Military Readiness: Impact of Current Operations and Actions
Needed to Rebuild Readiness of U.S. Ground Forces (14-FEB-08,
GAO-08-497T).
U.S. military forces, and ground forces in particular, have
operated at a high pace since the attacks of September 11, 2001,
including to support ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Between 2001 and July 2007, approximately 931,000 U.S. Army and
Marine Corps servicemembers deployed for overseas military
operations, including about 312,000 National Guard or Reserve
members. To support ongoing military operations and related
activities, Congress has appropriated billions of dollars since
2001, and through September 2007, the Department of Defense (DOD)
has reported obligating about $492.2 billion to cover these
expenses, of which a large portion are related to readiness. In
addition, DOD's annual appropriation, now totaling about $480
billion for fiscal year 2008, includes funds to cover readiness
needs. GAO was asked to testify on (1) the readiness implications
of DOD's efforts to support ongoing operations; and (2) GAO's
prior recommendations related to these issues, including specific
actions that GAO believes would enhance DOD's ability to manage
and improve readiness. This statement is based on reports and
testimonies published from fiscal years 2003 through 2008. GAO's
work was conducted in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-497T
ACCNO: A80793
TITLE: Military Readiness: Impact of Current Operations and
Actions Needed to Rebuild Readiness of U.S. Ground Forces
DATE: 02/14/2008
SUBJECT: Armed forces reserve training
Combat readiness
Defense appropriations
Defense operations
Department of Defense contractors
Force planning
Force structure
Marine Corps training
Military appropriations
Military budgets
Military forces
Military operations
Military personnel deployment
Military personnel retention
Military training
National defense operations
Risk management
Strategic planning
Transparency
Afghanistan
Iraq
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-497T
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.
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-497T, a testimony before the Armed Services
Committee, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
U.S. military forces, and ground forces in particular, have operated at
a high pace since the attacks of September 11, 2001, including to
support ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Between 2001 and
July 2007, approximately 931,000 U.S. Army and Marine Corps
servicemembers deployed for overseas military operations, including
about 312,000 National Guard or Reserve members.
To support ongoing military operations and related activities, Congress
has appropriated billions of dollars since 2001, and through September
2007, the Department of Defense (DOD) has reported obligating about
$492.2 billion to cover these expenses, of which a large portion are
related to readiness. In addition, DOD�s annual appropriation, now
totaling about $480 billion for fiscal year 2008, includes funds to
cover readiness needs.
GAO was asked to testify on (1) the readiness implications of DOD�s
efforts to support ongoing operations; and (2) GAO�s prior
recommendations related to these issues, including specific actions
that GAO believes would enhance DOD�s ability to manage and improve
readiness.
This statement is based on reports and testimonies published from
fiscal years 2003 through 2008. GAO�s work was conducted in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
What GAO Found:
While DOD has overcome difficult challenges in maintaining a high pace
of operations over the past 6 years and U.S. forces have gained
considerable combat experience, our work has shown that extended
operations in Iraq and elsewhere have had significant consequences for
military readiness, particularly with regard to the Army and Marine
Corps. To meet mission requirements specific to Iraq and Afghanistan,
the department has taken steps to increase the availability of
personnel and equipment for deploying units, and to refocus their
training on assigned missions. For example, to maintain force levels in
theater, DOD has increased the length of deployments and frequency of
mobilizations, but it is unclear whether these adjustments will affect
recruiting and retention. The Army and Marine Corps have also
transferred equipment from nondeploying units and prepositioned stocks
to support deploying units, affecting the availability of items for
nondeployed units to meet other demands. In addition, they have
refocused training such that units train extensively for
counterinsurgency missions, with little time available to train for a
fuller range of missions. Finally, DOD has adopted strategies, such as
relying more on Navy and Air Force personnel and contractors to perform
some tasks formerly handled by Army or Marine Corps personnel. If
current operations continue at the present level of intensity, DOD
could face difficulty in balancing these commitments with the need to
rebuild and maintain readiness.
