Force Structure: Preliminary Observations on the Progress and Challenges Associated with Establishing the U.S. Africa Command
Published: 2008-07-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In February 2007, the President announced the U. S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), a Department of Defense (DOD) geographic combatant command with a focus on strengthening U.S. security cooperation with Africa, creating opportunities to bolster the capabilities of African partners, and enhancing peace and security efforts on the continent through activities such as military training and support to other U.S. government agencies' efforts. DOD officials have emphasized that AFRICOM is designed to integrate DOD and non-DOD personnel into the command to stimulate greater coordination among U.S. government agencies to achieve a more whole-of-government approach. This testimony is based on the preliminary results of work GAO is conducting for the Subcommittee on the establishment of AFRICOM. GAO analyzed relevant documentation and obtained perspectives from the combatant commands, military services, Joint Staff, Department of State, USAID and non-governmental organizations. GAO plans to provide the Subcommittee with a report later this year that will include recommendations as appropriate. This testimony addresses (1) the status of DOD's efforts to establish and fund AFRICOM and (2) challenges that may hinder the command's ability to achieve interagency participation and a more integrated, whole-of-government approach to DOD activities in Africa.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Defense has made progress in transferring activities, staffing the command, and establishing an interim headquarters for AFRICOM, but has not yet fully estimated the additional costs of establishing and operating the command. To date, AFRICOM's primary focus has been on assuming responsibility for existing DOD activities such as military exercises and humanitarian assistance programs, and DOD plans to have most of these activities transferred by October 1, 2008. DOD has approved 1,304 positions for the command's headquarters, and by October 1, 2008, plans to have filled about 75 percent, or 980 positions. Also, DOD plans to have 13 other positions filled by representatives from non-DOD organizations, such as the State Department. DOD is renovating facilities in Stuttgart, Germany, for interim headquarters and plans to use these facilities for the foreseeable future until decisions are made regarding the permanent AFRICOM headquarters location. The initial concept for AFRICOM, designed and developed by DOD, met resistance from within the U.S. government and African countries and contributed to several implementation challenges. First, DOD has had difficulties integrating interagency personnel in the command, which is critical to synchronizing DOD efforts with other U. S. government agencies. DOD continues to lower its estimate of the ultimate level of interagency participation in the command. According to DOD, other agencies have limited resources and personnel systems which have not easily accommodated DOD's intent to place interagency personnel in the command. Second, DOD has encountered concerns from civilian agencies and other stakeholders over the command's mission and goals. For example, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development officials have expressed concerns that AFRICOM will become the lead for all U.S. efforts in Africa, rather than just DOD activities. If not addressed, these concerns could limit the command's ability to develop key partnerships. Third, DOD has not yet reached agreement with the State Department and potential host nations on the structure and location of the command's presence in Africa. Uncertainties related to AFRICOM's presence hinder DOD's ability to estimate future funding requirements for AFRICOM and raises questions about whether DOD's concept for developing enduring relationships on the continent can be achieved.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of Defense’s  (DOD) efforts to establish the U. S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), a new  geographic command that consolidates responsibility for DOD activities in  Africa under one command. Previously, responsibility was split among the  U.S. European, Central, and Pacific commands. Security challenges the  U.S. faces in the 21st century are fundamentally different from the Cold  War era, and non-warfighting security cooperation activities are an  increasingly important aspect of U.S. national security policy. U.S.  government experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Balkans over the last  several years have demonstrated that U.S. government entities need to  improve the coordination and integration of their activities. In recognition  of these experiences and the increasing importance DOD is placing on  non-warfighting activities, AFRICOM is intended to strengthen U.S.  security cooperation with African nations, create opportunities to bolster  the capabilities of U.S. partners in Africa, and enhance U.S. efforts to bring  peace and security to the continent. AFRICOM officials have stated that  ongoing and future DOD activities in Africa are and will be based on an  overarching concept of “active security,” which is defined as a “persistent  and sustained level of effort focused on security assistance programs that  prevent conflict in order to foster dialogue and development.” In Africa,  U.S. security assistance programs include a wide range of activities such  as the sale of military equipment to African countries, combined military  training exercises, humanitarian assistance, and programs to help prevent  the spread of disease such as HIV/AIDs.
