July 2, 2009 

The Honorable Tim Johnson 

Chairman 

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Chet Edwards 

Chairman 

The Honorable Zach Wamp 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Force Structure: Actions Needed to Improve DOD’s Ability to Manage, 

Assess, and Report on Global Defense Posture Initiatives 

In its ongoing global realignment of U.S. forces and installations, the Department of 

Defense (DOD) plans to reduce the number of troops permanently stationed 

overseas, consolidate overseas bases, and establish a network of smaller forward 

locations with limited personnel. Realigning the U.S. overseas posture involves 

closing obsolete and redundant bases, constructing new facilities costing billions of 

dollars, and ensuring that other needed infrastructure is in place to support realigned 

forces and missions. These significant changes to force structure both in the United 

States and overseas are being implemented to enhance operational efficiencies and 

ensure access during future contingency operations. DOD requests for overseas 

military construction projects extend around the world including Europe, the Pacific, 

Southwest Asia, and Central America. For fiscal year 2010, DOD requested 

approximately $1.5 billion, or 7 percent, of the regular military construction request 

for overseas military construction. The Congress has supported the DOD’s efforts to 

reassess and realign its overseas posture to better respond to emerging security 

challenges, but the Senate Appropriations Committee has expressed concerns about 

the department's ability to effectively manage and accomplish such an ambitious 

program as well as the fidelity of the global basing plan given the rapidly changing 

global security environment. 

GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture
The Senate reports accompanying the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 military construction 

appropriation bills directed DOD to prepare updated reports on the Global Defense 

Posture initiative to accompany the department’s budget submission through fiscal 

year 2014.1 In October 2008, DOD transmitted a report to Congress entitled 

Strengthening U.S. Global Defense Posture responding to the Senate report 

requirement. The Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2008 military 

construction appropriation bill also directed GAO to assess the department's updated 

2008 Report to Congress and the department’s progress in implementing the strategy, 

with an emphasis on certain specific matters from which GAO derived the following 

three objectives: (1) determine whether the department has an integrated process for 

reassessing and adjusting its overseas presence and basing strategy; (2) identify the 

extent of DOD progress in establishing its proposed network of future Forward 

Operating Sites (FOS) and Cooperative Security Locations (CSL); and (3) compare 

how DOD's projected costs for implementing its overseas presence and basing 

strategy compare with initial estimates. On May 28, 2009, we provided your office 

with a briefing on the above matters (see enclosure I). This letter summarizes the 

results of that briefing, which has been modified to reflect discussions with DOD 

officials during our exit conference on June 4, 2009. Our scope and methodology are 

also discussed in the attached briefing slides. 

We conducted this performance audit from November 2008 through July 2009 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. 

Summary of Results

DOD Process for Adjusting Global Posture 

The Department of Defense has taken positive steps toward establishing an 

integrated process to assess and adjust global defense posture; however, we 

identified two shortcomings in the department’s approach. In February 2008, DOD 

established the Global Posture Executive Council to be the first formal governance 

body responsible for facilitating posture decisions and overseeing the assessment and 

implementation of posture plans. The Executive Council and the supporting Global 

Posture Integration Team include senior and staff-level representatives, respectively, 

from OSD offices and Joint Staff directorates, the combatant commands, the services, 

and the State Department. In the past year, the Executive Council has contributed to 

DOD decisions on significant posture-related matters, such as the location of the U.S. 

Africa Command headquarters and global mobility infrastructure. Stakeholder 

organizations we communicated with have consistently characterized the Executive 

Council’s establishment as an improvement over the previously informal approach. 

