:
GAO (Government Accountability Office), Force Structure
No comments:
Post a Comment