DOD officials have emphasized that AFRICOM is intended to be unique  from any other combatant command because its focus is on strengthening  stability and security in Africa and fostering a whole-of-government  approach to help achieve this goal. In this regard, the command is  intended to integrate DOD and non-DOD personnel to address security  issues broadly, stimulate greater coordination among U.S. government  agencies, and increase DOD’s ability to execute its mission in support of  overall U.S. government policy. Realizing this vision is a complex process,  involving not only the Department of Defense, but many other U.S.  government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, multinational  partners, and ultimately sovereign African countries. Previous GAO work  suggests that implementations of large-scale transformations, such as  AFRICOM, are complex endeavors that can take 5 to 7 years to complete,  and DOD officials have stated that AFRICOM is evolving and will continue  to change over the next several years. However, as AFRICOM approaches  full operational capability scheduled for September 30, 2008, fundamental  issues that can play an important role in the success or failure of DOD’s  effort to establish this command should be addressed. Therefore, my  testimony today will discuss two areas: (1) the status of DOD’s efforts to  establish the command and (2) challenges that can hinder the command’s  ability to achieve interagency participation and an integrated approach to  DOD stability and security activities in Africa.
My comments are based on preliminary results of work we are conducting  for the Subcommittee on the establishment of AFRICOM. We plan to  provide the Subcommittee with a report later this year that will include  recommendations as appropriate to address the issues we discuss today.  To assess the DOD’s efforts to establish AFRICOM, we obtained and  analyzed relevant documentation, including AFRICOM’s manpower,  facilities, and funding requirements and periodic progress reports. To  identify challenges that could hinder AFRICOM’s ability to achieve  interagency participation and an integrated approach to African security,  we obtained information related to the initial and current plans for  interagency representation in the command and AFRICOM’s presence in  Africa. We also obtained the perspectives of cognizant officials from the  U.S. European and Africa commands and the related military service  component commands in Europe as well as from the Office of the  Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, Joint Forces Command, military service  headquarters, Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International  Development, and Interaction, an organization representing U.S. based  non-government organizations. We are conducting our work 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The President has established, and DOD operates geographic combatant  commands to perform military missions around the world. Geographic  combatant commands are each assigned an area of responsibility in which  to conduct their missions and activities (see fig. 1 below). Combatant  commands are responsible for a variety of functions including tasks such  as (1) deploying forces as necessary to carry out the missions assigned to  the command; (2) coordinating and approving those aspects of  administration, support (including control of resources and equipment,  internal organization, and training), and discipline necessary to carry out  missions assigned to the command; and (3) assigning command functions  to subordinate commanders. Combatant commands are supported by  Service component commands (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force)  and Special Operations Command. Each of these component commands  has a significant role in planning and supporting operations.
On February 6, 2007, the President directed the Secretary of Defense to  establish a new geographic combatant command to consolidate the  responsibility for DOD activities in Africa that have been shared by U.S.  Central Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. European Command.  AFRICOM was officially established on October 1, 2007, with a goal to  reach full operational capability as a separate, independent geographic  combatant command by September 30, 2008. Full operational capability  was defined as the point at which the AFRICOM commander will accept  responsibility for executing all U.S. military activities in Africa currently  being conducted by the U.S. European, Central, and Pacific commands;  have the capability to plan and conduct new operations; and have the  capability to develop new initiatives. AFRICOM’s mission statement,  which was approved by the Secretary of Defense in May 2008, is to act in  concert with other U. S. government agencies and international partners to  conduct sustained security engagement through military-to-military  programs, military-sponsored activities, and other military operations as  directed to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of  U.S. foreign policy.
section_title: DOD Has Focused on Transferring Existing Activities from Other Commands to AFRICOM
paragraphs: Since the President announced the establishment of AFRICOM, DOD has  focused on building the capabilities necessary for AFRICOM to  systematically assume responsibility for all existing military missions,  activities, programs, and exercises in the area of responsibility it is  inheriting from the U.S. European, Central, and Pacific commands. From  the outset, AFRICOM has sought to assume responsibility for these  existing activities seamlessly, without disrupting them or other U.S.  government and international efforts in Africa. To accomplish this task,  AFRICOM officials created a formal process to manage the transfer of  activities it initially identified as ongoing within AFRICOM’s area of  responsibility. These range from activities to combat HIV/AIDS to  programs that provide training opportunities for foreign military personnel  and include the two largest U.S. military activities in Africa, the Combined  Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa and Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans  Sahara. DOD plans to transfer most activities to the new command by  September 30, 2008. The areas of responsibility and examples of activities  being transferred to AFRICOM from the U.S. European, Central and  Pacific commands are presented in figure 2. In cases involving State  Department-led activities where DOD plays a primary role in its execution,  such as the International Military Education and Training program,  AFRICOM is assuming only the execution of the program from other  combatant commands—the State Department still maintains overall  authority and responsibility for the program.