Over the past several years, GAO has reported on a range of issues
related to military readiness and made numerous recommendations to
enhance DOD�s ability to manage and improve readiness. Given the change
in the security environment since September 11, 2001, and demands on
U.S. military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, rebuilding readiness will
be a long-term and complex effort. However, GAO believes DOD can take
measures that will advance progress in both the short and long terms. A
common theme is the need for DOD to take a more strategic decision-
making approach to ensure programs and investments are based on plans
with measurable goals, validated requirements, prioritized resource
needs, and performance measures to gauge progress. Overall, GAO
recommended that DOD develop a near-term plan for improving the
readiness of ground forces that, among other things, establishes
specific goals for improving unit readiness, prioritizes actions needed
to achieve those goals, and outlines an investment strategy to clearly
link resource needs and funding requests. GAO also made recommendations
in several specific readiness-related areas, including that DOD develop
equipping strategies to target shortages of items required to equip
units preparing for deployment, and DOD adjust its training strategies
to include a plan to support full-spectrum training. DOD agreed with
some recommendations, but has yet to fully implement them. For others,
particularly when GAO recommended that DOD develop more robust plans
linked to resources, DOD believed its current efforts were sufficient.
GAO continues to believe such plans are needed
To view the full product click on [hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-497T.]
For more information, contact Sharon L. Pickup, 202-512-9619,
[email protected]
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss issues related to military
readiness in light of the high pace of military operations since the
attacks of September 11, 2001, and, in particular, the significant
demand on U.S. forces to support ongoing operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. For the last 7 years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has
supported a wide range of operations and activities in support of the
administration's strategy to combat terrorism on a global basis,
requiring many units and personnel to deploy for multiple tours of
duty, and in some cases to remain for extended tours. As a result, the
military now has a ground force that has gained considerable experience
and is battle-tested but also stressed by the current pace of
operations. As of July 2007, approximately 931,000 U.S. Army and Marine
Corps servicemembers had deployed for overseas military operations
since 2001, including about 312,000 National Guard or Reserve members.
In the past several months, DOD's senior leaders have publicly
expressed concerns about the high demands on U.S. forces and the impact
on military readiness, particularly for ground forces. While testifying
last week that our military is capable of responding to all threats to
our vital national interests, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
expressed concern about the toll of the current pace of operations.
Congress, and this committee in particular, has also voiced concerns
and taken specific actions to give greater attention to readiness,
including establishing a Defense Material Readiness Board to identify
equipment and supply shortfalls and solutions for addressing them, and
requiring DOD to develop a plan for rebuilding readiness. Further, it
has also provided unprecedented levels of taxpayer money in response to
the department's funding requests, which have consistently emphasized
the need for resources to maintain readiness. More specifically, to
support ongoing military operations and related activities, Congress
has appropriated hundreds of billions of dollars since 2001, and
through September 2007, DOD has reported obligating about $492.2
billion to cover these expenses. In addition, DOD also has received its
annual appropriation, which totals about $480 billion for fiscal year
2008.
As you requested, my testimony will focus on the impact of current
operations and the challenges DOD faces in rebuilding readiness,
particularly for ground forces. Specifically, I will address (1) the
readiness implications of DOD's efforts to support ongoing operations;
and 2) GAO's prior recommendations related to these issues, including
specific actions we believe would enhance DOD's ability to manage and
improve readiness.