 

1

 S. Rep. No. 110-85, at 13-14 (2007). S. Rep. No. 110-428, at 10 (2008). 

Page 2 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Despite these positive steps, we identified two weaknesses in DOD’s approach. First, 

DOD has not reported on global posture matters in a comprehensive manner. DOD 

strategic planning guidance defines global defense posture in terms of three 

elements: host nation relationships, DOD’s facilities and military presence in country, 

and DOD activities overseas. Stakeholders we contacted described global defense 

posture in terms of their primary functions, such as U.S. Southern Command’s 

reference to conducting military operations in coordination with interagency partners 

or the U.S. Navy’s depiction of posture in terms of where its maritime platforms and 

assets are stationed around the world. However, OSD Policy officials acknowledged 

DOD’s global posture reports have emphasized only initiatives that have a direct 

impact on facility requirements, because the congressional direction to produce the 

report emphasized military construction costs. As a result, Congress may not have 

the full context in which to consider DOD’s global posture requirements. Second, 

geographic combatant commands have not established a consistent approach to 

monitor initiative implementation, assess progress, and periodically report on results 

because DOD has not yet developed global posture implementation guidance. When 

the Executive Council was established, the Deputy Secretary of Defense required 

OSD Policy to develop an implementing instruction that would address in more detail 

the global defense posture process and components' roles. OSD Policy officials 

stated this guidance has not yet been developed because their initial focus was on 

establishing the Executive Council and the Integration Team, supporting significant 

DOD decisions on posture-related matters, and preparing the 2008 Global Defense 

Posture Report to Congress. OSD Policy officials indicated they plan on developing 

such guidance after the conclusion of the Quadrennial Defense Review, but did not 

specify by what date. Therefore, as combatant commands implement complex and 

interrelated initiatives, they lack guidance from OSD regarding the management of 

stakeholder concerns, the identification of potential challenges, or the status of 

mitigation strategies. 

Progress in Establishing Operating Locations 

In the 2008 Report to Congress, the department reiterated its intent to establish a 

network of Forward Operating Sites and Cooperative Security Locations and 

summarized diplomatic efforts to date, but did not provide a full listing of the current 

number of planned locations. According to DOD officials who prepared the report, 

they focused the report on updating the status of initiatives contained in DOD’s 

original 2004 Report to Congress, omitting new and emerging requirements. DOD 

strategic planning guidance issued in 2008 requires each geographic combatant 

command to produce a theater campaign plan and specific posture requirements for 

Page 3 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
its given area of responsibility.2

 These plans and posture requirements are to be 

updated annually, and posture requirements will continue to be modified based on 

these plans. Because of the potentially significant operating and support costs that 

future locations may entail, the services resist assuming management and funding 

responsibilities for them. We have previously reported that DOD lacks specific 

criteria or a process for assigning lead responsibility at future locations, and DOD has 

yet to resolve this issue.3

 Without criteria or a process to assign responsibilities, 

management and funding for future locations may continue to be a contentious issue 

as the services face increasing demands for the resources they are provided. 

Global Posture Costs 

DOD has not fully defined or reported total costs for DOD’s global posture strategy. 

DOD’s 2008 Report to Congress estimates the total cost for all global defense posture 

initiatives at $9 to $12 billion, which is essentially unchanged from the amount 

reported in 2004. DOD’s cost estimate for the 2008 Report to Congress was based on 

the data used to develop the DOD fiscal year 2009 budget request. Approximately 

$3.4 billion of DOD’s estimate covers funding from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 

2013. The remainder of the $9 to $12 billion cost estimate is allocated to an 

unspecified period beyond 2013. However, the DOD’s cost estimate likely 

understates the total costs associated with restructuring DOD’s global posture, 

because it does not report the total cost of each initiative, assumptions about host 

nation support, the full share of U.S. obligations, or sustainment costs. For example, 

regarding the relocation of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam, which is part 

of a larger effort to realign U.S. military forces in Japan, data supporting the 2008 

Global Defense Posture Report to Congress identifies $2.3 billion programmed for this 

initiative, but costs could be much higher.4

 An agreement signed in February 2009 

between the U.S. and Japan for the relocation of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa 

to Guam reaffirmed a previous estimate of the U.S. share of costs as over $4 billion.5

 

However, as we testified in May 2008, the U.S. costs are estimated to be at least $7.5 

 