Since the initial establishment of the command in October 2007, AFRICOM  has also sought to staff its headquarters, which will include DOD military  personnel, DOD civilian personnel, and interagency personnel. Officials  explained that staffing the command’s positions is the most critical and  limiting factor in the process for assuming responsibility for activities in  Africa because activities cannot be transferred without personnel in place  to execute them. DOD has approved 1,304 positions (military and DOD  civilian) for the command’s headquarters, of which about 270 military  positions are being transferred from other commands. By September 30,  2008, DOD plans to have filled 75 percent, or 980 of these positions. In  addition, DOD plans to have 13 command positions filled by  representatives from non-DOD agencies. As a result, on September 30,  2008, 1 percent of AFRICOM headquarters positions will be filled by  representatives from non-DOD organizations (see fig. 3). At this point, the  number of interagency representatives in AFRICOM headquarters will be  only slightly more than the number of representatives in other geographic  commands, but AFRICOM has been designed to embed these interagency  personnel at all levels in the command, including in leadership and  management roles.
While AFRICOM expects to fill 622 (97 percent) of its military personnel  positions by September 30, 2008, it only expects to fill 358 (54 percent) of  its DOD civilian positions, and 13 out of 52 (25 percent) targeted  interagency positions by this time. DOD officials explained that unlike  military positions, hiring civilians may include conducting security  clearance investigations and overcoming the logistics necessary to  physically relocate civilians overseas as well as other administrative  requirements. Figure 4 compares the positions DOD has approved for  AFRICOM, the targeted interagency positions, the command’s progress in  filling them as of July, 2008, and the progress it expects to make by  October 1, 2008.
In order to meet infrastructure needs, AFRICOM is renovating existing  facilities in Stuttgart, Germany, to establish an interim headquarters at a  projected cost of approximately $40 million. DOD also projects an  investment of approximately $43 million in command, control,  communications, and computer systems infrastructure to enable  AFRICOM to monitor and manage the vast array of DOD activities in  Africa. Decisions related to the location of AFRICOM’s permanent  headquarters and the overall command presence in Africa will be decided  at a future date; therefore, DOD expects the command will operate from  the interim headquarters in Germany for the foreseeable future.
In total, DOD budgeted approximately $125 million to support the  establishment of AFRICOM during fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and has  requested nearly $390 million more for fiscal year 2009. This does not  reflect the full cost of establishing the command over the next several  years, a cost that is projected to be substantial and could range in the  billions of dollars. For example, although DOD has not fully estimated the  additional costs of establishing and operating the command, AFRICOM  officials said that as the command is further developed and decisions are  made on its permanent headquarters, it will need to construct both  enduring facilities and meet other operational support requirements.  DOD’s preliminary estimates for the command’s future infrastructure and  equipping costs over the next several years exceed several billion dollars,  excluding the cost of activities AFRICOM will be performing.
The progress AFRICOM intends to make in establishing the command by  September 30, 2008, will provide it a foundation for working toward DOD’s  goal to promote whole-of-government approaches to building the capacity  of partner nations. However, AFRICOM officials recognize the command  will need to continue to develop after its September 30, 2008, milestone to  move beyond episodic security cooperation events to more strategic,  sustained efforts. The AFRICOM commander has described the command  as a “…listening, growing, and developing organization.” In addition,  senior DOD officials told us that on September 30, 2008, DOD does not  anticipate that AFRICOM will have the desired interagency skill sets, the  ability to strategically engage with African countries beyond the  established level, or the capacity to take on new initiatives.
In addition to DOD’s efforts to establish the combatant command, the  military services and Special Operations Command are also working to  establish component commands that will be subordinate to AFRICOM.  They are in the process of developing organizational structures and  determining facilities, personnel, and other requirements, such as  operational support aircraft, that have yet to be fully defined, but could be  challenging for the services to meet. For example, personnel requirements  for each component command range from approximately 100 personnel to  more than 400, and Army officials said they will likely face difficulties in  filling positions because many of the positions require a certain level of  rank or experience that is in high demand. At the time that AFRICOM is  estimated to reach full operational capability (September 30, 2008), only  two component commands (Navy, Marine Corps) are expected to be fully  operational. The Army, Air Force, and Special Operations component  commands are expected to reach full operational capability by October 1,  2009.
section_title: DOD Faces Significant Challenges to Achieve Its Transformational Vision of AFRICOM
subsections: section_title: Limited Interagency Participation to Date
paragraphs: DOD’s first challenge to achieving its vision for AFRICOM is in integrating  personnel from civilian agencies into AFRICOM’s command and staff  structure. According to AFRICOM, strategic success in Africa depends on  a whole-of-government approach to stability and security. A whole-of- government approach necessitates collaboration among federal agencies  to ensure their activities are synchronized and integrated in pursuit of a  common goal. Integrating personnel from federal civilian agencies is  intended to facilitate collaboration among agencies, but AFRICOM has had  difficulties in filling its interagency positions.