My statement is based on reports and testimonies published from fiscal
years 2003 through 2008. These reports are listed at the end of this
testimony and include reviews of mobilization policies, DOD's equipping
and reset strategies, prepositioned equipment, military training, and
the use of contractors, as well as general reports on readiness and
Iraq. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Summary:
While DOD has overcome difficult challenges in maintaining a high pace
of operations over the past 6 years and U.S. forces have gained
considerable combat experience, our work has shown that extended
operations in Iraq and elsewhere have had significant consequences for
military readiness, particularly with regard to the Army and Marine
Corps. To meet mission requirements specific to Iraq and Afghanistan,
the department has taken steps to increase the availability of
personnel and equipment for deploying units, and to refocus their
training on assigned missions. For example, to maintain force levels in
theater, DOD has increased the length of deployments and frequency of
mobilizations, but it is unclear whether these adjustments will affect
recruiting and retention. The Army and Marine Corps have also
transferred equipment from nondeploying units and prepositioned stocks
to support deploying units, affecting the availability of items for
nondeployed units to meet other demands. In addition, they have
refocused training such that units train extensively for
counterinsurgency missions, with little time available to train for a
fuller range of missions. Finally, DOD has adopted strategies, such as
relying more on Navy and Air Force personnel and contractors to perform
some tasks formerly handled by Army or Marine Corps personnel. If
current operations continue at the present level of intensity, DOD
could face difficulty in balancing these commitments with the need to
rebuild and maintain readiness.
Over the past several years, we have reported and testified on a range
of issues related to military readiness and made multiple
recommendations aimed at enhancing DOD's ability to manage and improve
readiness. Given the change in the security environment since September
11, 2001, and related increases in demands on our military forces as
well as the high level of commitment to ongoing operations, rebuilding
readiness of U.S. ground forces is a long-term prospect. In addition,
the department faces competing demands for resources given other broad-
based initiatives to grow, modernize, and transform its forces, and
therefore will need to carefully validate needs and assess trade-offs.
While there are no quick fixes to these issues, the department has
measures it can take that will advance progress in both the short and
long term. A common theme in our work has been the need for DOD to take
a strategic approach to decision making that promotes transparency, and
ensures that programs and investments are based on sound plans with
measurable goals, validated requirements, prioritized resource needs,
and performance measures to gauge progress. Overall, we have
recommended that DOD develop a near-term plan for improving the
readiness of the ground forces that, among other things, establishes
specific goals for improving unit readiness, prioritizes actions needed
to achieve those goals, and outlines an investment strategy to clearly
link resource needs and DOD's funding requests. We have also
recommended actions in each of the specific areas I will be discussing
today. DOD agreed with some recommendations, but has yet to fully
implement them. For others, particularly when we recommended that DOD
develop more robust plans linked to resources, DOD believed its current
efforts were sufficient. We continue to believe such plans are needed.
Ongoing Operations Have Challenged DOD's Ability to Sustain Readiness
of Ground Forces, Particularly for Nondeployed Forces:
To meet the challenges of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
DOD has taken steps to increase the availability of personnel and
equipment for units deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly
with regard to the Army and Marine Corps. Among other things, DOD has
adjusted rotation goals, and employed strategies such as to retrain
units to perform missions other than those they were designed to
perform. It has also transferred equipment from nondeployed units and
prepositioned stocks to support deployed units. The Army and Marine
Corps have refocused training to prepare deploying units for
counterinsurgency missions. DOD has also relied more on Navy and Air
Force personnel and contractors to help perform tasks normally handled
by Army or Marine Corps personnel. Using these measures, DOD has been
able to continue to support ongoing operations, but not without
consequences for readiness. In the short term, ground forces are
limited in their ability to train for other missions and nondeployed
forces are experiencing shortages of resources. The long-term
implications of DOD's actions, such as the impact of increasing
deployment times on recruiting and retention, are unclear.
DOD Has Adjusted Policies to Increase Availability of Personnel, but
Long-Term Implications Are Unclear:
For the past several years, DOD has continually rotated forces in and
out of Iraq and Afghanistan to maintain required force levels. While
DOD's goals generally call for active component personnel to be
deployed for 1 of every 3 years and reserve component personnel
involuntarily mobilized 1 of 6 years, many have been mobilized and
deployed more frequently. Additionally, ongoing operations have created
particularly high demand for certain ranks and occupational
specialties. For example, officers and senior noncommissioned officers
are in particularly high demand due to increased requirements within
deployed headquarters organizations and new requirements for transition
teams, which train Iraqi and Afghan forces. Several support force
occupations such as engineering, civil affairs, transportation, and
military police have also been in high demand.