2

 According to the Guidance on Employment of the Force and the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan 

for FY 2008, CJCSI 3110.01G (Mar. 1, 2008), each of the geographic combatant commanders is now 

required to produce a Theater Campaign Plan. Furthermore, each geographic combatant commander 

(except U.S. Northern Command) is also required to develop Theater Posture Plans as annexes to the 

Theater Campaign Plan. The theater posture plans would provide an overview of posture 

requirements, identify major ongoing and new posture initiatives, the general status of efforts to 

develop and execute requirements, identify existing or emerging risks, elaborate on costs, and itemize 

information on each specific location or installation, including current and planned military 

construction requirements and the status of relevant host nation arrangements. Beginning in 2008, the 

geographic combatant commands would annually submit their theater posture plans to OSD Policy, 

OSD Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, and the Joint Staff for review. 

3

 GAO, Defense Management: Comprehensive Strategy and Annual Reporting Are Needed to Measure 

Progress and Costs of DOD’s Global Posture Restructuring, GAO-06-852 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13, 

2006). 

4

 The $2.3 billion estimated by DOD in the 2008 Report covers funding from fiscal year 2007 through 

fiscal year 2013. 

5

 Agreement Between the Government of the United States and the Government of Japan Concerning 

the Implementation of the Relocation of III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and Their 

Dependents from Okinawa to Guam, Feb. 17, 2009. 

Page 4 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
billion, and this estimate does not include other related costs, such as the costs to 

move and accommodate Marine Corps units from locations other than Okinawa to 

Guam, the costs associated with the development of training ranges and facilities on 

nearby islands, or the additional funding the Governor of Guam has recently testified 

is necessary for fiscal year 2010 to help fund Guam’s needs in support of the military 

buildup.6,7

 The Office of Management and Budget and professional cost analysis 

organizations have identified key characteristics of a high-quality, reliable cost 

estimate, which GAO recently summarized in a cost estimating and assessment 

guide.8

 A high-quality, reliable cost estimate should be well documented, 

comprehensive, accurate, and credible. The 2008 Report to Congress does not reflect 

these characteristics because DOD lacks a reliable process for developing credible 

global defense posture cost estimates. OSD initiated the cost estimate by issuing data 

calls to approximately 40 service components, whereby the lack of a common 

definition for posture permitted each component to decide subjectively which 

elements to include. Furthermore, OSD did not provide specific guidance on how to 

treat assumptions regarding host nation contributions. Moreover, according to the 

officials, the congressional direction to produce the 2008 Report to Congress required 

DOD to provide only the cost to date of implementing the military construction 

elements of the strategy. 

Conclusions 

Insufficient information exists to fully evaluate DOD’s progress in implementing the 

Global Posture Strategy, and Congress has not received a comprehensive view of the 

department’s efforts or related total costs to realign its global defense posture. 

Additionally, global defense posture realignment efforts will continue to evolve as 

department objectives, priorities, and combatant command plans adapt to a dynamic 

international security environment. While the department has taken some positive 

steps to establish an approach to manage this effort, the weaknesses we have 

identified may limit its effectiveness and the information the department provides to 

Congress. 

Recommendations for Executive Action

To build on the steps taken by DOD toward establishing an integrated process to 

assess and adjust global defense posture and more fully report on progress and costs, 

we are recommending that the Secretary of Defense take the following five actions: 

 

6

 Felix P. Camacho, Governor of Guam, Military Buildup on Guam: Hearing before the Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Statement of Felix P. Camacho, Governor of Guam, 

110th Congress, 2nd Session (2008). 

7

 GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Planning Efforts for the Proposed Military Buildup on Guam Are in 

Their Initial Stages, with Many Challenges Yet to Be Addressed, GAO-08-722T (Washington, D.C.: 

May 1, 2008). 

8

 GAO, Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital 

Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2009). 