Unlike liaison positions in other combatant commands, AFRICOM has  been designed to embed personnel from non-DOD agencies in leadership,  management, and staff positions at all levels in the command. For  example, AFRICOM’s Deputy to the Commander for Civil-Military  Activities, one of two co-equal Deputies to the Commander, is a senior  Foreign Service officer from the Department of State. By bringing  knowledge of their home agencies, personnel from other agencies, such as  the USAID and the departments of Treasury and Commerce, are expected  to improve the planning and execution of AFRICOM’s plans, programs,  and activities and to stimulate collaboration among U.S. government  agencies.
Initially, DOD established a notional goal of 25 percent of AFRICOM’s  headquarters’ staff would be provided by non-DOD agencies. According to  State officials, however, this goal was not vetted through civilian agencies  and was not realistic because of the resource limitations in civilian  agencies. Subsequently, AFRICOM reduced its interagency representation  to 52 notional interagency positions and as displayed in figure 5, would be  approximately 4 percent of the AFRICOM staff. As previously discussed,  however, DOD officials have indicated that the target of 52 interagency  positions for the command will continue to evolve as AFRICOM receives  input from other agencies.
Even with a reduction in the number of interagency positions, according  to DOD officials, some civilian agencies have limited personnel resources  and incompatible personnel systems that have not easily accommodated  DOD's intent to place interagency personnel in the command.  AFRICOM  is looking to civilian agencies for skills sets that it does not have internally,  but many of the personnel who have these skills sets and experience  outside of DOD are in high demand. Officials at the State Department, in  particular, noted their concern about the ability to fill positions left vacant  by personnel being detailed to AFRICOM since it takes a long time to  develop Foreign Service officers with the requisite expertise and  experience. In fact, according to State Department officials, some U.S.  embassies in Africa are already experiencing shortfalls in personnel,  especially at the mid-level. DOD officials also said that personnel systems  among federal agencies were incompatible and do not readily facilitate  integrating personnel into other agencies, particularly into non-liaison  roles. In addition, many non-DOD agencies have missions that are  domestically focused and therefore will need time to determine how best  to provide personnel support to AFRICOM. To encourage agencies to  provide personnel to fill positions in AFRICOM, DOD will pay the salaries  and expenses for these personnel.
As previously discussed, while DOD has focused initially on establishing  AFRICOM’s headquarters, the services and Special Operations Command  are also working to establish component commands to support AFRICOM,  but the extent of interagency participation at these commands has not  been fully defined. Neither OSD nor AFRICOM has provided guidance on  whether AFRICOM’s component commands should integrate interagency  representatives, and among the services, plans for embedded interagency  personnel varied. The Army has proposed including four interagency  positions in AFRICOM’s Army service component command, U.S. Army,  Africa. Officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint  Forces Command, Marine Corps, and the Air Force stated that component  commands would receive interagency input from AFRICOM headquarters  and embassy country teams. One OSD official added that the level of  interagency input at the headquarters was sufficient because component  commands are responsible for executing plans developed by the  combatant command headquarters where interagency personnel would be  involved in the planning process.
In the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Execution Roadmap, Building  Partnership Capacity, DOD recognized the importance of a seamless  integration of U.S. government capabilities by calling for strategies, plans,  and operations to be coordinated with civilian agencies. One of  AFRICOM’s guiding principles is to collaborate with U.S. government  agencies, host nations, international partners, and nongovernmental  organizations. AFRICOM officials told us that they had not yet developed  the mechanisms or structures to ensure that their activities were  synchronized or integrated with those of civilian agencies to ensure a  mutually supportive and sustainable effort, but would turn their attention  to this synchronization after October 2008. Barriers to interagency  collaboration, however, could arise as AFRICOM develops mechanisms,  processes, and structures to facilitate interagency collaboration, since  both AFRICOM and the agencies will likely encounter additional  challenges that are outside their control, such as different planning  processes, authorities, and diverse institutional cultures. For example,  according to State and DOD officials, the State Department is focused on  bilateral relationships with foreign governments through its embassies  overseas, while the Defense Department is focused regionally through its  geographic combatant commands. With relatively few interagency  personnel on the AFRICOM staff, such coordination mechanisms could be  critical for the command to achieve its vision.
