DOD Guidance Does Not Require EUCOM to Estimate or Report the Total Cost of Posture

DOD guidance does not require EUCOM to include comprehensive  information on posture costs in its theater posture plan and, as a result,  DOD lacks critical information that could be used by decision makers and  congressional committees as they deliberate posture requirements and the  associated allocation of resources. Of the approximately $17.2 billion  obligated by the services to support DOD’s posture in Europe from 2006  through 2009, approximately $13 billion (78 percent) was for operation  and maintenance costs. These proposed revisions, however, will not require  commanders to report operation and maintenance costs unrelated to  posture initiatives at existing installations in the theater posture plan. To obtain a more comprehensive estimate of the cost of DOD’s posture in  Europe we gathered obligations data from the Army, Navy, and Air Force  related to military construction, family housing, and operation and  maintenance appropriations for installations in the EUCOM area of  responsibility and found that military construction and family housing  obligations accounted for about one-fifth of the services’ total obligations  against those appropriations from fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Keeping Army Brigades in Europe: In September 2010, we reported  that delays in decisions associated with the number and composition of  U.S. Army forces in Europe will impact posture costs. Until DOD requires the combatant commands to  compile and report on comprehensive costs for established locations,  DOD and Congress will be limited in their ability to weigh the costs and  benefits of existing posture and posture initiatives and to make fully  informed decisions on funding DOD’s posture in Europe. EUCOM Lacks a Systematic Process to Evaluate Posture Alternatives and Routinely Incorporate Interagency Views in Posture Planning

EUCOM has developed an approach to compile posture requirements and  prepare annual theater posture plans, but does not have clearly defined  methods for evaluating posture alternatives or routinely incorporating the  views of interagency stakeholders. Although the approach EUCOM has taken to  determine posture requirements has fostered greater communication  between key stakeholders and improved its ability to resolve conflicting  views on posture issues, it has not been clearly defined and codified in  command guidance, and it does not specifically provide for the  comprehensive analysis of costs and benefits, because the combatant  commander has not been required to include such analysis in developing  the theater posture plan. In addition, the Interagency Partnering  Directorate, which was established by the EUCOM commander to improve  interagency coordination for the command, did not fully participate in  developing the 2010 posture plan, because its role in posture planning has  not been defined. As a result of these weaknesses in EUCOM’s posture  planning approach, the command is limited in its ability to consider and  evaluate the cost of posture in conjunction with the strategic benefits it  provides and may not be fully leveraging interagency perspectives as it  defines future posture requirements. In addition, since EUCOM  is taking steps to address posture matters and is developing guidance for  identifying and resolving posture issues within the command, it has an  opportunity to use this guidance to clearly define and codify a process for  how the theater posture plan is to be drafted, to establish approaches to  collect and analyze comprehensive cost information and address  affordability issues, and to regularly obtain the perspectives of relevant  agencies throughout the posture planning process. Recommendations for Executive Action

To provide for more comprehensive information on the cost of posture  and analysis of posture alternatives as future theater posture plans are  developed, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the  Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, to revise the Joint Strategic Capabilities  Plan to  require the theater posture plan to include the cost of operating and  maintaining existing installations and estimate the costs associated with  initiatives that would alter future posture and    provide guidance on how the combatant commands should analyze the  costs and benefits of alternative courses of action when considering  proposed changes to posture. To determine the extent to which EUCOM has clearly defined methods for  evaluating posture alternatives and including the views of interagency  stakeholders, we reviewed departmental guidance and directives on  command functions, campaign planning, overseas force structure changes,  and global defense posture management.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2004, the Department of Defense (DOD) announced sweeping changes to restructure U.S. military presence overseas and reduce military posture in Europe. In August, 2010, the Secretary of Defense called for a review of DOD operations and activities to identify opportunities to decrease costs in order to free funds to support other DOD priorities. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs asked GAO to determine the extent to which the European Command (EUCOM) (1) estimates and reports the total cost of DOD's installations in Europe and (2) has defined methods for evaluating posture alternatives and including the views of interagency stakeholders in its posture planning process. To address these objectives, GAO assessed DOD plans and guidance, reviewed planning efforts in EUCOM, and collected obligations data from the military services for the military construction, family housing, and operation and maintenance appropriations.

What GAO Found

DOD posture planning guidance does not require EUCOM to include comprehensive cost data in its theater posture plan and, as a result, DOD lacks critical information that could be used by decision makers as they deliberate posture requirements. DOD guidance requires that theater posture plans provide specific information on, and estimate the military construction costs for, installations in a combatant commander's area of responsibility. However, this guidance does not require EUCOM to report the total cost to operate and maintain installations in Europe. GAO analysis shows that of the approximately $17.2 billion obligated by the services to support installations in Europe from 2006 through 2009, approximately $13 billion (78 percent) was for operation and maintenance costs. Several factors--such as the possibility of keeping four Army brigades in Europe instead of two--could impact future costs. DOD is drafting guidance to require more comprehensive cost estimates for posture initiatives; however, these revisions will not require commanders to report costs, unrelated to posture initiatives, for DOD installations. GAO's prior work has demonstrated that comprehensive cost information is critical to support decisions on funding and affordability. Until DOD requires the combatant commands to compile and report comprehensive cost data in their posture plans, DOD and Congress will be limited in their abilities to make fully informed decisions regarding DOD's posture in Europe. EUCOM has developed an approach to compile posture requirements, but it does not have clearly defined methods for evaluating posture alternatives or routinely incorporating the views of interagency stakeholders. EUCOM has taken several steps to assign responsibilities for developing its posture plan and established an Executive Council to deliberate posture issues and work with the service component commands, but the process of developing a theater posture plan is relatively new and is not yet clearly defined and codified in command guidance. While EUCOM's steps to date have improved its ability to communicate with stakeholders and resolve conflicting views on posture issues, it has not been clearly defined and codified in command guidance. Furthermore, it does not provide for the analysis of costs and benefits, because the combatant commander has not been required to include such analysis in developing the theater posture plan. In addition, the Interagency Partnering Directorate--which was established by the EUCOM commander to improve interagency coordination within the command--has been included in the Executive Council, but EUCOM has not defined how interagency representatives can regularly participate in ongoing posture planning activities. As a result of these weaknesses in EUCOM's posture planning approach, the command is limited in its ability to consider and evaluate the cost of posture in conjunction with the strategic benefits it provides, and it may not be fully leveraging interagency perspectives as it defines future posture requirements.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD revise posture planning guidance to require comprehensive estimates of posture costs and provide for consistent analysis of posture alternatives, and that EUCOM clarify its posture planning process and methods to regularly obtain interagency perspectives. DOD agreed with GAO's recommendations and identified corrective actions, but additional steps are needed to fully address the recommendations.