SECURITY FORCE 

ASSISTANCE

Additional Actions 

Needed to Guide 

Geographic 

Combatant Command 

and Service Efforts

Report to Congressional Committees

May 2012

GAO-12-556

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-556, a report to 

congressional committees

May 2012

SECURITY FORCE ASSISTANCE

Additional Actions Needed to Guide Geographic 

Combatant Command and Service Efforts 

Why GAO Did This Study

DOD is emphasizing security force 

assistance (e.g., efforts to train, equip, 

and advise partner nation forces) as a

distinct activity to build the capacity 

and capability of partner nation forces.

In anticipation of its growing 

importance, DOD has identified the 

need to strengthen and institutionalize 

security force assistance capabilities 

within its general purpose forces. 

Accordingly, a committee report 

accompanying the Fiscal Year 2012 

National Defense Authorization Act 

directed GAO to report on DOD’s 

plans. GAO evaluated: (1) the extent to 

which DOD has established its concept 

for conducting security force 

assistance, including defining the term

and identifying actions needed to plan 

for and prepare forces to execute it; (2) 

the extent to which the geographic 

combatant commands have taken 

steps to plan for and conduct security 

force assistance, and what challenges, 

if any, they face; and (3) what steps 

the services have taken to organize 

and train general purpose forces 

capable of conducting security force 

assistance, and what challenges, if 

any, they face. GAO reviewed relevant 

documents, and interviewed officials 

from combatant commands, the 

services, and other DOD 

organizations.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends DOD clarify its

intent for security force assistance, 

including how combatant commands 

should adjust their current planning 

efforts and provide a means to track 

activities. DOD partially concurred, 

stating that recent guidance addresses 

planning requirements. GAO continues 

to believe that more specific direction 

is needed.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken steps to establish its concept for 

conducting security force assistance, including broadly defining the term and 

identifying actions needed to plan for and prepare forces to execute these activities.

For example, in October 2010, the department issued an instruction that broadly 

defines security force assistance and outlines responsibilities for key stakeholders, 

including the geographic combatant commands and military services. DOD also 

identified gaps in key areas of doctrine, organization, and training related to the 

implementation of security force assistance and tasks needed to address those gaps.

The tasks include reviewing joint and service-level doctrine to incorporate security 

force assistance as needed and developing measures to assess progress in partner 

nations. Citing a need to clarify the definition of security force assistance beyond the 

DOD Instruction, DOD published a document referred to as a Lexicon Framework in

November 2011 that included information to describe how security force assistance 

relates to other existing terms, such as security cooperation. 

The geographic combatant commands conduct activities to build partner nation 

capacity and capability, but face challenges planning for and tracking security force 

assistance as a distinct activity. Notwithstanding DOD’s efforts to present security 

force assistance as a distinct and potentially expansive activity and clarify its 

terminology, the commands lack a common understanding of security force 

assistance, and therefore some were unclear as to what additional actions were 

needed to meet DOD’s intent. Specifically, officials interviewed generally viewed it as 

a recharacterization of some existing activities, but had different interpretations of 

what types of activities should be considered security force assistance. Further, some 

command officials stated that they were not clear as to the intent of DOD’s increased 

focus on security force assistance and whether any related adjustments should be 

made in their plans and scope or level of activities. As a result, they do not currently 

distinguish security force assistance from other security cooperation activities in their 

plans. DOD intended the Lexicon Framework to provide greater clarity on the 

meaning of security force assistance and its relationship to security cooperation and 

other related terms. However, some officials said that they found the distinctions to 

be confusing and others believed that additional guidance was needed. GAO’s prior 

work on key practices for successful organizational transformations states the 

necessity to communicate clear objectives for what is to be achieved. Without 

additional clarification, the geographic combatant commands will continue to lack a 

common understanding, which may hinder the department’s ability to meet its 

strategic goals. Moreover, the system that the commands are directed to use to track

security force assistance activities does not include a specific data field to identify

those activities. The commands also face challenges planning for and executing longterm, sustained security force assistance plans within existing statutory authorities, 

which contain some limitations on the types of activities that can be conducted. 

The services are taking steps and investing resources to organize and train general 

purpose forces capable of conducting security force assistance based on current 

requirements. For example, to conduct activities with partner nation security forces, 

the Army and the Air Force are aligning certain units to geographic regions, and the 

Marine Corps has created tailored task forces. However, the services face certain 

challenges. Due to a lack of clarity on how DOD’s increased emphasis on security 

force assistance will affect future requirements, they are uncertain whether their 

current efforts are sufficient or whether additional capabilities will be required. 

Further, services face challenges in tracking personnel with security force assistance 

training and experience, particularly in identifying the attributes to track.

View GAO-12-556. For more information, 

contact Sharon Pickup, (202) 512-9619, 

pickups@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

Letter 1 

Background 4

DOD Has Taken Steps to Establish Its Concept for Conducting 

Security Force Assistance, Including Broadly Defining the Term 

and Identifying Actions Needed to Plan for and Prepare Forces 

to Execute It 7

Geographic Combatant Commands Face Challenges That Limit 

Their Ability to Plan for and Track Security Force Assistance as 

a Distinct Activity 11

The Services Are Developing General Purpose Forces with 

Capabilities to Conduct Security Force Assistance to Meet 

Current Requirements but Lack Clarity on Future Requirements 20

Conclusions 29

Recommendations for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 30

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 34

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 39

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 42

Table

Table 1: Select Statutory Authorities 18

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

Abbreviations List

DOD Department of Defense

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

May 10, 2012

Congressional Committees

In the past few years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has been 

emphasizing security force assistance as an important and distinct activity 

to build the capacity and capability of partner nation security forces in light 

of lessons learned from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and 

counterterrorism operations with partner nations in other parts of the 

world. For example, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review generally 

described security force assistance as DOD’s “hands on” efforts to train, 

equip, advise, and assist countries’ forces in becoming more proficient at 

providing security to their populations, protecting their resources and 

territories, and enabling them to participate in operations that improve 

regional security, such as coalition and peacekeeping operations. 

Similarly, DOD’s January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance reiterated 

security force assistance as a key element of DOD’s mission to counter 

terrorism, provide a stabilizing presence overseas, and share the costs 

and responsibilities of global leadership.1

While security force assistance is a recently introduced term within the 

department, the objective to develop the capabilities of partner nation 

security forces is not new and has traditionally been achieved through a 

broader set of activities and programs planned for and conducted by the 

geographic combatant commands, such as security cooperation,2

 

1

Department of Defense, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century 

Defense (Jan. 3, 2012). 

security 

2

Security cooperation is defined as activities undertaken by DOD to encourage and enable 

international partners to work with the United States to achieve strategic objectives that 

includes all DOD interactions with foreign defense and security establishments that build 

defense and security relationships that promote specific U.S. security interests, develop 

allied and friendly military capabilities for self-defense and multinational operations, and 

provide service members with peacetime and contingency access to host nations.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

assistance,3 and foreign internal defense.4 Historically, special operations 

forces have conducted the majority of DOD’s activities to train, advise, 

and assist partner nation security forces, whereas the involvement of 

general purpose forces5 has been more limited. As such, these forces 

had not been permanently organized and trained to carry out this mission. 

However, during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, general purpose 

forces have been tasked with training and advising the security forces of 

those countries. Our prior work that was focused on U.S. efforts to advise 

and assist Iraqi and Afghan security forces observed challenges related 

to the way that ground forces were organized to conduct these missions.6

The House Armed Services Committee report accompanying the Fiscal 

Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act bill (H.R. 1540) directed us 

to report on the department’s plans to institutionalize security force 

assistance capabilities in the general purpose force.

In light of the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and in anticipation of the 

growing role of security force assistance in U.S. strategy and future 

operations, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review identified the need to 

strengthen and institutionalize capabilities within the general purpose 

force to conduct security force assistance.

7

 

3

Security assistance is a group of Title 22 programs authorized by the Foreign Assistance 

Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 or other related statutes by which the 

United States provides defense articles, military training, and other defense-related 

services by grant, loan, credit, or cash sales in furtherance of national policies and 

objectives.

To address this 

requirement, this report evaluates (1) the extent to which DOD has 

established its concept for conducting security force assistance, including 

defining the term and identifying actions needed to plan for and prepare 

4

DOD Joint Publication 3-22 defines foreign internal defense as the participation by civilian 

and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by another 

government or other designated organization to free and protect its society from 

subversion, lawlessness, insurgency, terrorism, and other threats to its security. 

5

General purpose forces are the regular armed forces of a country, other than nuclear 

forces and special operations forces, that are organized, trained, and equipped to perform 

a broad range of missions across the range of military operations. 

6

GAO, Iraq and Afghanistan: Actions Needed to Enhance the Ability of Army Brigades to 

Support the Advising Mission, GAO-11-760 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2, 2011) and Iraq 

and Afghanistan: Availability of Forces, Equipment, and Infrastructure Should Be 

Considered in Developing U.S. Strategy and Plans, GAO-09-380T (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb.12, 2009). 

7

H.R. Rep. No. 112-78, p. 112.
 

Page 3 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

forces to execute security force assistance; (2) the extent to which the 

geographic combatant commands have taken steps to plan for and 

conduct security force assistance, and what challenges, if any, they face; 

and (3) what steps the services have taken to organize and train general 

purpose forces to be capable of conducting security force assistance, and 

what challenges, if any, they face.