Page 5 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
• Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to: 

o issue guidance establishing a definition and common terms of reference 

for global defense posture; 

o develop guidance, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff, requiring the geographic combatant commands to establish an 

approach to monitor initiative implementation, assess progress, and 

report on results; 

o establish criteria and a process for selecting and assigning lead service 

responsibilities for future locations; and 

o modify the annual DOD Global Defense Posture Report to Congress to 

include the following elements: 

 a definition of global defense posture and how this is applied in 

identifying initiatives in the report; 

 a comprehensive list of all locations that fall under the definition; 

 the identification of lead service responsibilities to manage and 

fund each location; and, 

 a total cost estimate to complete each initiative, including 

expected U.S. government funding and anticipated host nation 

contributions. 

• Direct the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller to develop a requirement 

and appropriate guidance for constructing an estimate of total global defense 

posture costs, which reflects the basic characteristics of a credible cost 

estimate as discussed in GAO’s Cost Estimating Guide. 

Agency Comments

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with our five 

recommendations, and indicated specific steps will be taken to address them. The 

department stated the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) is developing a definition 

and framework for the global defense posture in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense 

Review. A working definition will be published in the 2009 DOD Global Defense 

Posture Report to Congress and finalized with the completion of the Quadrennial 

Defense Review. The department also stated guidance will be developed to establish 

an integrated approach to monitor initiative implementation, assess progress, and 

report results. Furthermore, DOD commented that the Secretary of Defense will 

direct the Undersecretary of Defense (Policy) to establish a criteria and process for 

selecting and assigning lead service responsibilities, which will leverage existing 

business rules that govern the financial management arrangements between 

combatant command support agents and combatant commands. The department 

also agreed the DOD Global Defense Posture Report should be modified to provide a 

definition, a list of posture locations, and an identification of lead service 

responsibilities. However, the department was not clear on how it would modify the 

report to reflect the total costs to complete each initiative. Reporting these costs is 

an important component of our recommendation. The department did, however, 

agree with our fifth recommendation to develop a requirement and appropriate 

Page 6 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
guidance for developing an estimate of global defense posture costs which reflects 

the basic characteristics of a credible cost estimate. The department agreed that 

understanding the costs associated with ongoing global defense posture 

initiatives/realignments or new global defense posture initiatives is an important 

piece of the decision-making process, and stated the department’s guidance for 

upcoming submission of Theater Posture Plans includes a requirement for combatant 

commands to provide credible cost estimates for global defense posture initiatives. If 

future DOD Global Defense Posture Reports include credible cost estimates 

developed through this process, and the department takes the other steps outlined in 

its comments, we believe these actions will address the intent of our 

recommendations. DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in enclosure II. 

- - - 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees, the 

Secretary of Defense, and appropriate DOD organizations. In addition, this report 

will be available at no charge on our Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your 

staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (404) 679-1816 or 

pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Affairs may be 

found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 

report are listed in enclosure III. 

John Pendleton, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 

Enclosures - 3

Page 7 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

Page 8 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 

Review of the Department of Defense 

2008 Global Defense Posture 

Report to Congress

Force Structure: 

Actions Needed to Improve DOD’s Ability To 

Manage, Assess, and Report on Global Defense 

Posture Initiatives
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

2

Review of DOD Global Posture Report

Agenda

 Introduction

 Reporting Objectives

 Overall Assessment

 Background

 Summary of Results

 Conclusions

 Recommendations

 Scope and Methodology

Page 9 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

3

Review of DOD Global Posture Report

Introduction

 DOD request for $1.2 billion in FY2008 for overseas military construction represented 

approximately 10 percent of total military construction request

 Concerns about: 

 ability of DOD to efficiently manage ambitious and overlapping global realignment and 

construction program

 fidelity of DOD’s basing plan given current fluidity of the global security environment

 As reported by GAO, DOD has not established a comprehensive and routine process to inform 

Congress on status of strategy implementation (GAO-06-852, Sept. 2006)