Since September 11, 2001, DOD has made a number of adjustments to its
personnel policies, including those related to length of service
obligations, length of deployments, frequency of reserve component
mobilizations, and the use of volunteers. While these measures have
helped to increase the availability of personnel in the short term, the
long-term impacts of many of these adjustments are uncertain. For
example, the Army has successively increased the length of deployments
in Iraq--from 6 to 12 and eventually to 15 months. Also, the services
have, at various times, used "stop-loss" policies, which prevent
personnel from leaving the service, and DOD has made changes to reserve
component mobilization policies. In the latter case, DOD modified its
policy, which had previously limited the cumulative amount of time that
reserve component servicemembers could be involuntarily called to
active duty for the Global War on Terrorism. Under DOD's new policy,
which went into effect in January 2007, there are no cumulative limits
on these involuntary mobilizations, but DOD has set goals to limit the
mobilizations to 12 months and to have 5 years between these Global War
on Terrorism involuntary mobilizations. DOD has also stated that in the
short term it will not be able to meet its goal for 5 years between
rotations. By making these adjustments, DOD has made additional
personnel available for deployment, thus helping to meet short-term
mission requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, it is unclear
whether longer deployments or more frequent involuntary mobilizations
or other adjustments will affect recruiting and retention.
In the near term, the Army and Marine Corps have taken a number of
steps to meet operational requirements and mitigate the stress on their
forces. Such actions include deploying units from branches with lower
operational tempos in place of units from branches with higher
operational tempos after conducting some additional training for the
units. For example, after retraining units, the Army has used active
component field artillery units for convoy escort, security, and gun
truck missions and has used active and reserve component quartermaster
units to provide long-haul bulk fuel support in Iraq.
Equipment Shortages Affect Availability of Items for Nondeployed Units:
As we have reported, ongoing military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan combined with harsh combat and environmental conditions are
inflicting heavy wear and tear on equipment items that, in some cases,
are more than 20 years old. In response to the sustained operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army and Marine Corps developed programs to
reset (repair or replace) equipment to return damaged equipment to
combat-ready status for current and future operations. We also have
reported that while the Army and Marine Corps continue to meet mission
requirements and report high readiness rates for deployed units,
nondeployed units have reported a decrease in reported readiness rates,
in part due to equipment shortages. Some units preparing for deployment
have reported shortages of equipment on hand as well as specific
equipment item shortfalls that affect their ability to carry out their
missions. The Army Chief of Staff has testified that the Army has had
to take equipment from nondeployed units in order to provide it to
deployed units. The Marine Corps has also made trade-offs between
preparing units to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan and other unit
training. In addition, the Army National Guard and Army Reserve have
transferred large quantities of equipment to deploying units, which has
contributed to equipment shortages in nondeployed units. As a result,
state officials have expressed concerns about their National Guard's
equipment that would be used for domestic requirements.
