While it will  take some time for us to fully answer this question, we view the new  strategies, and the framework they provide, as a positive step. The new  strategies show cohesion in that they are organized in a hierarchy, share  common themes, and cross-reference each other. In addition, the  collective strategies are more comprehensive than the single strategy they  generally replace because they include more detailed functions and more  players. Similarly, among the strategies more  relevant to combating terrorism overseassuch as the National Security  Strategy of the United States of America, the National Strategy for  Combating Terrorism, the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass  Destruction, and the National Military Strategy of the United States of  Americaall contain either goals or objectives relating to strengthening  international relationships; strengthening intelligence gathering and  analysis capabilities; and improving capabilities to deter, prevent, and  respond to weapons of mass destruction. There are some areas where linkages  could be improved. In addition, our more recent work on homeland  security stressed the need for partnerships with state and local  governments and the private sector. Consistent with GAO’s earlier  findings and recommendations, some of the new strategies include not just  the federal government, but also these other players as well as the  international community. Potential Challenges in Implementing the Strategies

The strategies by themselves, no matter how cohesive and comprehensive,  will not ensure a strategy-driven, integrated, and effective set of programs  to combat terrorism. Given that these strategies  are relatively new, GAO has not yet evaluated their implementation, either  individually or collectively. For example, we have designated the  implementation and transformation of the Department of Homeland  Security as a high-risk federal activity. The Congress also will play a key  role in implementing these strategies. New Strategies Reflect Long-Standing Programs

Regarding the question of whether these strategies are driving programs, it  is important to note that these new strategies reflect a host of pre-existing  programs. Some of the related  policies and programs have been in place for several years. It is important, for example, that federal agencies have clearly  defined roles and responsibilities. A key component in integrating federal agencies is interagency  coordination. While the strategies generally do not address such  coordination mechanisms, we identified them for both homeland security  and combating terrorism overseas. The challenge of integration goes beyond the federal level to include state  and local governments, the private sector, and the international  community. For example, the National  Strategy for Homeland Security and the National Strategy for the  Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets provide  extended discussions of the importance of partnerships among various  federal agencies, state and local governments, the private sector, and to a  lesser degree, the international community. One key to assessing overall  performance that we have previously called for in strategies is that they  define an end-state—what a strategy is trying to achieve. Finally, some end-states are more strategic in nature, the prime example  belonging to the National Security Strategy of the United States of  America, which seeks to create a “balance of power that favors human  freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for  themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty.”
Although some strategies identify an end-state, most strategies lack  detailed performance goals and measures to monitor and evaluate the  success of combating terrorism programs. This approach would provide a clearer statement on what the nation  hopes to achieve through its programs to combat terrorism. The general lack of specific performance goals and measures in the  strategies makes it more important that individual federal agencies have  explicit performance goals and related measures. Beyond federal agencies, national goals and measures of success may  warrant a dialogue about performance goals and measures for nonfederal  partners—state and local governments, the private sector, and the  international community. GAO will  continue to assist this subcommittee, and the Congress as a whole, in  helping the federal government develop and implement programs to  protect the United States from terrorism both at home and abroad.
Why GAO Did This Study

In GAO's past work, we have stressed the importance of a national strategy to combat terrorism. We stated that such a national strategy should provide a clear statement about what the nation hopes to achieve. A national strategy should not only define the roles of federal agencies, but also those of state and local governments, the private sector, and the international community. A national strategy also should establish goals, objectives, priorities, outcomes, milestones, and performance measures. In essence, a national strategy should incorporate the principles of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, which requires federal agencies to set strategic goals, measure performance, and report on the degree to which goals are met.

What GAO Found

We view the new strategies as a positive step forward. While it will take some time for us to fully evaluate whether they form a cohesive and comprehensive framework, there are some positive indications. The new strategies show cohesion in that they are organized in a hierarchy, share common themes, and cross-reference each other. For example, they provide high-level goals and objectives on the issues of national security in general, and how combating terrorism fits into that larger picture, how to provide for homeland security, and how to combat terrorism overseas. In addition, they provide more detailed goals and objectives for specific functions or areas that include military operations, weapons of mass destruction, money laundering, cyber security, and the protection of physical infrastructures. In addition, the collective strategies are more comprehensive than the single strategy they generally replace because, consistent with our earlier recommendations, they include not just the federal government, but also state and local governments, the private sector, and the international community. There will be many challenges to implementing these strategies in a manner that is strategy-driven, integrated, and effective. Given the recency of these strategies, it is premature to evaluate their collective implementation. Regarding the question of whether these strategies are driving programs, it is important to note that these strategies reflect a host of pre-existing programs: some of the programs to implement the new strategies have been in place for several years. Nonetheless, the strategies address the implementation of some programs more vigorously than before. Regarding the integration of programs, it is important that federal agencies have clear roles and responsibilities to combat terrorism. Given the number of agencies, it is also important that there be mechanisms to coordinate across agencies. We have identified federal agency roles and responsibilities and coordination mechanisms for both homeland security and combating terrorism overseas and will continue to evaluate their effectiveness. For example, we recently have designated the implementation and transformation of the Department of Homeland Security as a high-risk federal activity. Moreover, implementation must extend beyond the federal level to integrate these efforts with state and local governments, the private sector, and the international community. Regarding the effectiveness of these strategies, performance measures will be important to monitor the successes of programs. One key to assessing overall performance that we previously have identified is that strategies should define an end-state of what the strategies are trying to achieve. Some strategies meet this test, but they generally do not include detailed performance measures. This raises the importance of individual federal agencies having performance measures and reporting their progress. Beyond federal agencies, national measures of success may require a dialogue on appropriate performance measures for state and local governments, the private sector, and the international community. Congress also has an important role in authorizing, funding, and overseeing the implementation of these strategies to protect the American people from terrorism both at home and abroad.