section_title: Stakeholder Concerns Regarding the Command’s Mission
paragraphs: DOD’s second challenge to achieving its vision for AFRICOM is in  overcoming stakeholder concerns of the command’s mission. This could  limit its ability to develop key partnerships. Since its establishment was  announced in early 2007, AFRICOM has encountered concerns from U.S.  civilian agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and African partners  about what AFRICOM is and what it hopes to accomplish in Africa. Many  of the concerns from U.S. government agencies, nongovernmental  organizations, and African partners stem from their interpretations of  AFRICOM’s intended mission and goals. Although DOD has often stated  that AFRICOM is intended to support, not lead, U.S. diplomatic and  development efforts in Africa, State Department officials expressed  concern that AFRICOM would become the lead for all U.S. government  activities in Africa, even though the U.S. embassy leads decision-making  on U.S. government non-combat activities conducted in that country.  Other State and USAID officials noted that the creation of AFRICOM could  blur traditional boundaries among diplomacy, development, and defense,  thereby militarizing U.S. foreign policy. An organization that represents  U.S.-based international nongovernmental organizations told us that many  nongovernmental organizations shared the perception that AFRICOM  would militarize U.S. foreign aid and lead to greater U.S. military  involvement in humanitarian assistance. Nongovernmental organizations  are concerned that this would put their aid workers at greater risk if their  activities are confused or associated with U.S. military activities. Among  African countries, there is apprehension that AFRICOM will be used as an  opportunity to increase the number of U.S. troops and military bases in  Africa. African leaders also expressed concerns to DOD that U.S. priorities  in Africa may not be shared by their governments. For example, at a DOD- sponsored roundtable, a group of U.S.-based African attachés identified  their most pressing security issues were poverty, food shortages,  inadequate educational opportunities, displaced persons, and HIV/AIDS,  while they perceived U.S. priorities were focused on combating terrorism  and weakened states.
One factor contributing to persistent concerns among U.S. government  agencies, non governmental organizations, and African partners is the  evolution of how DOD has characterized AFRICOM’s unique mission and  goals. Between February 2007 and May 2008 AFRICOM’s mission  statement went through several iterations that ranged in its emphasis on  humanitarian-oriented activities to more traditional military programs.  According to an official from an organization representing  nongovernmental organizations, the emphasis on humanitarian assistance  as part of AFRICOM’s mission early on contributed to their fears that  AFRICOM would be engaged in activities that are traditionally the mission  of civilian agencies and organizations. Additionally, the discussion of  AFRICOM’s mission evolved from highlighting its whole-of-government  approach to referring to it as a bureaucratic reorganization within DOD.  When articulating its vision for AFRICOM, DOD also used language that  did not translate well to African partners and civilian agency stakeholders.  For civilian agencies use of the words "integrating U.S. government  activities” led to concerns over AFRICOM’s assuming leadership in  directing all U.S. government efforts. Likewise, DOD’s use of the term  “combatant command” led some African partners to question whether  AFRICOM was focused on non-warfighting activities. State Department  officials said that they had difficulty in responding to African concerns  because of their own confusion over AFRICOM’s intended mission and  goals.
Another factor contributing to concerns over AFRICOM’s mission and  goals can be attributed to unclear roles and responsibilities. Although  DOD has long been involved in humanitarian and stability-related  activities, AFRICOM’s emphasis on programs that prevent conflict in order  to foster dialogue and development has put a spotlight on an ongoing  debate over the appropriate role of the U.S. military in non-combat  activities. Consequently, civilian agencies are concerned about the overlap  of DOD missions with their own and what impact DOD’s role may have on  theirs. DOD is currently conducting a mission analysis to help define roles  and responsibilities between AFRICOM and civilian agencies operating in  Africa, but broader governmentwide consensus on these issues has not  been reached.
