Advisor Teams Varied in the Extent to Which Their Approaches Identified Activities Based on Specific Objectives Linked to ANSF Development Goals

While ISAF and the regional commands have defined the mission and  broad goals for the advisor teams, it is largely left to the teams, in  coordination with the regional command and brigade commander for their  area of operations, to develop their approach for working with their ANSF  counterpart units. Similarly, the Army’s Field Manual for Security Force Assistance  states that, in order to be successful, advisors have an end or goal in  mind and should establish objectives and milestones that support higher- command plans and can be achieved during their deployment.addition, advisor teams must balance the priorities of their commands  with those of their counterpart units. For example, advisor teams in multiple regional  commands stated their approach was to rely on interactions with their  ANSF counterparts to identify priorities, using this input to develop  activities on an ad hoc basis. Similarly, according to a brigade  commander serving as an advisor team leader, his team and other  advisor teams from his brigade generally identified development activities  in reaction to situations as they arose rather than as part of a longer-term,  more structured approach to achieve broad goals. Without a more structured  approach with clear linkages between objectives or end states linked to  development goals for ANSF units, regional commanders cannot be  assured that the activities of individual advisor teams are in fact making  progress toward established goals. The Army’s use of  brigades to form advisor teams has enabled them to meet requirements  but has resulted in leaving large numbers of brigade personnel at their  home station locations. To manage these large rear detachments,  brigade leadership undertook significant planning to ensure enough stay- behind leadership existed to maintain a sufficient command structure and  provide certain training and exercises. According to Army and Marine  Corps officials, meeting the rank and skills required for SFA advisor  teams, including those as part of SFABs, continues to present a  challenge given the limited availability of such personnel across the  services. For instance, specific rank requirements can generally be  substituted with an individual one rank above or below the requirement. The Army and Marine Corps Have Developed Programs to Train Advisor Teams, but Teams Differed in the Extent to Which They Had Mission-Specific Information Prior to Deployment

The Army and Marine Corps have developed standardized  predeployment training programs for SFA advisor teams in Afghanistan,  but teams varied in the extent to which they had access to mission- specific information prior to deploying that they believed would help them  prepare for their specific advising missions. Advisor teams varied in the extent to which they had access to  information to help prepare for their specific advising missions prior to  deployment. Advisor teams may gain access to this information through a  variety of ways. For example, officials from one brigade  that provided SFA advisor teams said that they recognized the value  of CENTRIXS-I in gathering specific information from units on the  ground in order for teams to conduct their mission analysis and early  planning, and proactively took steps to gain access to the network at  home station early on in predeployment training, and were able to  obtain access for its SFA advisor teams 5 months prior to deploying. Nonetheless, without a more complete  understanding of the capabilities of the ANSF counterpart units to be  advised and the operating environment in which they will be advising prior  to deploying, it may take advisor teams more time after deploying to  maximize their impact as advisors. By  ensuring that SFA advisor teams have structured approaches with clear  linkages between end states, objectives, and milestones that are in  support of broad goals for ANSF units, theater commanders can enhance  the ability of advisor teams to develop their ANSF counterparts. Recommendations for Executive Action

To ensure that the activities of individual advisor teams are more clearly  linked to ISAF and regional command goals for overall ANSF  development, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense, in  consultation with the commander of U.S. Central Command, direct  theater commanders in Afghanistan to work with brigade commanders  and advisor teams to identify specific end states, objectives and  milestones for developing their ANSF counterparts that are in support of  the broad theater goals to guide their advising efforts during their  deployment. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To determine the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD), in  conjunction with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), has  defined Security Force Assistance (SFA) advisor team missions, goals,  and objectives, we reviewed doctrine and guidance from the Army,  Marine Corps, and theater commanders, including the Army Field Manual  3-07.1 Security Force Assistance and the ISAF SFA Concept and  Implementation Guidance. We visited or contacted officials from the following organizations in the  United States and Afghanistan during our review:  DOD Organizations in the United States
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Arlington, Virginia
U.S. Central Command, Tampa, Florida
U.S. Army
Department of the Army Headquarters, Arlington, Virginia
U.S. Army Forces Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
162nd Infantry Training Brigade, Fort Polk, Louisiana
Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana
101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Kentucky
Headquarters, Marine Corps, Arlington, Virginia
Marine Corps Central Command, Tampa, Florida
1st Marine Expeditionary Force, including its Advisor Training Cell,
Advisor Training Group, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center,  DOD and International Entities in Afghanistan
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) entities, including the  ISAF, ISAF Commander’s Advisory and Assistance Team, and  ISAF Joint Command, Kabul, Afghanistan
NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan, Kabul, Afghanistan
Regional Command headquarters and staff:
Regional Command–East (Commanded by 1st Infantry  Division, U.S. Army), Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan
Regional Command–South (Commanded by 3rd Infantry  Division, U.S. Army), Kandahar Air Field, Afghanistan
Regional Command–Southwest (Commanded by 1st Marine  Expeditionary Force (Fwd), U.S. Marine Corps), Camp  Leatherneck, Afghanistan
U.S. Forces–Afghanistan, Kabul, Afghanistan
U.S. Army and Marine Corps Units, Personnel, and Advisor Teams  deployed in Afghanistan:
4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, U.S. Army
2nd Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, U.S. Army
162nd Infantry Training Brigade training liaison officers
23 SFA advisor teams in Afghanistan, including the following:
7 Army advisor teams in Regional Command–East
10 Army advisor teams in Regional Command–South
5 Marine Corps advisor teams in Regional Command–
1 Army advisor team in Regional Command–West  As part of this review, we selected an illustrative, non-generalizable  sample of deployed U.S. Army and Marine Corps SFA advisor teams in  Afghanistan. Observations on U.S. Military Capabilities to Support Transition of Lead  Security Responsibility to Afghan National Security Forces.
Why GAO Did This Study