To address these objectives, we reviewed DOD and service strategic 

guidance, policy, and doctrine related to security force assistance. We 

also examined the roles and responsibilities for security force assistance 

identified in DOD Instruction 5000.68 Security Force Assistance and the 

tasks identified through DOD’s security force assistance capabilitiesbased assessment. Further, we reviewed documentation related to 

activities currently being conducted by the geographic combatant 

commands to engage with partner nation security forces and evaluated 

various military service efforts to organize and train forces capable of 

meeting current requirements from the geographic combatant commands 

to conduct such activities and address future requirements. Finally, we 

met with officials throughout the department and its components, 

including, but not limited to, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict; the Joint Staff; Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency; military service headquarters, force 

providers, and training organizations; U.S. Special Operations Command; 

four of the six geographic combatant commands—U.S. Africa Command, 

U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Southern 

Command—and selected service component commands. In these 

discussions we corroborated the information provided in the documents 

above and discussed the commands’ understanding of the security force 

assistance concept and steps being taken to implement it, and the 

development of relevant plans, requirements, and capabilities. We 

focused on the department’s efforts to plan for and conduct security force 

assistance in areas of responsibility other than Afghanistan because 

DOD’s focus on security force assistance is more long term than current 

operations in Afghanistan and the scope of the mission in that country 

may not be typical of efforts worldwide. In addition, while we understand 

the State Department is a critical stakeholder in U.S. security force 

assistance efforts, our review focused solely on DOD efforts to plan for 

and institutionalize security force assistance.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 to May 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I contains additional 

information about our scope and methodology.

DOD engages with partner nation security forces through a range of 

security cooperation efforts, which can include security assistance and 

foreign internal defense. Security cooperation is the broad term used to 

define those activities taken by DOD to build relationships that promote 

specified U.S. interests, build partner nation capabilities for self-defense 

and coalition operations, and provide U.S. forces with peacetime and 

contingency access. These activities are carried out under various 

statutory authorities. For example, DOD may conduct activities with 

partner nations, such as sending out military liaison teams, exchanging 

military personnel between units, and conducting seminars and 

conferences in theaters of operations under U.S. Code Title 10.8 DOD 

also may conduct security cooperation activities through security 

assistance programs, authorized by U.S. Code Title 22,9

DOD’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review cites building the security 

capacity of partner nations as a key mission area and emphasizes 

security force assistance as an increasingly critical element of this 

mission. It also identifies several initiatives to enhance its ability to build 

partner nation security capacity, such as strengthening and 

institutionalizing general purpose force capabilities to conduct security 

which include 

foreign military sales and foreign military financing programs, and allow 

DOD to provide defense articles and services to partner nations in 

support of U.S. national policies and objectives. These security 

assistance programs are tools that can allow DOD to train and equip 

partner nation security forces. Additionally, the National Defense 

Authorization Act provides for authorities to facilitate DOD’s engagement 

with partner nations under certain conditions.

 

8

See, for example, 10 U.S.C. 168.

9

See, for example, 22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq. (Foreign Military Assistance) and 22 U.S.C. 

2347 et seq. (International Military Education and Training).

Background 

Range of DOD Efforts to 

Engage with Partner 

Nation Security Forces
 

Page 5 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

force assistance; enhancing linguistic, regional, and cultural abilities; 

strengthening and expanding capabilities to train partner nation aviation 

forces; and strengthening the department’s capacities for ministerial-level 

training. Historically, DOD has primarily relied on special operations 

forces to train and advise partner nation security forces as part of their 

foreign internal defense mission, which is to assist foreign governments in 

protecting themselves from internal threats. More recently, the increased 

demand on special operations forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has 

required the department to use general purpose forces to advise and 

assist the Iraqi and Afghan security forces. For example, in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, DOD has used training and transition teams and augmented 

brigade combat teams, respectively, to train, advise, equip, and mentor 

those countries’ security forces. As a result of its experiences in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, its increasing emphasis on the importance of security force 

assistance, and its intent to expand these types of efforts to other parts of 

the globe, DOD has highlighted the need to further develop security force 

assistance capabilities within its general purpose forces.

To perform its military missions around the world, DOD operates six 

unified military geographic combatant commands, which are responsible 

for a variety of functions including planning for and conducting missions 

that range from humanitarian assistance to combat operations.10

As part of their planning responsibilities, geographic combatant 

commands develop theater campaign plans, which are multiyear plans 

that reflect the command’s strategy to achieve certain end states within 

their areas of responsibility.

Each 

geographic combatant command is supported by service component 

commands (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force) and a theater 

special operations command. In addition, the military services are 

responsible for organizing, training, and equipping their forces to execute 

the current and future operational requirements of the combatant 

commands.

11

 

10Current geographic combatant commands include U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Central 

Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, 

and U.S. Southern Command.

These plans are the primary vehicle for 

11DOD defines the term “end state” to mean the set of required conditions that define 

achievement of the commander’s objectives.

Geographic Combatant 

Command Theater 

Campaign Plans Develop 

Strategies for Engaging 

with Partner Nations
 

Page 6 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

designing, organizing, integrating, and executing security cooperation 

activities. A hierarchy of national and strategic guidance—including the 

National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, the National 

Military Strategy, and the Guidance for Employment of the Force— 

informs the development of the combatant commands’ theater campaign 

plans. For example, the Guidance for Employment of the Force provides 

2-year direction to geographic combatant commands on security 

cooperation, among other things, and consolidates and integrates DOD 

planning guidance related to operations and other military activities into a 

single overarching document. This guidance is considered essential to 

geographic combatant command planners as it provides the strategic end 

states that form the basis for theater campaign plans, including the 

assumptions and level of detail to be considered in developing those 

plans. For example, the Guidance for Employment of the Force has eight 

security cooperation focus areas, which include Operational Access and 

Global Freedom of Action, Operational Capacity and Capability Building, 

and Interoperability with U.S. Forces / Support to U.S. Capabilities. These 

focus areas are designed to link geographic combatant command security 

cooperation activities to achieve theater campaign plan end states. In 

order to execute the activities in their theater campaign plans, geographic 

combatant commands request the required force capabilities through the 

Global Force Management system. The Global Force Management 

system is a DOD system that provides insight into the global availability of 

U.S. military forces to meet rotational and emergent force requirements 

from geographic combatant commands as they arise.
 

Page 7 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

DOD has taken steps to establish its concept for conducting security force 

assistance, including broadly defining the term and identifying actions 

needed to plan for and prepare forces to execute security force 

assistance activities. For example, DOD issued an instruction that broadly 

defines security force assistance and outlines responsibilities for key 

stakeholders. The department also conducted an assessment to identify 

gaps in key areas such as doctrine, organization, and training related to 

the implementation of security force assistance across the department. 

This effort identified tasks to address these gaps and called on DOD to 

develop a document, referred to as the Lexicon Framework, to clarify the 

term security force assistance and its relationship to other key terms.

In October 2010, DOD issued an instruction—DOD Instruction 5000.68—

that broadly defines security force assistance and outlines responsibilities 

for key stakeholders to plan, prepare for, and execute security force 

assistance. The instruction defines security force assistance as “DOD 

activities that contribute to unified action by the U.S. government to 

support the development of the capacity and capability of partner nation 

forces and their supporting institutions.”12

 

12Department of Defense Instruction 5000.68, Security Force Assistance (Oct. 27, 2010). 

The instruction states that DOD 

should develop and maintain forces, including general purpose forces and 

special operations forces, that can conduct security force assistance 

activities in a variety of conditions that include (1) politically sensitive 

environments where an overt U.S. presence is unacceptable to the host 

country government; (2) environments where a limited, overt U.S. 

presence is acceptable to the host country government; and (3) 

environments where a large-scale U.S. presence is considered necessary 

and acceptable by the host country government. According to Office of 

the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and U.S. Special Operations Command 

officials, special operations forces would be favored to lead missions in 

DOD Has Taken Steps 

to Establish Its 

Concept for 

Conducting Security 

Force Assistance, 

Including Broadly 

Defining the Term and 

Identifying Actions 

Needed to Plan for 

and Prepare Forces to 

Execute It

DOD Has Issued an 

Instruction That Broadly 

Defines Security Force 

Assistance and Outlines 

Responsibilities for Key 

Stakeholders 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

the first environment, and the other environments could either use 

general purpose forces or an appropriate combination of forces.13

In addition, responsibilities of key stakeholders, including the geographic 

combatant commands and the military services, to plan for and conduct 

security force assistance are outlined in the instruction. For example, 

DOD Instruction 5000.68 states that the

• geographic combatant commands should incorporate security force 

assistance into their theater campaign plans; conduct security force 

assistance within their areas of responsibility; annually forecast and 

report security force assistance requirements for a 5-year time frame; 

and record security force assistance activities into the Theater 

Security Cooperation Management Information System; and

• military services should develop, maintain, and institutionalize 

capabilities to support DOD efforts to organize, train, equip, and 

advise foreign military forces and their supporting institutions; provide 

scalable capabilities to meet geographic combatant command 

requirements for security force assistance; develop training and 

education standards for security force assistance capabilities; and 

identify and track military service personnel who have security force 

assistance-related training, education, or experience.

DOD conducted a capabilities-based assessment to identify gaps in key 

areas of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and 

education, personnel, and facilities, related to the implementation of 

security force assistance across the department. The effort resulted in an 

April 2011 Joint Staff memorandum that identified 25 tasks needed to 

address the identified gaps, along with the organizations responsible for 

completing the tasks and associated milestones.14

 

13Officials noted that special operations forces rarely operate without the support of 

general purpose forces, and therefore, general purpose forces would not be excluded 

from operating in any of the three environments.