FY2008 Military Construction and Veterans’ Affairs and Related Agencies 

Appropriation Bill; Senate Report 110-85

FY2009 Military Construction and Veterans’ Affairs and Related Agencies 

Appropriation Bill; Senate Report 110-428

 DOD is required to submit annually updated reports with the administration's budget 

submissions each year through fiscal year 2014

Page 10 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

4

Review of DOD Global Posture Report 

Reporting Objectives

The Committee directed the Government Accountability Office to 

assess the department's October 2008 Report to Congress and the 

department’s progress in implementing the strategy with an 

emphasis on certain specific matters from which GAO has derived 

the following three key objectives:

1) an analysis of whether the department has an integrated process for reassessing 

and adjusting its overseas presence and basing strategy;

2) an update on DOD's progress in establishing its network of future Forward 

Operating Sites (FOS) and Cooperative Security Locations (CSL); and

3) a comparison of how DOD's projected costs for implementing its overseas 

presence and basing strategy compare with initial estimates.

Page 11 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

5

Review of DOD Global Posture Report

Overall Assessment

• DOD has begun to establish an integrated process to assess and adjust the posture 

strategy, but global posture is not consistently defined, and combatant command 

mechanisms for monitoring, assessing, and reporting on implementation are not yet 

in place.

• Operating locations are not fully identified and management and funding 

responsibilities are unclear.

• Costs are not fully defined or reported.

Although DOD’s report responds to the reporting requirements set forth by 

the Senate Report language, it does not provide a comprehensive view of 

DOD’s global posture strategy or implementation status. We identified 

challenges in each of the areas we were asked to address:

Page 12 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

6

Review of DOD Global Posture Report

Background

• Strategic DOD guidance, the Guidance on Employment of the Force and the Joint Strategic Capabilities 

Plan, sets priorities for combatant command activities.

• The Guidance on Employment of the Force is used mainly by the combatant commanders to guide the 

development of campaign and contingency plans. 

• The Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan specifically tasks combatant commanders to develop campaign, 

contingency, and posture plans consistent with the Guidance on Employment of the Force. 

• Per this guidance:

• Each of the geographic combatant commanders is required to produce a Theater Campaign 

Plan, which translates strategic objectives into operational and contingency plans and 

integrates them with normal routine peacetime and security cooperation activities.

• Each geographic combatant commander (except U.S. Northern Command) is also required to 

develop Theater Posture Plans as annexes to the theater campaign plan. 

• Theater posture plans provide an overview of posture requirements, identify major ongoing and 

new posture initiatives, and itemize information on each specific location or installation, 

including current and planned military construction requirements and the status of relevant host 

nation arrangements.

Global Defense Posture Requirement Development Process

Page 13 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

7

Review of DOD Global Posture Report

Objective 1: Process to Assess and Adjust Posture

Positive Steps Taken To Date

• Global Posture Executive Council (GPEC) and the Global Posture Integration Team 

(GPIT) established on February 28, 2008

• GPEC -- senior leadership body to facilitate global defense posture decisionmaking and recommend courses of action; includes OSD, the Joint Staff, 

Services, Combatant Commands and Department of State

• GPIT -- staff-level team drawn from GPEC member organizations to manage 

day-to-day posture activities; overlap with Quadrennial Defense Review issue 

team on posture

• GPEC meets on a quarterly basis; recent matters addressed include:

• Location of U.S. Africa Command Headquarters

• Global en route and mobility infrastructure

• Overall posture of U.S. Special Operations Command

Page 14 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

8

Review of DOD Global Posture Report 

Objective 1: Process to Assess and Adjust Posture

Shortcomings Identified

• DOD has not reported on global defense posture matters in a comprehensive manner:

• A definition in the 2004 Report to Congress states that global defense posture consists 

of five elements: relationships, activities, facilities, legal arrangements, and global 

sourcing and surge.

• A definition in current DOD strategic planning guidance consists of three elements: host 

nation relationships, DOD’s facilities and military presence in country, and DOD activities 

overseas.

