Since then, the United States has provided security assistance  to Lebanon through the Foreign Military Financing program; IMET;  International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) program;  the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related (NADR)  programs; and Section 1206 and Section 1207 authorities for training and  equipping foreign militaries and security forces and for reconstruction,  stabilization, and security activities in foreign countries, respectively. The United States Has Kept Strategic Goals for Lebanon Constant Since 2007 and Adjusted Security Assistance in Response to Political and Security Conditions

The United States has kept strategic goals for Lebanon constant since  2007. These goals include supporting the Government of Lebanon in  establishing stability and security against internal threats from militant  extremists and countering destabilizing influences. U.S. Strategic Goals Are to Support a Stable, Secure, and Independent Lebanese Government

Since 2007, U.S strategic goals for Lebanon have been to support the  nation as a stable, secure, and independent democracy. State and DOD Have Adjusted Implementation of Security Assistance Programs to Meet Conditions on the Ground

The goals and objectives of U.S. security assistance to Lebanon have  continued to focus on supporting Lebanese sovereignty and stability and  countering the influences of Syria and Iran. Agencies Allocated the Majority of Security Assistance through the Foreign Military Financing Program and Used Seven Other Programs

U.S. agencies allocated the majority (approximately 69 percent, or $641  million) of security assistance for Lebanon from fiscal years 2007 through  2012 through the Foreign Military Financing program, which provides  grants and loans to the Lebanese Armed Forces to purchase U.S.  equipment, services, and training. State’s evaluation policy  requires periodic evaluations of certain programs, consistent with  standards established in U.S. law. Evaluations can be facilitated by  collecting data on appropriate performance indicators. However, we and  other audit agencies have previously reported deficiencies in how State  and DOD measure program performance. For example, we found in 2011  that the IMET program evaluation efforts had few of the elements  commonly accepted as appropriate for measuring progress and did not  objectively measure how IMET contributes to long-term desired  outcomes. Neither State nor DOD has  completed plans or time frames to evaluate the remaining six ongoing  U.S. security assistance programs in Lebanon. Recommendations for Executive Action

To enhance the U.S. government’s ability to determine if security  assistance programs in Lebanon have been effective in achieving their  specific objectives and that they constitute the best mix of security  assistance to support U.S. strategic goals for the country, and to help  State and DOD track progress toward established goals for Lebanon, we  recommend that  1.  the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense,  complete plans to evaluate the effectiveness of security assistance  programs in Lebanon, including milestone dates for implementing the  plans;  2.  the Secretary of State develop performance indicators for State’s  security assistance programs for Lebanon that are specific,  measurable, and outcome-oriented; and  3.  the Secretary of Defense develop performance indicators for DOD’s  security assistance programs for Lebanon that are specific,  measurable, and outcome-oriented. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We assessed the extent to which the U.S. government, from fiscal years  2007 through 2012, (1) adjusted its strategic goals and security  assistance programs in Lebanon, (2) funded assistance programs for  Lebanese security forces, and (3) evaluated the effectiveness of security  assistance programs in Lebanon. In addition,  we interviewed officials from State and DOD in Washington, D.C., and at  the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, and DOD officials at the U.S.  Central Command and U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa,  Florida.
Why GAO Did This Study

Following Syrias withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005 and war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006, U.S. agencies increased their allocations of security assistance for Lebanon from $3 million in 2005 to about $28 million in 2006. This assistance included training and equipment funded and implemented by State or DOD for the Lebanese Armed Forces and Internal Security Forces of Lebanon. However, questions remain regarding the effectiveness of security assistance as a tool of U.S. policy in Lebanon, including concerns about the influence of foreign actors, primarily Syria and Iran, and extremist militant groups operating in Lebanon.
GAO was asked to review U.S. security assistance to Lebanon. GAOs review, covering fiscal years 2007 through 2012, assessed the extent to which the U.S. government (1) adjusted its strategic goals and security assistance programs in Lebanon, (2) funded assistance programs for Lebanese security forces, and (3) evaluated the effectiveness of security assistance programs in Lebanon. GAO reviewed budgetary data and planning documents and interviewed U.S. and Lebanese government officials in Washington, D.C.; Tampa, Florida; and Beirut, Lebanon.

What GAO Found

The United States has kept strategic goals for Lebanon constant since 2007 and adjusted security assistance in response to political and security conditions. Since 2007, U.S. strategic goals for Lebanon have been to support the nation as a stable, secure, and independent democracy. According to U.S. officials, U.S. policy priorities include supporting the Government of Lebanon in establishing stability and security against internal threats from militant extremists and the influence of Iran and Syria. U.S. programs to help achieve these priorities include Foreign Military Financing, International Military Education and Training (IMET), International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE), Antiterrorism Assistance, Counterterrorism Financing, Export Control and Related Border Security, and Section 1206 and 1207 authorities. While strategic goals have not changed, program implementation has changed to meet conditions on the ground, according to U.S. officials. For example, the Department of State (State) delayed committing Foreign Military Financing funds to Lebanon for 3 months in 2010, following an exchange of fire between the Lebanese Armed Forces and Israeli forces.
U.S. agencies allocated over $925 million for security assistance programs for Lebanon from fiscal years 2007 through 2012; State has disbursed and the Department of Defense (DOD) has committed the majority of the funds.
To date, State has evaluated only one of its security assistance programs for Lebanon, the INCLE program; neither State nor DOD has completed plans or established time frames to evaluate the other programs. State's evaluation policy requires that certain programs be evaluated periodically. Without such evaluations, State and DOD have little objective evidence to show that the programs have been effective or what the proper mix of programs should be. Evaluations can be facilitated through appropriate performance measurement. However, GAO and other agencies have previously reported deficiencies in how agencies measure program performance. For example, GAO found in 2011 that the IMET program evaluation efforts had few of the elements commonly accepted as appropriate for measuring performance. State and DOD are undertaking efforts to develop better performance indicators.

What GAO Recommends

State and DOD should complete plans with milestone dates to evaluate security assistance programs in Lebanon and develop better performance indicators to facilitate evaluation. State and DOD concurred.