The tasks have 

targeted completion dates through April 2014 and include recommending 

changes to joint and service-level doctrine to incorporate security force 

assistance as needed; developing measures to assess security force 

14The Joint Staff, Security Force Assistance DOTMLPF Change Recommendation, Joint 

Requirements Oversight Council Memorandum 050-11 (Apr. 19, 2011). 

DOD Has Identified Tasks 

to Address Gaps in 

Implementing Security 

Force Assistance and 

Developed a Lexicon 

Framework Intended to 

Clarify the Meaning of 

Security Force Assistance
 

Page 9 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

assistance progress in partner nations; and developing joint training 

standards for U.S. forces training for security force assistance missions.

Citing a need to clarify the definition of security force assistance beyond 

the information found in DOD Instruction 5000.68, the Joint Staff 

memorandum also directed DOD to develop a lexicon framework. In 

November 2011, DOD published the Security Force Assistance Lexicon 

Framework. According to the Lexicon Framework, its intent was to 

promote a common understanding of security force assistance and 

related terms by providing greater clarity on the definition of security force 

assistance and how it relates to other existing terms, such as security 

cooperation and security assistance.15 The Lexicon Framework also 

expands upon the DOD Instruction’s definition of security force 

assistance. Specifically, DOD Instruction 5000.68 states that security 

force assistance is defined as “DOD activities that contribute to unified 

action by the U.S. government to support the development of the capacity 

and capability of partner nation forces and their supporting institutions.” 

The Lexicon Framework restates this definition, but also adds that 

security force assistance is all DOD activities conducted under various 

programs to “organize, train, equip, rebuild/build, and advise foreign 

security forces and their supporting institutions from the tactical to 

ministerial levels.” 

DOD has established organizations to help manage its security force 

assistance implementation efforts. For example, in February 2011, the 

department established a Security Force Assistance Steering Committee 

and Working Group to guide the department’s efforts to develop security 

force assistance policy and capabilities, and manage the implementation 

of DOD Instruction 5000.68 and the completion of the tasks noted in the 

Joint Staff memorandum. The Steering Committee and Working Group 

are both cochaired by Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 

Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict and the Joint Staff J-5 Strategic Plans 

and Policy directorate, and also include other DOD organizations. For 

example, U.S. Special Operations Command and the military services are 

included in the steering committee, and the geographic combatant 

commands participate in the working group.

 

15Department of Defense, Security Force Assistance Lexicon Framework (Nov. 1, 2011).

DOD Has Established 

Organizations to Manage 

Its Efforts to Implement 

Security Force Assistance
 

Page 10 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

Additionally, DOD established the Joint Center for International Security 

Force Assistance in 2006, which according to its charter is supposed to 

collect, analyze, and document security force assistance lessons learned 

and best practices, advise and assist the geographic combatant 

commands, the military services, and other government agencies with 

security force assistance, and actively support the long-term integration of 

security force assistance into joint training, leader development, and 

doctrine. This center is funded through the Army’s training budget and 

received $1.3 million in base funding for fiscal year 2012 with the majority 

of this used to cover civilian personnel costs, as well as operating costs 

and travel costs for personnel. The center has focused on supporting the 

warfighter in Iraq and Afghanistan, but recently has begun to conduct 

outreach with geographic combatant command planners to educate key 

staff on security force assistance and how to incorporate it into theater 

campaign planning efforts. It previously published a Security Force 

Assistance Planner’s Guide in 2008, most recently updated in 2009, and 

officials stated that the center is updating the Planner’s Guide for 2012 in 

light of the generally accepted set of terms in the lexicon and to serve as 

a resource for planners of security force assistance.

The department also relies on other long-standing organizations to 

support U.S. efforts to interact with partner nation security forces. For 

example, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency is responsible for 

administering certain security cooperation and security assistance 

activities that fall under Title 10 and Title 22 of the U.S. Code. In addition, 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency officials said the agency offers 

opportunities to help educate personnel on ways to provide security 

cooperation assistance to partner nations. For example, the Defense 

Institute of Security Assistance Management, an institute run by the 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency, provides professional education, 

research, and support to enhance security assistance management 

capabilities of DOD military and civilian personnel. Moreover, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency officials cited the Defense Institution 

Reform Initiative and the Ministry of Defense Advisors program as two 

efforts that were developed to help support geographic combatant 

command efforts to build capacity and capability of partner nations’ 

ministerial institutions.
 

Page 11 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

The geographic combatant commands are conducting activities to build 

partner nation capacity and capability, but face challenges planning for 

and conducting security force assistance as a distinct activity, including 

the following: (1) a lack of common understanding of security force 

assistance which may limit their ability to plan for it as OSD intends; (2) 

limitations in the system where security force assistance activities are to 

be tracked; and (3) the ability to develop and execute long-term security 

force assistance plans within existing legislative authorities.

OSD has presented security force assistance as a distinct activity 

requiring the geographic combatant commands to develop new and 

innovative strategies that go beyond traditional security cooperation. 

However, despite DOD’s effort to clarify its terminology, the four 

geographic combatant commands we spoke to lack a common 

understanding of security force assistance, and therefore some are 

unclear as to the additional efforts that may be needed on their part to 

meet the department’s intent for security force assistance and do not see 

the value in distinguishing security force assistance from other security 

cooperation activities.

According to officials from the Security Force Assistance Working Group, 

the emphasis recently placed on security force assistance in the 

Quadrennial Defense Review, Defense Strategic Guidance, and other 

documents like DOD Instruction 5000.68 and the Lexicon Framework, is 

indicative of DOD’s intention to take a more strategic and proactive 

approach to building the capacity and capability of partners and allies 

around the world. DOD documents characterize security force assistance 

as a subset of security cooperation, but identify it as a distinct activity 

from other types of security cooperation activities. The Lexicon 

Framework states that the purposes of security force assistance are to 

create, maintain, or enhance a capacity or capability to achieve a desired 

end state. It distinguishes these purposes from other types of security 

cooperation activities, such as activities conducted to gain access, 

influence, or diplomatic or political action with a partner nation, but do not 

enhance any capacity or capability. To further illustrate this distinction, an 

OSD official said that the geographic combatant commands conduct 

security cooperation activities, such as military-to-military engagements 

and joint exercises, but these activities do not have the primary purpose 

Geographic 

Combatant 

Commands Face 

Challenges That Limit 

Their Ability to Plan 

for and Track Security 

Force Assistance as a 

Distinct Activity

Geographic Combatant 

Commands Lack a 

Common Understanding of 

Security Force Assistance

OSD Has Presented Security 

Force Assistance as a Distinct 

and Strategic Activity 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

to build partner nation capacity and capability and thus are not considered 

security force assistance. The Lexicon Framework states that the 

effective execution of security force assistance requires geographic 

combatant commands to develop objectives for the development of 

partner nation security forces, articulate regional objectives, link 

resources to overarching goals, and create operational roadmaps for 

persistent cooperation. It further states that this comprehensive, global 

approach to improving partner security capacity will require new and 

innovative strategies and authorities that go beyond traditional security 

cooperation applications.

According to OSD, the emphasis on security force assistance in recent 

guidance reflects an expectation that geographic combatant commands 

will conduct increased security force assistance activities through 

sustained and proactive plans focused on building partner nation capacity 

and capability. For example, Security Force Assistance Working Group 

officials said that as U.S. forces are drawn down in Afghanistan, the 

demand for security force assistance outside of Afghanistan is expected 

to increase over the next few years. The geographic combatant 

commands are expected to identify and plan for security force assistance 

based on the needs of the partner nations in their areas of responsibility 

and forecast the forces needed to conduct planned activities. The 

services, in turn, are responsible for providing forces to meet the 

geographic combatant commands’ forecasted requirements.

DOD Instruction 5000.68 directs the geographic combatant commands to 

incorporate security force assistance into their theater campaign plans 

and to forecast their force requirements for security force assistance. 

Notwithstanding DOD’s efforts to present security force assistance as a 

distinct and potentially expansive activity beyond existing security 

cooperation efforts, geographic combatant commands lack a common 

understanding of security force assistance, and therefore some are 

unclear as to the additional efforts that may be needed on their part to 

meet the department’s intent for security force assistance and do not see 

the value in distinguishing security force assistance from other security 

cooperation activities. Generally, all four of the geographic combatant 

commands we spoke to viewed security force assistance as a 

recharacterization of some of their existing security cooperation activities 

since all of the commands conducted some activities, such as training 

partner nation forces, targeted to build partner nation capacity and 

capability. The lack of common understanding of security force assistance 

both among and within geographic combatant commands led to 

inconsistencies regarding which of their current activities they considered 

Geographic Combatant 

Commands Lack a Common 

Understanding of Security 

Force Assistance and View It as 

a Recharacterization of Some 

Existing Security Cooperation 

Efforts
 

Page 13 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

to be security force assistance when discussing their efforts, including the 

following:

• Officials from one service component command told us that they 

consider nearly every activity with partner nations to be security force 

assistance—from subject matter expert exchanges that are meant to 

increase interoperability between the nations to U.S. instructor-led 

training of partner nation security forces—because they believe them 

to build the capacity and capability of partner nations.

• U.S. European Command identified individual efforts to train partner 

nations as security force assistance, such as its efforts to train infantry 

battalions from the country of Georgia to deploy to Afghanistan, but 

excluded activities such as military-to-military exchanges.