• Stakeholders we contacted held differing perspectives as to what constitutes global 

defense posture; for example:

• U.S. Southern Command – includes coordination with interagency partners

• U.S. Navy – afloat platforms and assets

• OSD Policy officials acknowledged DOD’s global posture reports have emphasized only 

initiatives that have a direct impact on facility requirements, because the congressional 

direction to produce the report emphasized military construction costs.

• As a result, Congress may not have the full context in which to consider DOD’s global posture 

requirements.

Page 15 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

9

Review of DOD Global Posture Report 

Objective 1: Process to Assess and Adjust Posture

Shortcomings Identified (cont.)

• Combatant commands have different approaches to monitoring and assessing initiative 

implementation and identifying needed adjustments.

• U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Central Command have no formal structures.

• Officials at U.S. Southern Command indicated the command has established 

corresponding bodies to bring together key stakeholders at the theater level.

• No requirement to establish an approach to monitor initiative implementation, assess 

progress, and periodically report on results currently exists.

Page 16 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

10

Review of DOD Global Posture Report 

Objective 1: Process to Assess and Adjust Posture

Contributing Factors

• DOD has not yet developed guidance that defines global posture or the mechanisms 

needed to monitor and assess initiative implementation, identify adjustments that 

are needed, and report progress. 

• The Deputy Secretary of Defense directed OSD Policy to develop an 

implementing instruction that would address in more detail the global defense 

posture process and components' roles when GPEC was established.

• According to OSD officials, they are developing a more comprehensive definition of 

global defense posture as part of the QDR, which will then be incorporated into 

DOD guidance, but they did not specify by what date.

• According to OSD Policy officials, establishing the GPEC and GPIT, supporting 

significant DOD decisions on posture-related matters, and completing the 2008 

Report to Congress were the first priorities.

Page 17 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

11

Review of DOD Global Posture Report 

Objective 2: Progress in Establishing Future Locations

• 2008 Report to Congress did not provide a complete list of Forward Operating Sites (FOS) and 

Cooperative Security Locations (CSL).

• The 2008 Report to Congress summarized the status of host nation consultations and 

negotiations, but did not provide details for each affected location.

• Services resist assuming responsibilities for future locations and enhancements to legacy 

locations because of the potentially significant operating and support costs they may entail.

• Additional uncertainties remain regarding the establishment of the FOS and CSL network:

• Theater security cooperation planning continues to evolve and will drive future posture 

requirements.

• Geographic combatant command theater campaign plans provide the basis for posture 

requirements; however, the Secretary of Defense has only approved the U.S. Pacific 

Command’s submission.

• One service’s implementation plan identified details for a number of FOS and CSL 

locations under its responsibility as “to be determined”.

DOD provided limited information on the status of efforts to establish a 

network of Forward Operating Sites and Cooperative Security Locations

Page 18 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

12

Review of DOD Global Posture Report 

Objective 2: Progress in Establishing Future Locations

Contributing Factors

• DOD has not established the criteria and a process for selecting and assigning lead 

service responsibilities for future locations.

• Prior recommendation in GAO-06-852 to establish a process to prioritize, assign 

management responsibility for, and fund the network of operating locations has 

not been addressed.

• DOD agreed with our recommendation and stated their intent to establish a 

process to prioritize, assign management responsibility for, and fund the 

network of operating locations that DOD is planning.

• However, corrective actions taken since then did not address the

recommendation.

• Future budget constraints may make reaching agreement with the services 

more difficult.

Page 19 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

13

Review of DOD Global Posture Report 

Objective 3: Cost of Global Posture Initiatives

The costs included in the 2008 Report to Congress are essentially 

unchanged from 2004

• Estimate for total global defense posture cost $9 

to $12 billion, but the time period is unspecified.

• About $3.4 billion covers funding from Fiscal Year 

2007 through Fiscal Year 2013, with the 

remainder allocated to an unspecified period 

beyond 2013.

• Almost 90 percent of the estimate reflects 

planned military construction costs.