Services Have Adjusted Training to Focus Primarily on Counterinsurgency
Tasks:
To meet current mission requirements, the services, especially the Army
and the Marine Corps, have focused unit training on counterinsurgency
tasks. Given limitations in training time, and the current focus on
preparing for upcoming, scheduled deployments, nondeployed troops are
spending less training time on their core tasks than in the past. Our
analysis of Army unit training plans and discussions with training
officials indicate that unit commanders' training plans have focused
solely on preparing for their unit's assigned mission instead of moving
progressively from preparing for core missions to training for full-
spectrum operations. Since February 2004, all combat training rotations
conducted at the Army's National Training Center have been mission
rehearsal exercises to prepare units for deployments, primarily to Iraq
and Afghanistan. As a result, units are not necessarily developing and
maintaining the skills for a fuller range of missions. For instance,
units do not receive full-spectrum operations training such as combined
arms maneuver and high-intensity combat. In addition, the Army has
changed the location of some training. According to Army officials, the
National Training Center has provided home station mission rehearsal
exercises at three Army installations, but these exercises were less
robust and on a smaller scale than those conducted at the center. Army
leaders have noted that the limited time between deployments has
prevented their units from completing the full-spectrum training that
the units were designed and organized to perform. The Chief of Staff of
the Army recently stated that units need 18 months between deployments
to be able to conduct their entire full-spectrum mission training.
While the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expressed concerns
about the impact of the current operational tempo on full-spectrum
training during his testimony last week, he also noted that the
military is capable of responding to all threats to our vital national
interests.
Offloading of Prepositioned Equipment Could Affect DOD's Ability to
Meet Other Demands:
The Army's decision to remove equipment from its prepositioned ships
impacts its ability to fill equipment shortages in nondeployed units
and could impact DOD's ability to meet other demands if new demands
were to cause requirements to rise above current levels to new peaks.
The Army's decision to accelerate the creation of two additional
brigade combat teams by removing equipment from prepositioned ships in
December 2006 helps the Army to move toward its deployment rotation
goals. However, the lack of prepositioned equipment means that
deploying units will either have to deploy with their own equipment or
wait for other equipment to be assembled and transported to their
deployment location. Either of these options could slow deployment
response times.
The most recent DOD end-to-end mobility analysis found that the
mobility system could continue to sustain the current (post 9/11) tempo
of operations with acceptable risk. The study found that when fully
mobilized and augmented by the Civil Reserve Air Fleet and the
Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement ships, the United States has
sufficient capability to support national objectives during a peak
demand period with acceptable risk. The study highlighted the need for
DOD to continue actions to reset and reconstitute prepositioned assets.
However, some prepositioned stocks have been depleted. Since portions
of the Army's prepositioned equipment are no longer available,
transportation requirements may increase and risk levels may increase,
which could increase timelines for delivery of personnel and equipment.
DOD Is Also Relying on Other Services to Help Accomplish Some Missions
Typically Handled by Ground Forces:
Shortly after September 11, 2001, the Army's pace of operations was
relatively low, and it was generally able to meet combatant commander
requirements with its cadre of active duty and reserve component
personnel. For example, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the
President, through the Secretary of Defense and the state governors,
used Army National Guard forces to fill security roles both at Air
Force bases and domestic civilian airports. Today, with the Army no
longer able to meet the deployment rotation goals for its active and
National Guard and Reserve forces due to the pace of overseas
operations, DOD is increasingly turning to the Navy and the Air Force
to help meet requirements for skills typically performed by ground
forces.
The Navy and Air Force are filling many of these traditional Army
ground force requirements with personnel who possess similar skills to
the Army personnel they are replacing. According to Air Force and Navy
testimony before this committee in July 2007, some examples of the
personnel with similar skills included engineers, security forces,
chaplains, and public affairs, intelligence, medical, communications,
logistics, and explosive ordnance disposal personnel. The Navy and Air
Force are also contributing personnel to meet emerging requirements for
transition teams to train Iraqi and Afghan forces. Regardless of
whether they are filling new requirements or just operating in a
different environment with familiar sets of skills, Navy and Air Force
personnel undergo additional training prior to deploying for these
nontraditional assignments. While we have not verified the numbers,
according to the July 2007 testimonies, the Air Force and Navy
deployments in support of nontraditional missions had grown
significantly since 2004 and at the time of the testimonies the Air
Force reported that it had approximately 6,000 personnel filling
nontraditional positions in the Central Command area of responsibility,
while the Navy reported that it had over 10,000 augmentees making
significant contributions to the Global War on Terror. Finally, the Air
Force testimony noted that many personnel who deployed for these
nontraditional missions came from stressed career fields--security
force, transportation, air traffic control, civil engineering, and
explosive ordnance disposal--that were not meeting DOD's active force
goal of limiting deployments to 1 in every 3 years.