• U.S. Africa Command considered only comprehensive, persistent 

programs to improve partner nation security forces from the tactical to 

the ministerial to be security force assistance and identified only one 

activity as such. However, officials from one of the command’s service 

components identified episodic activities aimed at increasing regional 

and maritime safety and security within the command’s area of 

responsibility as security force assistance.

In addition, the geographic combatant commands we visited plan for 

interactions with partner nations, including some activities to build partner 

nation capacity and capability. However, because the geographic 

combatant commands view security force assistance as a 

recharacterization of some of their existing security cooperation activities, 

they did not see a need to distinguish security force assistance from other 

security cooperation activities in their planning efforts, as indicated in the 

following examples:

• U.S. European Command officials said that they did not incorporate 

the term security force assistance in their theater campaign plan, but 

the plan emphasizes the importance of building allies’ and partners’ 

capacity to contribute to regional security.

• U.S. Southern Command’s theater campaign plan includes one 

specific reference to security force assistance, but includes references 

to other activities that link back to the command’s military objectives, 

including objectives related to building partner capacity and capability.

• U.S. Africa Command’s theater campaign plan includes some general 

references to security force assistance, but the references are not 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

linked to specific objectives. The plan does include information on the 

need to develop partner nation capacity and capability.

• U.S. Central Command officials said they do not use the term security 

force assistance in their theater campaign plan.

Further, some geographic combatant command officials said that they 

were not clear as to OSD’s intent behind the emphasis on security force 

assistance, including the level of effort that should be devoted to it, and 

whether that intent should have any effect on their future theater plans 

and activities. Officials from several combatant commands said that they 

develop their theater campaign plans and strategies based on the 

Guidance for Employment of the Force and other strategic guidance and 

that they would expect any emphasis requiring them to change how they 

plan for and conduct activities to be reflected in that guidance. According 

to OSD, strategic guidance documents are being reviewed to determine 

whether they should be revised based on the January 2012 Defense 

Strategic Guidance to reflect greater emphasis on security force 

assistance.

We recognize that the department has taken steps intended to increase 

understanding of security force assistance, such as the issuance of the 

Lexicon Framework in November 2011. Nonetheless, as the above 

examples demonstrate, the geographic combatant commands continue to 

lack a common understanding of security force assistance, what 

additional efforts may be needed on their part to meet the department’s 

intent for security force assistance, and the value of distinguishing 

security force assistance from other security cooperation activities. We 

also recognize that the Lexicon Framework was issued recently. 

However, some geographic combatant command and service officials 

familiar with the framework said that they found some of the distinctions 

within the document to be confusing and others cited the need for 

additional guidance that provides greater clarity on what is required to 

plan for and conduct security force assistance as OSD intends. Further, 

officials from the Joint Center for International Security Force Assistance 

said that, while they believe the Lexicon Framework is helpful to clarify 

the relationship between security force assistance and other related 

terms, joint doctrine on security force assistance is necessary to ensure 

that all stakeholders understand security force assistance. Moreover, we 

found that neither the framework nor the instruction provide clear 

guidance on the level of effort that geographic combatant commands 

should devote to security force assistance and how security force 

assistance differs from some of the geographic combatant commands’ 
 

Page 15 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

current efforts to build partner nation capacity and capability. Our prior 

work on key practices for successful organizational transformations 

shows the necessity to communicate clear objectives for what is to be 

achieved.16 Further, DOD guidance states that clear strategic guidance 

and frequent interaction between senior leaders and planners promotes 

an early, shared understanding of the complex operational problem 

presented, and of strategic and military end states, objectives, and 

missions.17 Without additional clarification from OSD, the geographic 

combatant commands will continue to lack a common understanding of 

security force assistance, which may hinder the department in meeting its 

strategic goals.

DOD Instruction 5000.68 directs the geographic combatant commands to 

record their security force assistance activities in the Theater Security 

Cooperation Management Information System, which, according to 

officials, has been identified by the Guidance for Employment of the 

Force as the system of record for tracking all security cooperation 

activities. Beyond the challenges that commands face in distinguishing 

between security force assistance activities and other types of activities, 

we also found that the system into which they are instructed to track 

security force assistance activities has limitations. For example, the 

system does not contain a corresponding data field specifically for 

security force assistance activities. There are several different versions of 

the Theater Security Cooperation Management Information System 

currently in use by the geographic combatant commands and service 

component commands, including individual command legacy systems 

and an interim system being used by multiple commands. According to a 

Joint Staff official, neither the interim version of the Theater Security 

Cooperation Management Information System nor the legacy systems, 

with the exception of the system put in place by the Army, contain a data 

field for specifically tracking security force assistance activities. The Joint 

Staff is currently developing the Global Theater Security Cooperation 

Management Information System to replace the legacy and interim 

systems in order to create a single global interface for users, with initial 

 

16GAO, Highlights of a GAO Forum, Mergers and Transformation: Lessons Learned for a 

Department of Homeland Security and other Federal Agencies, GAO-03-293SP 

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2002). 

17Department of Defense, Joint Publication 5-0, Joint Operation Planning (Aug. 11, 2011).

System for Tracking 

Security Force Assistance 

Activities Contains 

Limitations 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

fielding planned for fiscal year 2013. Joint Staff officials responsible for 

the development of this system told us no plans currently exist to create 

such a data field within the Global Theater Security Cooperation 

Management Information System. According to these officials, they are 

not planning to add this field because they believe security force 

assistance is a broad category and different users of the system may 

prefer more specific data fields for the individual types of engagements 

with partner nations, such as military-to-military engagement and training. 

Security Force Assistance Working Group officials have suggested that a 

security force assistance field should be added to the Global Theater 

Security Cooperation Management Information System because tracking 

and monitoring security force assistance activities is important to ensure 

that the department is directing resources toward its strategic goal of 

building partner capacity and capability. As the department continues to 

develop and manage security force assistance as a stand-alone concept, 

without a data field or other mechanism within the future Global Theater 

Security Cooperation Management Information System to specify which 

activities are security force assistance activities, and a consistent 

approach to collecting data on these activities, OSD will lack visibility over 

both security force assistance activities and the U.S. resources being 

invested in building the capacity and capability of partner nations. 

Moreover, while the Theater Security Cooperation Management 

Information System is intended to enable planning, tracking, and 

forecasting security cooperation activities, eliminate potential overlap and 

duplication of activities by different commands, and ensure that resources 

are being directed towards priority countries, the different versions of the 

system currently lack standard global business rules to guide how 

information on activities should be entered. Thus, it is up to the 

geographic combatant commands and services to develop their own set 

of rules—formal or informal—governing how activities are entered into the 

legacy and interim systems. Some commands enter all proposed 

activities into the system, while another enters data less consistently thus 

reducing the value of the system as a planning and forecasting tool. The 

inconsistency of reporting in this system can result in an inefficient use of 

resources. For instance, Navy officials told us of a recent example in 

which an Air Force-sponsored medical engagement with a partner nation 

was conducted in the same location as a similar Navy-sponsored medical 

engagement, but the Air Force was unaware of this until it arrived on 

location. The officials noted that, had the activities been identified and 

forecasted in the system, the Air Force and Navy could have coordinated 

and either chosen to redirect resources to another location or planned the 

activities to build upon one another. As part of the process to update the 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

Global Theater Security Cooperation Management Information System, 

Joint Staff officials recognize the need to have some level of 

standardization in how activities are entered across the department so 

that they have a complete and consistent picture of global activities, and 

are in the process of developing global business rules to that effect, 

expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2012.

Geographic combatant commands conduct security cooperation and 

security assistance activities, which may include security force 

assistance, through a variety of different statutory authorities within Title 

10 (Armed Services) and Title 22 (Foreign Relations and Intercourse) of 

the U.S. Code. For example, geographic combatant commands conduct 

security cooperation activities including military-to-military engagements, 

interoperability activities, and joint training exercises under traditional Title 

10 authorities. DOD also can conduct activities involving interactions with 

partner nation security forces through State Department-led Title 22 

security assistance programs and authorities, which include, foreign 

military sales, foreign military financing, international military training and 

education, and peacekeeping operations. All of the geographic combatant 

commands we spoke with told us that they used Title 22 programs such 

as Foreign Military Assistance18 and International Military Education and 

Training19 to provide training to partner nation forces. While the statutory 

authorities codified within Title 10 or Title 22 remain available unless 

Congress repeals them, other authorities are temporary and must be 

renewed periodically through legislation. For example, the annual 

National Defense Authorization Acts can provide specific authorities that 

allow the geographic combatant commands to conduct activities, such as 

counternarcotics training with partner nations. Table 1 below shows 

selected statutory authorities used by geographic combatant commands 

to conduct security cooperation and security force assistance activities.

 

1822 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.

1922 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.

Geographic Combatant 

Commands May Face 

Challenges in Developing 

and Executing Long-Term 

Security Force Assistance 

Plans within Existing 

Statutory Authorities
 

Page 18 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

Table 1: Select Statutory Authorities

Statutory authorities Description

Military-to-Military Contacts and 

Comparable Activities (10 U.S.C. §168)

Authorizes combatant commands to conduct and fund military to military contacts with 

foreign country defense establishments and military forces, to include: traveling contact 

teams, military liaison teams, exchanges of military personnel between units, seminars 

and conferences held in theater of operations, and distribution of publications in theater 

of operations. Funds may not be used for the provision of defense articles or defense 

services to any country or for international military education and training.