ISAF's mission in Afghanistan has shifted from a combat role to focus more on preparing ANSF units to assume lead security responsibility by the end of 2014. A key element in advising and assisting the ANSF is SFA advisor teams, provided by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. A House Armed Services Committee report accompanying its version of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act directed GAO to review DOD's establishment and use of SFA advisor teams. Specifically, GAO evaluated the extent to which (1) DOD, in conjunction with ISAF, has defined SFA advisor team missions, goals, and objectives; (2) the Army and Marine Corps have been able to provide teams; and (3) the Army and Marine Corps have developed programs to train teams for their specific missions. GAO reviewed doctrine and guidance, analyzed advisor requirements, reviewed training curricula, and interviewed Army, Marine Corps, theater command, and SFA advisor team officials in the U.S. and Afghanistan.

What GAO Found

DOD and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) have defined the mission and broad goals for Security Force Assistance (SFA) advisor teams; however, teams varied in the extent to which their approaches for developing their Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) units identified activities based on specific objectives or end states that were clearly linked with established goals. SFA guidance states that to be successful, advisors must have an end or goal in mind, and establish objectives that support higher-command plans. Theater commanders have outlined goals aimed at strengthening specific capabilities such as logistics, and it is largely left to the teams to then develop their approach for working with their counterparts. GAO found some advisor teams had developed structured advising approaches drawing from these goals, such as identifying monthly objectives and milestones for their team. Other teams GAO met with used less structured approaches, such as relying on interactions with ANSF counterparts to identify priorities and using this input to develop activities on an ad hoc basis, rather than as part of a longer-term, more structured approach to achieve broad goals. Officials from several teams stated that the guidance they received lacked specificity regarding desired end states for the development of their ANSF counterpart units. Without a more structured approach with clear linkages between end states, objectives, and milestones that are in support of broad goals for ANSF units, theater commanders cannot be assured that the advisor team activities are making progress toward these goals.
The Army and Marine Corps have been able to fill requests for SFA advisor teams, using various approaches such as tasking non-deployed brigades to form advisor teams or creating teams using personnel already deployed in Afghanistan. According to Army and Marine Corps officials, the ability to substitute an individual at one rank above or below the request has helped the services meet rank and skill requirements. The Army's reliance on brigades to provide a portion of their personnel to form advisor teams has enabled them to meet requirements but resulted in leaving large numbers of personnel at the brigades' home stations. To manage these large rear detachments, brigades undertook significant planning to ensure that enough stay-behind leadership existed to maintain a sufficient command structure and provide certain training.
The Army and Marine Corps have developed training programs for SFA advisor teams, but teams varied in the extent to which they had specific information to help prepare them for their mission prior to deployment. SFA guidance states that an in-depth understanding of the operational environment and of foreign security force capabilities is critical to planning and conducting effective SFA. Advisor teams may access such information from a variety of sources such as conducting video teleconferences with the teams they will replace, using secure networks to gather information, or sending personnel on predeployment site surveys, although teams varied in the extent to which they were actually able to gain access to these sources. For example, GAO found that while teams had access to a certain secure network at training sites, only some had access at home station, enabling them to shape their training and mission analysis earlier in predeployment training or after training but prior to deploying. Having limited access to this information prior to arriving in Afghanistan may result in advisor teams needing more time after deploying to maximize their impact as advisors.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that theater commanders take steps to work with brigade commanders and advisor teams to identify end states, objectives, and milestones for the development of their ANSF counterpart units in support of the regional commands broad goals, and that the Army and Marine Corps improve availability of mission-specific information prior to advisor teams deployment. DOD partially concurred with GAOs recommendations and identified actions to further prepare SFA advisor teams for their missions.