DOD's Reliance on Contractors Has Reached Unprecedented Levels:
The U.S. military has long used contractors to provide supplies and
services to deployed U.S. forces; however, the scale of contractor
support in Iraq is far greater than in previous military operations,
such as Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm and in the Balkans.
Moreover, DOD's reliance on contractors continues to grow. In December
2006, the Army estimated that almost 60,000 contractor employees
supported ongoing military operations in Southwest Asia. In October
2007, DOD estimated the number of DOD contractors in Iraq to be about
129,000. By way of contrast, an estimated 9,200 contractor personnel
supported military operations in the 1991 Gulf War. In Iraq,
contractors provide deployed U.S. forces with an almost endless array
of services and support, including communication services; interpreters
who accompany military patrols; base operations support (e.g., food and
housing); maintenance services for both weapon systems and tactical and
nontactical vehicles; intelligence analysis; warehouse and supply
operations; and security services to protect installations, convoys,
and DOD personnel. Factors that have contributed to this increase
include reductions in the size of the military, an increase in the
number of operations and missions undertaken, a lack of organic
military capabilities, and DOD's use of increasingly sophisticated
weapons systems.
DOD has long recognized that contractors are necessary to successfully
meet current and future requirements. In 1990, DOD issued guidance that
requires DOD components to determine which contracts provide essential
services and gives commanders three options if they cannot obtain
reasonable assurance of continuation of essential services by a
contractor: they can obtain military, DOD civilian, or host-nation
personnel to perform services; they can prepare a contingency plan for
obtaining essential services; or they can accept the risk attendant
with a disruption of services during a crisis situation.[Footnote 1]
While our 2003 report found that DOD has not taken steps to implement
the 1990 guidance, DOD officials informed us that DOD has awarded a
contract to deploy planners to the combatant commands. According to the
DOD officials, the planners will focus on the contractor support
portions of the operational plans, including requirements for
contractor services. In addition, the planners will streamline the
process through which the combatant commander can request requirements
definition, contingency contracting, or program management support. DOD
officials report that, as of February 7, 2008, eight planners have been
deployed. Without firm contingency plans in place or a clear
understanding of the potential consequences of not having the essential
service available, the risks associated with meeting future
requirements increase.
Actions Based on Transparency, Sound Plans, and Measurable Outcomes Are
Needed to Guide DOD's Efforts to Rebuild Readiness of Ground Forces:
Given the change in the security environment since September 11, 2001,
and related increases in demands on our military forces as well as the
ongoing high level of commitment to ongoing operations, rebuilding
readiness of U.S. ground forces is a long-term prospect. In addition,
the department faces competing demands for resources given other broad-
based initiatives to grow, modernize, and transform its forces, and
therefore will need to carefully validate needs and assess trade-offs.
While there are no quick fixes to these issues, we believe the
department has measures it can take that will advance progress in both
the short and long terms. Over the past several years, we have reported
and testified on a range of issues related to military readiness and
made multiple recommendations aimed at enhancing DOD's ability to
manage and improve military readiness.
To Rebuild Readiness While Modernizing and Transforming Force
Capabilities, DOD's Plans Require a Substantial Commitment of
Resources:
DOD faces significant challenges in rebuilding readiness while it
remains engaged in ongoing operations. At the same time, it has
undertaken initiatives to increase the size of U.S. ground forces, and
modernize and transform force capabilities, particularly in the Army.