Foreign Military Sales/Financing, Arms 

Export Control Act of 1976, as amended 

(22 U.S.C. §2761, 2762, 2769 and 22 

U.S.C. 2673)

Authorizes government-to-government sales of U.S. defense articles, services, and 

training, including professional military education and technical training related to 

equipment purchases to foreign countries. Additionally, allows financing for the 

acquisition of U.S. defense articles, services, and training by allied and friendly nations 

through grants.

International Military Education and 

Training, Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 

as amended (22 U.S.C. §2347 et seq.)

Authorizes military education and training to military and related civilian personnel of 

foreign countries to (1) further regional stability through mutually beneficial military-tomilitary relations; (2) provide training that augments the capabilities of partner nations’ 

military forces to support combined operations and interoperability with U.S. forces; and 

(3) increase the ability of foreign military and civilian personnel to instill and maintain 

basic democratic values and protect internationally recognized human rights in their own 

government. 

Peacekeeping Operations (22 U.S.C. 

§2348)

Authorizes assistance to friendly countries, on such terms and conditions as the 

President may determine, for peacekeeping operations and other programs carried out in 

furtherance of the national security interests of the United States.

Counter Drug Training Support, National 

Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 

1991 (Pub L. No.101-510), Section 1004 

Authorizes counternarcotics-related training of foreign military and law enforcement 

personnel conducted by both special operations and general purpose forces for light 

infantry, aviation, coastal, riverine, rotary wing operations, and staffs associated with 

counterdrug operations. Counterdrug support can only be only used with selected 

countries. This authority was extended through fiscal year 2014 by Pub. L. No. 112-81, 

sec. 1005.

Global Train and Equip, National Defense 

Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2006, 

Section 1206 (Pub. L. No. 109-163)

Authorizes Secretary of Defense to provide training, equipment, and supplies to partner 

nations in order for that country to conduct (1) counterterrorist operations or (2) 

participate in or support military and stability operations in which U.S. armed forces are a 

participant. Funding is annually authorized and appropriated by Congress. Funding 

cannot be provided directly to partner nation and cannot be used to directly support 

Afghan security forces, lift partner nation troops or equipment to theater, loan equipment, 

train or equip non-Ministry of Defense forces, or pay for construction. This authority has 

been amended multiple times and was extended through fiscal year 2013 by Pub. L. No. 

112-81, sec. 1204(c).

Global Security Contingency Fund, 

National Defense Authorization Act of 

Fiscal Year 2012, Section 1207 (Pub. L. 

No. 112-81)

Authorizes a fund to be available to the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State to 

provide assistance to foreign countries to (1) enhance the capabilities of a country’s 

national military forces, and other national security forces that conduct border and 

maritime security, internal defense, counterterrorism operations, and associated 

government agencies that support those forces; and (2) provide assistance for the justice 

sector, including law enforcement and prisons, rule of law programs and stabilization 

efforts in a foreign country. This authority expires at the end of fiscal year 2015.

Source: GAO.

These statutory authorities are specific in nature and some contain 

limitations and restrictions on the types of activities that can be conducted 
 

Page 19 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

under these authorities. For example, the authorities codified within Title 

10 do not authorize general purpose forces to conduct security force 

assistance activities, such as training, advising, and assisting partner 

nation security forces.20 Thus, geographic combatant commands rely on 

statutory authorities beyond traditional Title 10 authorities, such as the 

aforementioned specific authorities provided for in the National Defense 

Authorization Acts or through Title 22 security assistance programs. For 

example, both U.S. Central Command and U.S. Southern Command 

stated that they used authority originally provided by section 1004 of the 

Fiscal Year 1991 National Defense Authorization Act to conduct 

counterdrug and counternarcotics training with militaries in their 

respective regions. Further, all four of the geographic combatant 

commands that we spoke to had at some point used authority originally 

provided by section 1206 of the Fiscal Year 2006 National Defense 

Authorization Act to train and equip partner nation forces. Like Title 10, 

many of these National Defense Authorization Act authorities and Title 22 

security assistance programs have limitations in how they can be used. 

For example, section 1206 of the Fiscal Year 2006 National Defense 

Authorization Act only allows for training and equipping programs that 

build the capacity of foreign militaries to conduct counterterrorism 

operations or participate in or support military and stability operations in 

which U.S. forces participate.21

Once the geographic combatant commands’ theater campaign plans are 

approved by the Secretary of Defense, they must find separate 

authorization for activities that they will conduct with partner nations. 

Some geographic combatant command and service component 

command officials said that they often have to cobble together multiple 

authorities in order to carry out a single activity with partner nation forces 

because of the specificity of the authorities. For example, officials from 

one service component command stated that a single training event 

targeted toward building the aviation capabilities of a partner nation 

required 11 different authorities and funding streams.

Some geographic combatant command officials noted that they may 

require additional or revised authorities in order to plan for and conduct 

 

20See, for example, 10 U.S.C. 168. 

21Pub. L. No. 109-163, sec. 1206(a)(1) as amended by Pub. L. No. 110-417, sec. 

1206(a)(1)(A) and Pub. L. No. 112-81, sec. 1204.
 

Page 20 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

increased and sustained security force assistance activities, such as 

training and equipping partner nation forces, beyond their current level of 

effort. According to an OSD official, current authorities generally allow for 

more short-term relationships with partner nations, but planning for and 

conducting security force assistance as the department envisions it 

requires longer-term, sustained interaction. In that regard, this official 

stated that the department has efforts underway to review the current 

statutory authorities available to DOD to determine whether additional 

authorities are needed and to potentially develop proposals to Congress. 

As of February 2012, DOD was still conducting this review.

The services are taking steps and investing resources to organize and 

train general purpose forces that are capable of conducting security force 

assistance and tracking uniformed military personnel with related 

experience and training. However, the services’ efforts are still in 

progress and uncertainties remain about any additional capabilities that 

may be needed due to a lack of clarity in regard to future geographic 

combatant command requirements.

DOD Instruction 5000.68 directs the services to develop, maintain, and 

institutionalize the capabilities to support DOD efforts to organize, train, 

equip, and advise foreign military forces and relevant supporting 

institutions in order to meet the geographic combatant command 

requirements. In providing these capabilities, it further elaborates that the 

services are to meet the requirements of all three conditions identified by 

the instruction under which security force assistance activities are 

conducted, and to identify joint capabilities across all domains, such as 

air, land, maritime, and cyberspace. The services have historically built 

teams on an as-needed basis to engage with partner nation security 

forces rather than developing dedicated forces to conduct these activities. 

However, officials stated that lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan 

established the need to organize and deploy forces to train and advise 

partner nation security forces in a more deliberate manner. In light of this 

The Services Are 

Developing General 

Purpose Forces with 

Capabilities to 

Conduct Security 

Force Assistance to 

Meet Current 

Requirements but 

Lack Clarity on 

Future Requirements

The Services Have Taken 

Some Steps and Invested 

Resources to Organize 

Dedicated Forces
 

Page 21 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

experience, and the department’s growing emphasis on security force 

assistance, the services have undertaken efforts to organize dedicated 

forces that they consider to be capable of conducting security force 

assistance. For example, service efforts include the following:

• The Army is planning to regionally align forces that will be tailored to 

meet the requirements of the geographic combatant command to 

which they are aligned. The regionally-aligned forces will remain at 

homestation and deploy only those elements of the unit that are 

required to meet the specific geographic combatant command 

requirements. The Army’s initial regionally-aligned force will be a 

brigade combat team that will be aligned to U.S. Africa Command 

starting in January 2013, with additional forces expected to be aligned 

to the other geographic combatant commands beginning in fiscal year 

2014. Although the initial unit will be a brigade combat team, officials 

said that future aligned forces could be smaller or larger units, 

depending on geographic combatant command requirements and can 

be augmented by specialized capabilities as needed. This initial 

regionally-aligned brigade is to conduct approximately 120 activities 

with partner nations within U.S. Africa Command’s area of 

responsibility over the course of a year. According to Army 

headquarters officials, most of the 120 activities will be short-duration, 

small-footprint activities, conducted by teams as small as three 

people, while larger exercises with partner nations may be longer 

duration events, conducted by battalion-sized units.

The aligned brigade will receive training for the full spectrum of 

operations,22

 

22According to Army officials, based on guidance from the Chief of Staff of the Army, the 

latest doctrine uses the term “decisive action” to refer to full-spectrum operations. 

comprising offense, defense, and stability operations, as 

well as tailored language, culture, and advising training for the specific 

missions. The Army has identified language proficiency as a beneficial 

skill but is still determining the level of language proficiency required 

within its regionally-aligned forces. For the initial regionally-aligned 

brigade, the Army plans to provide the majority of the brigade with 

basic language training that would allow it to build rapport with partner 

nation security forces, while smaller elements of the brigade are 

intended to receive more specialized training in one of the five key 

languages identified for Africa: Arabic, French, Swahili, Hausa, or 

Portuguese. In addition, a small portion of the brigade may be sent 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

through a full culturally-based language training course provided by a 

language training detachment at the unit’s homestation. After the 

initial regional alignment, the Army will assess the level of language 

training that was provided to see whether it is sufficient or whether it 

should be adjusted for future regionally-aligned forces.

Once fully established, the Army’s regionally-aligned forces are 

expected to conduct most engagements with partner nation security 

forces, but officials stated that the Army will still employ other options 

as necessary to meet combatant command requirements. The Army 

is projecting costs of approximately $1 million to establish the 

aforementioned language training detachment. In addition, the Army 

is estimating costs of about $100,000 for soldiers to travel to train with 

the 162nd Infantry Brigade. Army headquarters officials told us that 

the costs for force generation of the initial regionally-aligned brigade 

are not expected to be substantially different than those for a standard 

infantry brigade being trained for full-spectrum operations.