An additional factor contributing to U.S. government perceptions that  AFRICOM could militarize U.S. foreign policy is in part based on DOD’s  vast resources and capacity compared to the civilian agencies. Civilian  agencies and some African partners are concerned that the strategic focus  AFRICOM could bring to the continent would result in AFRICOM  supplanting civilian planning and activities. One USAID official told us that  an increase in funding executed by AFRICOM could change the dynamic in  relationships among U.S. federal agencies and in relationships between  individual U.S. agencies and African partners.
section_title: Uncertainty about DOD Presence in Africa
paragraphs: DOD has not yet reached agreement with the State Department and  potential host nations on the structure and location of AFRICOM’s  presence in Africa. Initially, an important goal of AFRICOM was to  establish a command presence in Africa that would provide a regional  approach to African security and complement DOD’s representation in  U.S. embassies. AFRICOM is planning to increase its representation in 11  U.S. embassies by establishing new offices to strengthen bilateral military- to-military relationships. It is also planning to establish regional offices in  five locations on the continent that would align with the five regional  economic communities in Africa. DOD, however, has faced difficulty  reaching agreement with the State Department on AFRICOM’s future  presence on the continent. Therefore, AFRICOM will be based in Stuttgart,  Germany, for the foreseeable future and plans to focus on increasing its  representatives in embassies until decisions on the structure and location  of AFRICOM’s presence are made. In testimony to the Congress in March  of this year, the AFRICOM Commander stated that he considers command  presence in Africa an important issue, but states that it is not considered a  matter of urgency.
DOD officials have previously stated that the command’s presence in  Africa was important. Specifically, DOD officials have indicated that the  structure and location of AFRICOM’s presence in Africa is important  because being located in Africa would provide AFRICOM staff with a more  comprehensive understanding of the regional environment and African  needs. Second, having staff located in Africa would help the command  build relationships and partnerships with African nations and the regional  economic communities and associated regional standby forces. Enduring  relationships are an important aspect of building African partner security  capacity and in successfully planning and executing programs and  activities. Third, regional offices are intended to promote a regional  dimension to U.S. security assistance through their coordination with DOD  representatives who manage these programs in multiple U.S. embassies.  As DOD continues to evolve its plans for a presence in Africa and  decisions involving presence are delayed, DOD officials have indicated  that other coordinating mechanisms may be established as a substitute for  a physical presence on the continent.
In addition, senior DOD officials have stated that preparing budget  estimates for future fiscal years is difficult without an agreed upon  AFRICOM presence on the continent. For example, although DOD  requested $20 million in fiscal year 2009 to begin establishing the presence  in Africa, AFRICOM has not been able to identify total funding  requirements for headquarters infrastructure and operations in Africa.  Furthermore, a senior official from the Office of the Secretary of Defense  for Program Analysis and Evaluation stated that AFRICOM’s future  presence in Africa was one of the most important policy decisions that  could affect the ability of the department to estimate future costs for the  command. For example, in developing the fiscal year 2009 budget request,  DOD estimated the costs to operate the interim headquarters in Stuttgart,  Germany, was approximately $183 million, but these costs may change  significantly, according to DOD officials, if the headquarters were located  in an African country with more limited infrastructure than currently  available in Stuttgart, Germany. Therefore, without an agreed-upon U.S.  government strategy for establishing AFRICOM’s presence on the  continent of Africa that is negotiated with and supported by potential host  nations, the potentially significant fiscal implications of AFRICOM’s  presence and impact on its ability to develop relationships and  partnerships at the regional and local levels will remain unclear.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: As AFRICOM nears the October 2008 date slated for reaching full  operational capability, DOD is working to shape expectations for the  emergent command—both inside and outside the United States.  Confronted by concerns from other U.S. agencies and African partners,  AFRICOM is focused on assuming existing military missions while  building capacity for the future. The ultimate role of AFRICOM in  promoting a whole-of-government approach to stability and security on  the continent is still uncertain, but initial expectations that the command  would represent a dramatic shift in U.S. approach to security in Africa are  being scaled back. Two key precepts of the command—that it would have  significant interagency participation and would be physically located in  Africa to engage partners there—will not be realized in the near term.
Looking to the future, the difficulties encountered in staffing the  command, sorting out the military’s role in policy, and establishing a  presence in Africa are emblematic of deeper cultural and structural issues  within the U.S. government. Having such a command will likely help DOD  focus military efforts on the African continent, but the extent to which an  integrated approach is feasible remains unclear. Over the next few years,  DOD intends to invest billions in this new command—including devoting  hundreds of staff—and sustained attention will be needed to ensure that  this substantial investment pays off over time.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. We would be happy  to answer any questions you may have.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For questions regarding this testimony, please call John Pendleton at (202)  512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this testimony. Other key contributors to this statement were Robert L.  Repasky, Tim Burke, Leigh Caraher, Grace Colemen, Taylor Matheson,  Lonnie McAllister, and Amber Simco.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It 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.