Although the cost to rebuild the U.S. ground forces is uncertain, it
will likely require billions of dollars and take years to complete. For
example, once operations end, the Army has estimated it will take $12
billion to $13 billion a year for at least 2 years to repair, replace,
and rebuild its equipment used for operations in Iraq. Similarly, the
Marine Corps has estimated it will cost about $2 billion to $3 billion
to reset its equipment. Furthermore, current plans to grow, modernize,
and transform the force will require hundreds of billions of dollars
for the foreseeable future. Although the Army estimated in 2004 that it
could largely equip and staff modular units by spending $52.5 billion
through fiscal year 2011, the Army now believes it will require
additional funding through fiscal year 2017 to fully equip its units.
In addition, we found that the Army's $70 billion funding plan to
increase its end strength by over 74,200 lacks transparency and may be
understated because some costs were excluded and some factors are still
evolving that could potentially affect this funding plan. We have also
reported that the costs of the Army's Future Combat System are likely
to grow. While the Army has only slightly changed its cost estimate of
$160.7 billion since last year, independent cost estimates put costs at
between $203 billion and nearly $234 billion. While our testimony today
is focused on the readiness of the Army and Marine Corps, we recognize
that DOD is continuing to deal with determining the requirements, size,
and readiness of the Air Force and Navy and that Congress is engaged
with that debate. The Air Force for example, is dealing with balancing
the requirements and funding for strategic and intratheater lift as
well as its needs for aerial refueling aircraft, tactical aircraft, and
a new bomber fleet. The Navy is also reviewing its requirements and
plans to modernize its fleet. Meeting these requirements will involve
both new acquisitions as well upgrades to existing fleets, which will
cost billions of dollars.
Recommended Actions to Improve Strategic Decision Making and Address
Specific Readiness Concerns:
A common theme in our work has been the need for DOD to take a more
strategic approach to decision making that promotes transparency and
ensures that programs and investments are based on sound plans with
measurable goals, validated requirements, prioritized resource needs,
and performance measures to gauge progress against the established
goals. Due to the magnitude of current operational commitments and the
readiness concerns related to the ground forces, we believe decision
makers need to take a strategic approach in assessing current
conditions and determining how best to rebuild the readiness of the
Army and Marine Corps. As a result, in July 2007, we recommended that
DOD develop near-term plans for improving the readiness of its active
and reserve component ground forces, and specify the number of ground
force units they plan to maintain at specific levels of readiness as
well as the time frames for achieving these goals. Because significant
resources will be needed to provide the personnel, equipment, and
training necessary to restore and maintain readiness, and because DOD
is competing for resources in an increasingly fiscally constrained
environment, we also recommended that the plans contain specific
investment priorities, prioritized actions that the services believe
are needed to achieve the plans' readiness goals and time frames, and
measures to gauge progress in improving force readiness. Such plans
would be helpful to guide decision makers in considering difficult
trade-offs when determining funding needs and making resource
decisions.
We have also recommended that DOD and the services take specific
actions in a number of areas I have discussed today. These
recommendations are contained in the products listed at the end of my
statement. In summary:
* The services need to collect and maintain comprehensive data on the
various strategies they use to meet personnel and unit requirements for
ongoing operations and determine the impact of these strategies on the
nondeployed force.
* The Army needs to develop planning and funding estimates for staffing
and equipping the modular force as well as assess its modular force.
* The Army needs to provide to Congress transparent information on its
plan to increase the force size, including data on the force structure
to be created by this initiative, implementation timelines, cost
estimates, and a funding plan.
* DOD needs to identify mission essential services provided by
contractors and include them in planning, and also develop doctrine to
help the services manage contractors supporting deployed forces.
* The Army needs to revise and adjust its training strategy to include
a plan to support full-spectrum training during extended operations,
and clarify the capacity needed to support the modular force.
* DOD must develop a strategy and plans for managing near-term risks
and management challenges related to its prepositioning programs.
* DOD must improve its methodology for analyzing mobility capabilities
requirements to include development of models and data, an explanation
of the impact of limitations on study results, and metrics in
determining capabilities.