• The 2008 Report to Congress identified 2 

initiatives that may increase these costs: 

• Realignment in Europe 

• Transformation in Korea

Office of Management and Budget 

and professional cost analysis 

organizations identify the following 

characteristics of a high quality cost 

estimate:

9 Well documented

9 Comprehensive

9 Accurate

9 Credible

Page 20 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

14

Review of DOD Global Posture Report

Objective 3: Cost of Global Posture Initiatives

2008 Report to Congress Likely Underestimates Total Costs

• For example, regarding the relocation of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam, which is 

part of a larger effort to realign U.S. military forces in Japan, data supporting the 2008 Report 

to Congress identifies $2.3 billion programmed for this initiative, but costs could be much 

higher.

• An agreement signed in February 2009 between the U.S. and Japan for the relocation of Marine 

Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam reaffirmed a previous estimate of the U.S. share of costs 

as over $4 billion.

• In May 2008, GAO testified the Marine Corps buildup is estimated to cost $7.5 billion*, not 

including:

• costs to move and accommodate units from locations other than Okinawa to Guam

• costs associated with the development of training ranges and facilities on nearby islands

• costs of all other defense organizations that will be needed to support the additional 

military personnel and dependents on Guam

• the Governor of Guam has testified approximately $6.1 billion would be requested for 

fiscal year 2010 to help fund Guam’s needs

* GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Planning Efforts for the Proposed Military Buildup on Guam Are in Their Initial Stages, with Many 

Challenges Yet to Be Addressed, GAO-08-722T (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2008).

Page 21 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

15

Review of DOD Global Posture Report

Objective 3: Cost of Global Posture Initiatives

Estimated Cost To United States 

To Implement The Relocation Of 

Marine Corps Forces From 

Okinawa To Guam ($B)

Page 22 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

16

• The 2008 Report to Congress does not identify host nation contribution assumptions 

or how they are incorporated into the estimate.

• Host nation contributions can be bounded by bilateral agreements; any cost 

escalations may become U.S. responsibility.

• Service component officials in one geographic combatant command area of 

responsibility expressed skepticism about realizing over one billion dollars in host 

nation contributions for new projects through FY2015.

• If host nation contributions are not realized or costs escalate, U.S. Government 

could become responsible for these requirements or the posture requirement would 

have to be modified, deferred, or eliminated with the potential risk to military 

capabilities.

Review of DOD Global Posture Report

Objective 3: Cost of Global Posture Initiatives

Uncertainties over host nation contributions could increase total U.S. 

costs

Page 23 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

17

Review of DOD Global Posture Report 

Objective 3: Cost of Global Posture Initiatives

Contributing Factors

• DOD methodology focused on military construction costs in developing the 2008 

Report to Congress estimate, which was consistent with the congressional direction 

to produce this report (Senate Report 110-85).

• However, some of the proposed posture initiatives could include other costs, such as 

operations and maintenance or personnel, that are not fully captured in DOD’s cost 

estimate, and should be considered as global defense posture decisions are made. 

• Moreover, DOD lacks a reliable process for developing credible global defense 

posture cost estimates

• OSD initiated the cost estimate by issuing data calls to approximately 40 

service components, whereby the lack of a common definition for posture 

permitted each component to make “judgment calls” on which elements to 

include.

• OSD did not provide specific guidance on how to treat assumptions regarding 

host nation contributions.

Page 24 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

18

Review of DOD Global Posture Report

Conclusions

• Insufficient information exists to fully evaluate DOD’s progress in implementing the 

Global Posture Strategy and Congress has not received a comprehensive view of 

the department’s efforts or related total costs to realign its global defense posture.

• Global defense posture realignment efforts will continue to evolve as department 

objectives, priorities, and combatant command plans adapt to a dynamic 

international security environment. 

• While the department has taken some positive steps to establish an approach to 

manage this effort, the weaknesses we have identified may limit its effectiveness 

and the information the department provides to Congress.