• The Marine Corps has organized several types of forces to meet 

geographic combatant command requirements with deployed teams 

ranging in size from one or two marines to larger task forces. For 

example, the Marine Corps deploys tailored special-purpose marineair-ground task forces on a rotational basis to different regions to 

conduct activities with partner nation security forces. These task 

forces are meant to build military capacity of partner nations, provide 

regional stability, and develop lasting partnerships with nations in the 

region. According to officials, the Marine Corps also has small teams, 

such as 15-to-50-person security cooperation teams to conduct 

military-to-military engagements, and 11-person coordination, liaison, 

and assessment teams that have specific cultural knowledge of 

regions and are available to help the Marine Corps component 

commands with planning, coordination with partner nation forces, and 

assessment of partner nation forces. In addition to these efforts, the 

Marine Corps has been conducting a sustained effort with the country 

of Georgia’s military, called the Georgia Deployment Program, to train 

and deploy Georgian battalions for full-spectrum operations in 

Afghanistan.

• According to officials, the Navy builds partner nation capacity and 

capability through a variety of ways using both its fleet and 

expeditionary forces. For example, officials stated that personnel from 

Navy ships regularly interact with partner nation security forces 

through port visits and engagements with partner nation navies. 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

Further, the Navy conducts ship-based rotational deployments, 

referred to as Partnership Stations, which include activities with 

partner nation security forces such as military-to-military 

engagements, exercises, and training. In addition to naval personnel, 

partnership stations also can include embarked marines or mobile 

training teams from other services depending on the activities planned 

by the respective geographic combatant commands. Moreover, the 

Navy provides expeditionary capabilities through its Naval 

Expeditionary Combat Command and Maritime Civil Affairs and 

Security Training Command. Specifically, the Maritime Civil Affairs 

and Security Training Command, budgeted in the Navy base budget 

to cost approximately $41 million for fiscal year 2012, is organized to 

provide tailored mobile training teams, referred to as Security Force 

Assistance Detachments, to geographic combatant commands to 

conduct training with partner nation navies across a range of topics 

such as small boat operations, weapons training, and leadership and 

professional development. 

• The Air Force is standing up two mobility support advisory squadrons 

with one to be aligned to U.S. Africa Command and the other to U.S. 

Southern Command for the purposes of conducting capacity- and 

capability-building activities with partner nations. Mobility support 

advisory squadrons are expected to conduct activities in air mobility 

processes, such as maintenance, air traffic control, and airfield 

operations. All airmen assigned to the mobility support advisory 

squadrons receive training that is tailored to the region to which the 

squadron will be aligned. The mobility support advisory squadrons will 

remain at homestation and deploy only elements of the unit for 

specific activities as required to meet specific geographic combatant 

command requirements. Officials from Air Force Mobility Command 

stated that the approximate cost of standing up each squadron is just 

over $2 million, which covers the organizing, training, and equipping 

costs for the squadrons annually, but not the man-hours for the 

personnel in the squadrons. In addition to the mobility support 

advisory squadrons, the Air Force provides capabilities through 

mobile training teams and Extended Training Service Specialist 

teams,23

 

23According to the Air Force Air Advising Operating Concept, Extended Training Service 

Specialists are permanent change of station teams that are technically qualified to provide 

advice, instruction, and training in the installation, operation, and maintenance of 

weapons, equipment, and systems.

among others.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

As previously discussed, the department’s emphasis on security force 

assistance is indicative of its expectation that the geographic combatant 

commands will conduct more security force assistance activities, such as 

organizing, training, and advising partner nation security forces to build 

their capacity and capability, and officials stated that they expect 

requirements for forces capable of conducting security force assistance 

activities outside of Afghanistan to increase in the future. The services’ 

efforts to develop capabilities are based on the current requirements from 

geographic combatant commands, but without greater clarity in regard to 

future requirements, service officials stated that they are not able to 

assess whether their current efforts to develop force capabilities in this 

area are sufficient or whether additional capabilities may be required. For 

example, an Army official stated that the initial regionally-aligned force will 

provide the Army valuable information in regard to the sufficiency of the 

force to meet geographic combatant command requirements, the 

effectiveness of the training provided for the security force assistance 

mission, and the level of language proficiency required, but that future 

geographic combatant command requirements would influence the scope 

of the Army’s efforts to develop capabilities for this mission. Additionally, 

Air Force officials said that the Air Force Campaign Support Plan is 

intended to provide structure and guidance to Air Force theater planners 

to support the development of future geographic combatant command 

security cooperation requirements, including security force assistance, 

which will then inform the Air Force’s efforts to develop security force 

assistance capabilities.

DOD Instruction 5000.68 directs the services to establish training and 

education requirements for personnel conducting security force 

assistance activities and to develop service-specific training and 

education proficiency standards for security force assistance capabilities. 

Training is a standard part of predeployment preparations for the formally 

organized units, such as the Army’s regionally-aligned forces, the Air 

Force’s mobility support advisory squadrons, the Navy’s security force 

assistance detachments, or the Marine Corps special-purpose marine-airground task forces, and most of the services have established schools or 

organizations that provide language, culture, and advising training to 

these forces, as identified below:

• The Army provides some language, culture, and advising training 

through the 162nd Infantry Brigade located at Fort Polk, which was 

originally stood up to train forces for advise and assist missions in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. The 162nd is primarily focused on training advisors 

Services Are Training 

Certain Personnel for 

Security Force Assistance, 

but Have Not Yet Fully 

Determined the Level of 

Training Required for All 

Security Force Assistance 

Activities
 

Page 25 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

deploying to Afghanistan and will also assume the mission to train the 

Army’s regionally-aligned brigade. As such, this organization receives 

funding from both the Army’s base budget and overseas contingency 

operations funds24 at a cost of $40.1 million for fiscal year 2012. The 

162nd also can provide training to other Army teams that will engage 

with partner nation security forces at the request of unit commanders.

• The Marine Corps provides tailored language, culture, and advising 

training through the Marine Corps Security Cooperation Group. This 

group, budgeted to cost about $3.1 million25 in fiscal year 2012, 

provides training to the Marine Corps’ special-purpose marine-airground task forces and security cooperation teams, among others.

• The Air Force provides language, culture, and advising training 

through the Air Advisor Academy, which was initially stood up to train 

airmen deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan as advisors. According to 

Air Force headquarters officials, the Air Advisor Academy will provide 

training for up to 1,500 airmen in fiscal year 2013, including advisors 

deploying to Afghanistan, mobility support advisory squadrons, mobile 

training teams, and extended training service specialist teams, among 

others. The total cost for the Air Advisor Academy for fiscal year 2012 

is expected to be approximately $6.4 million.

• The Navy provides its forces with language and culture training prior 

to every deployment, but has not established specific advisor training. 

According to Navy headquarters officials, because sailors typically 

deploy on ships for extended periods of time, the service trains them 

for a broad range of missions in accordance with the Fleet Readiness 

Training Program and based on the requirements set forth by the 

geographic combatant commands. As a result, Navy officials said that 

they would need clear security force assistance requirements from the 

geographic combatant commands to train forces to meet those 

specific requirements. Unlike the other services, the Navy’s method 

for training depends less on training at schools and more on learning 

required skills from superiors while on the job. Officials added that, 

 

24Overseas contingency operations funds are funds that support Operation Enduring 

Freedom, which focuses principally on Afghanistan, but also include operations in the 

Horn of Africa, the Philippines, and elsewhere.

25According to officials, of this approximately $3.1 million, 72 percent goes towards 

training and advising, 17 percent towards supplies, and 11 percent towards travel.
 

Page 26 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

since sailors can train their subordinates, they can also deliver 

subject-matter training to partner nation security forces, if necessary. 

However, expeditionary personnel assigned to the Maritime Civil 

Affairs and Security Training Command may receive training in 

methods of instruction and in the course topics they will be teaching 

while deployed. 

Further, DOD and service officials noted that theater security cooperation 

planners’ courses are available to personnel who may assist or be 

responsible for the geographic combatant command and service 

component command planning efforts. According to these officials, these 

courses are intended to provide an understanding of security cooperation 

planning, including some information related to security force assistance. 

For example, Marine Corps officials told us that the Marine Corps offers 

the Security Cooperation Planner’s Course, which is a 1-week course that 

provides students with basic knowledge regarding security cooperation 

planning systems and operations, as well as the statutory authorities that 

allow for activities with partner nation security forces. Over the past 2 

years, officials said that this course has been offered to a variety of 

organizations, including personnel from all of the military services, OSD, 

the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, and State Department. 

Additionally, according to Air Force officials, the Air Force has recently 

established an online course intended to provide Air Force planners and 

air advisors education and training in the areas of irregular warfare, 

security cooperation, security force assistance, and theater campaign 

planning, among other topics, and is developing a 1-week in-residence 

course at the Air Advisor Academy, projected to begin in September 

2012.

However, while personnel complete predeployment training prior to 

deploying on missions, and the services have established the various 

training and education efforts discussed above, the services have not yet 

fully determined what level of training should be provided for forces 

deploying on an as-needed basis for shorter-term missions, such as for 

mobile training teams or for teams of individuals formed and deployed to 

conduct individual activities. The Air Force is in the process of developing 

an instruction that identifies which airmen will get training from the Air 

Advisor Academy and for which missions, and officials said that, at a 

minimum, the instruction will likely direct that all security force assistance 

missions will require some air advisor training. An Army headquarters 

official stated that it is difficult to determine which missions should require 

advisor training for the purposes of establishing an official requirement. 

For example, regionally-aligned forces deploying for months at a time to 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

provide training to partner nation forces in Africa and a team of four 

individuals from Army Training and Doctrine Command deploying to 

conduct a 1-week classroom training could both potentially be considered 

security force assistance, but training and mission requirements could be 

significantly different, and it is unclear whether the latter would really 

require training on advising, language, and culture skills. Moreover, the 

Army has established security force assistance mission essential tasks 

and incorporated them into their mission essential tasks for full-spectrum 

operations. Similarly, the Marine Corps has published a security 

cooperation training and readiness manual, which includes training tasks 

required for personnel deploying on security cooperation missions, 

including security force assistance. Army and Marine Corps officials 

stated that personnel who do not attend the formal training provided by 

the 162nd Infantry Brigade and the Marine Corps Security Cooperation 

Group are still expected to be trained for those tasks based on unit 

commanders’ analysis of the mission.

DOD Instruction 5000.68 also directs the services to identify and track 

individuals who have completed security force assistance-related training, 

education, or experience in the Defense Readiness Reporting System 

with a relevant skill-designator indicating their security force assistance 

qualifications. The services are taking steps to approach this requirement 

in a variety of ways, including the following:

• The Army has established eight different Personnel Development Skill 

Identifiers that it believes are related to security force assistance, 

including an identifier for uniformed military personnel who have 

completed certain advisor training, such as that provided by the 162nd 

Infantry Brigade. These identifiers are self-reported or reported by unit 

commands to Army Human Resources Command and are recorded 

on each individual soldier’s personnel record. In addition to identifying 

personnel through these identifiers, Army headquarters officials stated 

that they can identify individuals who have completed certain security 

force assistance deployments through existing personnel systems, 

such as deployments as advisors to Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, 

these officials believe that the Army’s current efforts to track 

individuals for security force assistance are sufficient until new 

requirements are determined by the geographic combatant 

commands or OSD.

• The Marine Corps has a database to track uniformed military 

personnel training and experience and will eventually be using that to 

Services Have Taken Steps 

to Track Uniformed 

Military Personnel with 

Security Force Assistance 

Training and Experience, 

but Face Challenges 

Identifying What Should 

Be Tracked
 

Page 28 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

track security force assistance and irregular warfare skills in 

accordance with those identified in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

Instruction 3210.06 on irregular warfare.26 According to both OSD and 

service officials, irregular warfare skills would include those skills 

needed to conduct security force assistance. Marine Corps officials 

stated that the Marine Corps is still evaluating different options of 

tracking deployment experience for security force assistance missions 

and has not yet identified how it will track skills related to advising.

• The Navy has personnel systems that would allow them to track 

security force assistance training and experience—to include 

qualification designators, Navy enlisted classifications, subspecialty 

codes, and community designators—but is not currently so. According 

to Navy officials, greater clarity is needed from OSD on what skills 

should be tracked and officials further stated that it is difficult to 

identify and track individuals who may conduct some security force 

assistance activities as part of a fleet rotation. For example, a sailor

may conduct a single activity with a partner nation navy while aboard 

a ship, but it is not clear whether that experience merits tracking. 

• The Air Force plans to track uniformed military personnel with security 

force assistance training and experience within its Career Path Tool 

database as part of its broader effort to track irregular warfare 

capabilities, in accordance with the aforementioned instruction on 

irregular warfare. Air Force headquarters officials said that they are 

not tracking personnel yet because the system has to be updated to 

allow for such tracking.

As noted above, the services are taking steps to track uniformed military 

personnel, but service officials have cited general challenges with regard 

to tracking, such as how best to capture the varying degrees of 

experience individuals may have in conducting security force assistance 

(e.g., a 2-week mission training partner nation security forces in Africa 

versus a year-long deployment as an advisor in Afghanistan). OSD 

Personnel and Readiness and the services are currently working together 

as part of the Security Force Assistance Working Group to discuss what 

types of skills, training, and experience should be tracked and in what 

 

26Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3210.06, Irregular Warfare (June 10, 

2010). This Instruction identifies a baseline list of irregular warfare-relevant skills and 

experiences that will be tracked by services through existing personnel reporting systems.
 

Page 29 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

systems, but these efforts are still in progress. Moreover, OSD Personnel 

and Readiness, in coordination with the services, is working to finalize a 

DOD Instruction that will define the process for tracking irregular warfare 

and security force assistance skills. According to officials, the instruction 

is expected to be completed before the end of fiscal year 2012.

Security force assistance has become an increasingly important and 

distinct element of U.S. military strategy, both in Afghanistan and 

elsewhere in the world, as the United States seeks to enable partner 

nations to assist in countering terrorism and establishing and maintaining 

regional security. In anticipation of its growing importance, DOD has 

taken steps intended to define and institutionalize the security force 

assistance concept throughout the department. We recognize this 

concept is still evolving, but the challenges we have identified suggest 

that additional clarification is necessary to better position stakeholders to 

plan for and prepare forces to execute security force assistance activities 

to meet the department’s strategic goals. DOD needs to do more to 

define its intent for security force assistance, including the level of effort 

that geographic combatant commands should devote to security force 

assistance, how that intent should influence the geographic combatant 

commands’ strategies, and what additional actions are required by the 

geographic combatant commands to plan for and conduct security force 

assistance beyond their existing security cooperation efforts. This 

clarification, along with an increased ability to track security force 

assistance activities, would facilitate the geographic combatant 

commands’ planning efforts and would increase DOD’s visibility over 

security force assistance efforts to ensure that resources are being 

directed toward identified strategic goals and measure progress in 

implementing various initiatives. Furthermore, these steps would inform 

the services’ efforts to ensure that the capabilities that they are 

developing and thus, the resources that they are investing, are 

appropriate and adequate to meet future security force assistance 

requirements.

To instill a common understanding of security force assistance throughout 

DOD and therefore better guide the geographic combatant commands’ 

and services’ efforts to plan for and prepare forces to execute security 

force assistance, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense, in 

consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity 

Conflict and the Chief of Staff, Joint Staff J-5, in their positions as 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 30 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

cochairs of the Security Force Assistance Steering Committee, to develop 

or modify existing guidance that further defines the department’s intent for 

security force assistance and what additional actions are required by the 

geographic combatant commands to plan for and conduct security force 

assistance beyond their existing security cooperation efforts. For 

example, DOD could include more-specific direction as to how to 

determine which activities should be considered security force assistance, 

how they should be discussed in plans, and whether an increased level of 

effort, such as increased scope, nature, or frequency of activities, is 

required.

To facilitate the management and oversight of resources being directed 

toward building partner capacity and capability, we recommend that the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, take actions to ensure that updates to the Global Theater 

Security Cooperation Management Information System and the business 

rules being developed provide a mechanism and guidance to 

stakeholders to specifically identify and track security force assistance 

activities. 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred with 

our two recommendations, adding that it believes that the department has 

taken some steps that it believes address some of the issues identified in 

our report. The full text of DOD’s written comments is reprinted in 

appendix II. DOD also provided technical comments, which were 

incorporated as appropriate.

DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of 

Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low 

Intensity Conflict and the Chief of Staff, Joint Staff J-5, in their positions 

as cochairs of the Security Force Assistance Steering Committee, to 

develop or modify existing guidance that further defines the department’s 

intent for security force assistance and what additional actions are 

required by the geographic combatant commands to plan for and conduct 

security force assistance beyond their existing security cooperation 

efforts. In its comments, DOD stated that additional guidance to the 

geographic combatant commands and services would be useful to 

promote understanding of security force assistance. However, the 

department believes that recently published strategic and planning 

guidance incorporates security force assistance planning requirements. 

Specifically, it noted that the recently released Strategic Guidance, 

Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 31 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

emphasizes the importance of security force assistance planning and 

execution. Further, DOD stated that the recently released Theater 

Campaign Planning Planner’s Handbook provides additional direction to 

the geographic combatant commands to incorporate security force 

assistance into campaign planning. DOD added that it will review other 

existing guidance for necessary modifications, as required.

We recognized in our report that DOD has issued various documents that 

emphasize the importance of building partner nation capacity and 

capability through security force assistance activities. Notwithstanding this 

guidance, we found that the geographic combatant commands continued 

to lack a common understanding of security force assistance, what 

additional efforts may be needed on their part to meet the department’s 

intent for security force assistance, and the value of distinguishing 

security force assistance from other security cooperation activities. While 

we agree that the Defense Strategic Guidance emphasizes the 

importance of security force assistance in broad terms, it does not specify 

the level of effort that the geographic combatant commands should 

devote to security force assistance or how the emphasis on security force 

assistance should influence the geographic combatant commands’ 

strategies. Further, we note that the handbook that DOD cited focused on 

theater campaign planning in general and does not specifically address 

planning for security force assistance as a distinct activity. Therefore, we 

continue to believe that more specific guidance is necessary.

DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff direct the Joint Staff to ensure that updates to the 

Global Theater Security Cooperation Management Information System 

and the business rules being developed provide a mechanism and 

guidance to stakeholders to specifically identify and track security force 

assistance activities. The department stated that the Global Theater 

Security Cooperation Management Information System will be an 

important tool in identifying and tracking security force assistance 

activities. While DOD concurred that the global system and the business 

rules being developed should provide a mechanism to specifically identify 

and track these activities, it did not agree that it is the responsibility of the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to direct this. Instead, DOD noted 

that a Governance Council, chaired by members from the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Partnership Strategy and Stability 

Operations, the Joint Staff J-5, and the Joint Staff J-8, maintains oversight 

and management of the system. In light of DOD’s comments, we have 

modified our recommendation to reflect both Office of the Secretary of 
 

Page 32 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

Defense and the Joint Staff’s shared role in overseeing the development 

of this system. 

 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps. The report also is available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix III.

Sharon Pickup

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management
 

Page 33 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable John McCain

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye

Chairman

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young

Chairman

The Honorable Norman D. Dicks

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 34 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

To determine the extent that the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

established its concept for conducting security force assistance, including 

defining the term and identifying actions needed to plan for and prepare 

forces to execute security force assistance, we reviewed relevant existing 

DOD doctrine, policy, and guidance, including the DOD Instruction 

5000.68 Security Force Assistance. We also examined the Joint 

Requirements Oversight Council Security Force Assistance Change 

Recommendation Memorandum, which identified actions to be taken and 

organizations of primary responsibility and support to implement security 

force assistance across the doctrine, organization, training, materiel, 

leadership and education, personnel and facilities spectrum. Additionally, 

we reviewed the department’s Security Force Assistance Lexicon 

Framework document to understand the department’s attempt to further 

explain and clarify the security force assistance concept. We also met 

with officials from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 

Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict, Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Joint Staff J-5 Strategic Plans 

and Policy directorate, and Joint Staff J-7 Operational Plans and Force 

Development directorate to discuss the security force assistance concept, 

its definition, the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders identified in the 

DOD Instruction and the Joint Staff Security Force Assistance Change 

Recommendation Memorandum, and what other steps the department 

has taken to implement the security force assistance concept. In addition, 

we met with Joint Center for International Security Force Assistance and 

U.S. Special Operations Command officials to discuss their 

understanding of security force assistance and role in the department’s 

efforts to institutionalize the concept. Further, we examined the charter for 

the Security Force Assistance Steering Committee and Working Group, 

which the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/LowIntensity Conflict and Joint Staff J-5 cochair, to determine the group’s 

responsibilities to implement and oversee security force assistance efforts 

throughout the department.

To identify the extent to which the geographic combatant commands have 

taken steps to plan for and conduct security force assistance, and what 

challenges, if any, they face, we met with officials from U.S. Africa 

Command, U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, and U.S. 

Southern Command and selected military service component commands. 

In these meetings, we discussed their understanding of the security force

assistance concept, their responsibilities as outlined in the DOD 

Instruction, as well as their efforts to plan for, request forces for, and track 

theater security cooperation activities. These commands were selected 

and visited as a nonprobability sample of four of the six geographic 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 35 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

combatant commands. U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Southern 

Command and their service component commands were selected 

because the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) suggested them as 

primary examples of geographic combatant commands conducting 

security force assistance in a peacetime environment—the expected 

environment of future security force assistance efforts. The two other 

commands—U.S. Central Command and U.S. European Command and 

their service component commands—were selected because of 

efficiencies gained by colocation to other site visits. We examined 

relevant geographic combatant command and service component 

command planning documentation, such as theater campaign plans and 

strategy briefings related to theater security cooperation planning, 

requirements, and activities being conducted in their respective areas of 

responsibility. We further met with geographic combatant command and 

Joint Staff J-5 Strategic Plans and Policy officials regarding the Theater 

Security Cooperation Management Information System to discuss how 

the system is intended to be used, and reviewed documentation related to 

its development. Finally, we reviewed relevant statutory authorities and 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency and geographic combatant 

command guidance documents outlining available statutory authorities to 

determine the authorities and funding available for the execution of 

security force assistance, and discussed these authorities and related 

challenges with geographic combatant command and service component 

command officials.

To identify what steps the services have taken to organize and train 

general purpose forces to be capable of conducting security force 

assistance, and what challenges, if any, they face, we met with officials 

from the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force 

who were responsible for implementing security force assistance within 

each service, including officials from each service’s headquarters, force 

providers and training commands, and other service organizations related 

to security force assistance. We examined relevant service-level 

documentation, which included doctrine, policy and guidance, briefings, 

and white papers related to security force assistance. We also discussed 

with each service their efforts to implement the security force assistance 

concept, their understanding of the concept, service capabilities being 

developed, and any potential cost factors related to security force 

assistance. To understand how the services are organizing for security 

force assistance and what capabilities are being provided, we met with 

officials from the service headquarters and service force providers, 

including U.S. Army Forces Command, U.S. Marine Forces Command, 

U.S. Fleet Forces Command, U.S. Air Force Combat Command, and U.S. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 36 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

Air Force Mobility Command. To understand the training and education 

that is being provided to service personnel who conduct security force 

assistance missions, we met with officials about service-level training and 

education from the U.S. Army 162nd Infantry Brigade, U.S. Marine Corps 

Security Cooperation Group, and the U.S. Air Force Air Advisor Academy, 

and discussed joint training standards with U.S. Special Operations 

Command. In addition, we met with service officials to discuss each 

service’s efforts to track uniformed military personnel with security force 

assistance-related skills, training, or experience. We also met with the 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to 

discuss DOD efforts to establish policy and guidance for tracking 

uniformed military personnel with security force assistance skills, training, 

and experience departmentwide.

We interviewed the following organizations during our review:

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 

Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict, Arlington, Va.

• Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness, Arlington, Va.

• Office of Secretary of Defense Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation, Arlington, Va.

• Security Cooperation Reform Task Force, Arlington, Va.

• Joint Staff, Operations (J-3), Arlington, Va. 

• Joint Staff, Chief of Strategic Plans and Policy (J-5), Arlington, Va.

• Joint Staff, Chief of Joint Exercises and Training Division (J-7), 

Arlington, Va.

• Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Arlington, Va.

• Joint Center for International Security Force Assistance, Fort 

Leavenworth, Kans.

• Unified and Geographic Combatant Commands

• U.S. Africa Command, Stuttgart, Germany

• U.S. Central Command, Tampa, Fla.

• U.S. European Command, Stuttgart, Germany

• U.S. Southern Command, Miami, Fla.

• U.S. Special Operations Command, Tampa, Fla.

• Service and Unified Component Commands

• U.S. Army Africa Command, Vicenza, Italy

• U.S. Army European Command, Heidelberg, Germany

• U.S. Army South, Fort Sam Houston, Tex.

• U.S. Marine Corps Forces Africa, Stuttgart, Germany

• U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central Command, Tampa, Fla.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 37 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

• U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe, Stuttgart, Germany

• U.S. Marine Corps Forces South, Miami, Fla.

• U.S. Naval Forces Africa, Naples, Italy

• U.S. Naval Forces Europe, Naples, Italy

• U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command, Mayport, Fla.

• U.S. Air Force Africa, Ramstein, Germany

• U.S. Air Force Europe, Ramstein, Germany

• U.S. Air Force South, Tucson, Ariz.

• Special Operations Command Central, Tampa, Fla.

• Special Operations Command Europe, Stuttgart, Germany

• Special Operations Command South, Miami, Fla.

• U.S. Army

• Department of the Army, Military Operations-Security and Stability 

Office, Arlington, Va. 

• Army Security Force Assistance Proponent Office, Fort 

Leavenworth, Kans.

• U.S. Army Forces Command, Fort Bragg, N.C.

• Security Assistance Training Management Organization, Fort 

Bragg, N.C.

• 162nd Infantry Training Brigade, Fort Polk, La.

• U.S. Marine Corps

• Headquarters Marine Corps, International Affairs Branch, 

Arlington, Va.

• Marine Corps Security Cooperation Group, Virginia Beach, Va.

• Marine Forces Command, Norfolk, Va.

• Center for Irregular Warfare Integration Division, Quantico, Va.

• U.S. Navy

• Naval Operations N52 and N523, Arlington, Va.

• U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, Va.

• Naval Expeditionary Combat Command, Virginia Beach, Va.

• Maritime Civil Affairs and Security Training Command, Virginia 

Beach, Va.

• Naval Education and Training Command, Pensacola, Fla.

• Naval Education and Training Security Assistance Field Activity, 

Pensacola, Fla.

• U.S. Air Force

• Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, Irregular Warfare Integration, 

Arlington, Va.

• Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, Secretary of the Air Force 

International Affairs, Arlington, Va.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 38 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

• Air Combat Command, Langley, Va.

• Air Mobility Command, Scott Air Force Base, Ill. 

• Air Education and Training Command, Randolph Air Force Base, 

Tex.

We focused on the department’s efforts to plan for and conduct security 

force assistance in areas of operation other than Afghanistan because 

DOD’s focus on security force assistance is more long term than current 

operations in Afghanistan and the scope of the mission in that country 

may not be typical of efforts worldwide. Finally, we understand the State 

Department is a critical stakeholder in U.S. security force assistance 

efforts, but our review focused solely on DOD efforts to plan for and 

institutionalize security force assistance within the general purpose force.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 to May 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 39 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 40 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 41 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 42 GAO-12-556 Security Force Assistance

Sharon Pickup, (202) 512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, James A. Reynolds, Assistant 

Director; Grace Coleman; Mark Dowling; Kasea Hamar; Ashley Lipton; 

Charles Perdue; Michael Pose; and John Van Schaik made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(351634)
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.