DOD agreed with some recommendations, but has yet to fully implement
them. For others, particularly when we recommended that DOD develop
more robust plans linked to resources, DOD believed its current efforts
were sufficient. We continue to believe such plans are needed.
Given the challenges facing the department, we believe these actions
will enhance DOD's ability to validate requirements, develop plans and
funding needs, identify investment priorities and trade-offs, and
ultimately to embark on a sustainable path to rebuild readiness and
move forward with plans to modernize and transform force capabilities.
In the absence of a strategic approach based on sound plans and
measurable outcomes, neither Congress nor the department can be assured
that it will have the information it needs to make informed investment
decisions and to ensure that it is maximizing the use of taxpayer
dollars in both the short and long terms.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, this concludes my statement.
I would be pleased to respond to any question you or other Members of
the Committee or Subcommittee may have.
[End of section]
For questions regarding this testimony, please call Sharon L. Pickup at
(202) 512-9619 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Military Operations: Implementation of Existing Guidance and Other
Actions Needed to Improve DOD's Oversight and Management of Contractors
in Future Operations. GAO-08-436T. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2008.
Force Structure: Need for Greater Transparency for the Army's Grow the
Force Initiative Funding Plan. GAO-08-354R. Washington, D.C.: January
18, 2008.
Force Structure: Better Management Controls Are Needed to Oversee the
Army's Modular Force and Expansion Initiatives and Improve
Accountability for Results. GAO-08-145. Washington, D.C.: December 14,
2007.
Defense Logistics: Army and Marine Corps Cannot Be Assured That
Equipment Reset Strategies Will Sustain Equipment Availability While
Meeting Ongoing Operational Requirements. GAO-07-814. Washington, D.C.:
September 19, 2007.
Military Training: Actions Needed to More Fully Develop the Army's
Strategy for Training Modular Brigades and Address Implementation
Challenges. GAO-07-936. Washington, D.C.: August 6, 2007.
Military Personnel: DOD Lacks Reliable Personnel Tempo Data and Needs
Quality Controls to Improve Data Accuracy. GAO-07-780. Washington,
D.C.: July 17, 2007.
Defense Acquisitions: Key Decisions to Be Made on Future Combat System.
GAO-07-376. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2007.
Defense Logistics: Improved Oversight and Increased Coordination Needed
to Ensure Viability of the Army's Prepositioning Strategy. GAO-07-144.
Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2007.
Defense Logistics: Preliminary Observations on the Army's
Implementation of Its Equipment Reset Strategies. GAO-07-439T.
Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2007.
Reserve Forces: Actions Needed to Identify National Guard Domestic
Equipment Requirements and Readiness. GAO-07-60. Washington, D.C.:
January 26, 2007.
Securing, Stabilizing, and Rebuilding Iraq: Key Issues for
Congressional Oversight. GAO-07-308SP. Washington, D.C.: January 9,
2007.
Defense Transportation: Study Limitations Raise Questions about the
Adequacy and Completeness of the Mobility Capabilities Study and
Report. GAO- 06-938. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2006.
Defense Logistics: Preliminary Observations on Equipment Reset
Challenges and Issues for the Army and Marine Corps. GAO-06-604T.
Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2006.
Defense Logistics: Better Management and Oversight of Prepositioning
Programs Needed to Reduce Risk and Improve Future Programs. GAO-05-427.
Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2005.
Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Address Long-term Reserve Force
Availability and Related Mobilization and Demobilization Issues. GAO-
04- 1031. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2004.
Military Operations: Contractors Provide Vital Services to Deployed
Forces but Are Not Adequately Addressed in DOD's Plans. GAO-03-695.
Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2003.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Department of Defense Instruction 3020.37, Continuation of
Essential DOD Contractor Services During Crises, Nov. 6, 1990 (Change
1, Jan. 26, 1996).
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 "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: [email protected]:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
*** End of document. ***