Page 25 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

19

Review of DOD Global Posture Report

Recommendations

To build on the steps taken by DOD toward establishing an integrated process to assess and 

adjust global defense posture and more fully report on progress and costs, we are recommending 

that the Secretary of Defense take the following five actions:

 Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to:

 issue guidance establishing a definition and common terms of reference for global 

defense posture;

 develop guidance, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, requiring 

the geographic combatant commands to establish an approach to monitor initiative 

implementation, assess progress, and report on results;

 establish criteria and a process for selecting and assigning lead service responsibilities 

for future locations; and

 modify the annual DOD Global Defense Posture Report to Congress to include the 

following elements:

 a definition of global defense posture and how this is applied in identifying 

initiatives in the report;

 a comprehensive list of all locations that fall under the definition;

 the identification of lead service responsibilities to manage and fund each location; 

and,

 a total cost estimate to complete each initiative, including expected U.S. 

government funding and anticipated host nation contributions.

Page 26 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

20

Review of DOD Global Posture Report

Recommendations (cont.)

 Direct the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller to develop a requirement and appropriate 

guidance for constructing an estimate of total global defense posture costs, which reflects the 

basic characteristics of a credible cost estimate as discussed in GAO’s Cost Estimating Guide.

Page 27 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

21

Review of DOD Global Posture Report 

Scope and Methodology

 Office of the Secretary of Defense 

 Joint Staff

 Departments of the Army, Air Force, and Navy

 U.S. Central Command, Army and Air Force Component Commands

 U.S. Pacific Command and all component commands

 U.S. Southern Command

 U.S. Special Operations Command

 U.S. Transportation Command

 Department of State, Bureau of Political Military Affairs

To assess the Department's updated 2008 Report to Congress, the 

department’s progress in implementing the strategy, and to address each of 

the three objectives, we interviewed and obtained documentation from 

officials in the:

Page 28 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

22

Review of DOD Global Posture Report 

Scope and Methodology (cont.)

To determine whether the Department has an integrated process for reassessing and 

adjusting overseas posture, we examined relevant policies and procedures concerning 

management of global defense posture matters; interviewed officials about posture 

management issues at DOD, the aforementioned combatant commands, and the 

services; reviewed the minutes of GPEC quarterly meetings; and, obtained information 

on combatant command posture management approaches at U.S. Central Command, 

U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern Command.

To identify the extent to which DOD has achieved progress in establishing its proposed 

network of future Forward Operating Sites (FOS) and Cooperative Security Locations 

(CSL), we examined and analyzed the 2004 and 2008 DOD Global Defense Posture 

Reports to Congress, relevant DOD guidance to the combatant commands, combatant 

command posture requirements, DOD guidance on executive agency and combatant 

command relationships, and previous GAO reporting on the matter.

Page 29 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides

23

Review of DOD Global Posture Report 

Scope and Methodology (cont.)

To compare how DOD's 2008 estimates compared with initial estimates, we analyzed 

and assessed the cost estimate data included in the 2004 and 2008 DOD Global 

Defense Posture Reports to Congress; DOD, service and combatant command data on 

the cost estimates for posture initiatives; DOD guidance on developing cost data for 

posture initiatives; DOD’s cost estimating methodology for the 2008 DOD Global 

Defense Posture Report to Congress; and GAO guidance on estimating cost and the 

basic characteristics of credible cost estimates. We reviewed cost estimates associated 

with the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative, but we did not evaluate the 

estimates for validity.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2008 through July 2009 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.

Page 30 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Defense 

Page 31 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Defense 

Page 32 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Defense 

Page 33 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 
Enclosure III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements 

Page 34 GAO-09-706R Global Defense Posture 

GAO Contact 

John Pendleton, (404) 679-1816 or pendletonj@gao.gov 

Acknowledgments 

In addition to the person named above, Robert L. Repasky, Assistant Director; Shirley 

Min; Joanne Landesman; Greg Marchand; Terry Richardson and Ricardo Marquez 

made key contributions to this report. 

(351295)
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. 
GAO’s Mission 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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site 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 Web site, 

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. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@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 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper