Military Readiness: Actions Are Needed to Enhance Readiness of Global Response Force to Support Contingency Operations
Released: 2017-10-27T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: DOD must be able to rapidly deploy forces to respond to a range of worldwide contingencies, and in 2007 it established the GRF to enhance that capability. The GRF is a set, or “menu,” of forces from the military services, each of which possesses unique capabilities, and which the Secretary of Defense can deploy rapidly anywhere in the world.

House Report 114-537, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, included a provision for GAO to evaluate challenges DOD may be facing regarding the GRF. GAO reviewed the extent to which (1) DOD has used the GRF, and assessed any risks associated with its use of the GRF; and (2) GRF-assigned units are trained to meet GRF missions individually and as a joint force. GAO reviewed GRF deployment information from 2010 to 2017 and the GRF Execute Order, observed a training exercise, and interviewed knowledgeable officials.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Defense's (DOD) Global Response Force (GRF) has two distinct uses: one is to enhance DOD's ability to rapidly deploy forces in response to a range of worldwide contingencies with a tailorable joint force; and the other is to provide a set, or “menu,” of units that combatant commands can request to augment their capabilities in light of unexpected challenges when requirements exceed their capabilities. Since 2010, according to officials, DOD has used the GRF 35 times in support of worldwide contingencies, with 32 of those times involving deployment of individual GRF units to augment combatant commander needs, and 3 times involving their use as part of a joint task force. This predominant use of individual GRF units to augment combatant commanders' needs has diminished the set of units available for mission scenarios related to the GRF's use as a tailorable joint force. For example, when DOD deployed a ballistic missile defense unit as a part of the GRF to augment a combatant command's missile defense capabilities, the particular capability it supplied to the GRF was not available for participation in a tailorable joint force to respond quickly to a potential worldwide contingency, if such an event occurred. DOD does not know what risks it assumes to readiness for GRF mission scenarios due to its general reliance upon the GRF as an augmentation capability available to individual geographic combatant commands, because DOD has not assessed those risks. Without conducting a risk assessment and taking steps to address any identified risk to accomplishing the GRF's intended uses, DOD's attempt to satisfy one of the uses (that is, individual GRF-assigned units assisting combatant commands) may hamper the other use (that is, deployment of a joint task force for a contingency).

GRF units train individually to meet GRF missions, but DOD does not conduct any GRF-specific joint training exercises, and the individual GRF units have limited opportunities to train as part of an integrated joint force, according to DOD officials. While the GRF Execute Order calls for integrating elements of the GRF into existing joint training, the military services lack the authority to direct other services to supply forces for joint training exercises, even when those forces are currently on a GRF rotation. Moreover, since the disestablishment in 2011 of U.S. Joint Forces Command—which, among other things, was the lead agent for joint force training—and because units designated for the GRF mission may be assigned to different combatant commands or may be service-retained, no single commander has the authority to require joint force training of GRF units. As a result, no joint training exercises are specifically designed to exercise GRF units as a joint task force. Army officials told GAO that joint exercises are important because they give individual units from different services the opportunity to identify challenges and develop solutions, thereby enhancing the GRF's joint task force capability. Without an entity having the responsibility and authority to plan, direct, and conduct joint training exercises focused on GRF-assigned units deploying as a joint task force as appropriate, DOD risks undermining the effectiveness of the rapid deployment of a GRF joint task force in response to unforeseen worldwide contingencies.

section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD (1) assess the risks assumed in its reliance upon the GRF as both an augmentation capability and a tailorable joint force; (2) design appropriate responses following the risk assessment; and (3) designate an authority to establish and enforce integrated joint training as appropriate for GRF-assigned units. DOD concurred with GAO's three recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: According to the 2012 Capstone Concept for Joint Operations: Joint  Force 2020, after more than a decade of war, our nation and armed  forces are transitioning to a future in which the world is trending toward  greater stability overall, but is also potentially more dangerous than ever  before due to destructive technologies available to a disparate range of  adversaries. Consequently, the Department of Defense (DOD) needs the  ability to rapidly deploy forces to respond to a range of worldwide  contingencies. In 2007, DOD established the Global Response Force  (GRF) with the objective of providing the Secretary of Defense with an  array, or “menu,” of rapidly deployable forces, and thereby enhancing  DOD’s ability to respond quickly to worldwide contingencies or augment  the geographic combatant commands’ capability to respond to  unforeseen challenges.

House Report 114-537, accompanying a bill for the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, included a provision for us to  evaluate challenges that DOD may be facing regarding the GRF. This  report reviewed the extent to which (1) DOD has used the GRF and  assessed any risks associated with its use, and (2) GRF-assigned units  are trained to meet GRF missions, both individually and as a joint force.

For objective one, we reviewed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff  GRF Execute Order (EXORD) to identify the GRF’s documented global  missions, forces, and timelines. We reviewed the Joint Staff’s GRF  deployment information from 2010 to 2017 to understand the frequency of  GRF deployments and identify specific instances in which the GRF’s  ability to accomplish its missions was affected. To identify the extent to  which DOD has assessed any risks to mission readiness based on its  reliance on the GRF to serve its two identified uses, we also interviewed  senior officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness; Joint Staff; and Army, Marine Corps, Navy,  and Air Force headquarters; as well as conducted site visits to force  providers at Army Forces Command, Marine Forces Command, Navy  Fleet Forces Command, Air Force Air Combat Command, and U.S.  Transportation Command. We also interviewed U.S. Africa Command,  U.S. European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command officials, as well as  visited U.S. Central Command and U.S. Southern Command. We  compared DOD’s effort to assess risks against criteria in the Standards  for Internal Control in the Federal Government, which states that entities  should identify and analyze risk and define objectives.

For objective two, we reviewed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff  GRF EXORD and DOD’s Guidance for the Defense Readiness Reporting  System to understand how GRF readiness is developed, reported, and  evaluated. We reviewed Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government to identify criteria for how agencies should develop an  organizational structure and assign responsibilities. We observed a  Deployment Readiness Exercise at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, that  demonstrated some potential benefits of training exercises for GRF units.  We also interviewed senior officials from the Joint Staff, military service  force providers, and geographic combatant commands to better  understand training practices for the GRF and its assigned units. See  appendix I for more details on our objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to October 2017 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 GRF EXORD generally establishes the GRF as a set, or “menu,” of  forces from the military services—each of which possesses unique  capabilities—that the Secretary of Defense can deploy rapidly anywhere  in the world. According to Joint Staff officials, deployment is for a duration  that can range from a few weeks to several months. The GRF EXORD  was first issued in 2007 and, according to DOD officials, has been revised  several times to modify the number or types of assigned units. The  current version, which was issued in 2015, continues to identify two uses  for the GRF, described as follows:

One is to enhance DOD’s ability to respond quickly to a range of  worldwide contingencies. In this scenario, the GRF would generally be  used as a tailorable joint force. For example, in the event of a  humanitarian crisis such as an earthquake, GRF units possessing the  capabilities needed to meet the crisis can be combined into a joint  force and rapidly deployed to the affected area. In this scenario, the  GRF units selected would act together as a joint force under the GRF- supplied Joint Task Force headquarters or a preexisting one.

The other identified use of the GRF is to augment the capabilities of  geographic combatant commands in light of unexpected challenges.  In this scenario, GRF units would generally be deployed as individual  units or in groups. For example, a combatant command may on  occasion require additional intelligence, surveillance, and  reconnaissance capability, and accordingly a GRF unit possessing  that requisite capability can be taken from the GRF and temporarily  allocated to the combatant command for a certain period of time.

Although the GRF EXORD identifies these two intended uses, the  document does not prioritize one use over the other.

To meet the range of capabilities delineated in the GRF EXORD, the  services nominate and assign units to the GRF on a rotating basis for a  certain period of time. Each nominated and assigned unit possesses a  specific capability outlined in the GRF EXORD. These specific  capabilities correspond to the operational requirements of eight global  mission scenarios listed in the GRF EXORD. For example, the GRF  includes a Marine Expeditionary Unit and an Airborne Brigade Combat  Team because of the unique capabilities of those units. According to  DOD officials, once a force is assigned to the GRF, it is on alert status for  a period of typically 6 to 9 months, with a potential to be deployed.  Accordingly, services rotate units onto and off of the GRF in order to  maintain a high state of readiness, which, in turn, allows them to meet the  rapid response timeframes required by the GRF EXORD.

To gain access to units assigned to the GRF, according to Joint Staff  officials, combatant commanders submit an emergent request for forces  to the Joint Staff. Generally as part of the global force management  process, when a combatant command identifies an emergent requirement  for a force that cannot be met using units already assigned or allocated to  the combatant command, the combatant command then submits a  request for forces. If the Joint Staff, joint force providers, and military  services determine that a GRF-assigned unit is the most appropriate  solution for the combatant command’s requirement, the Joint Staff will  recommend it as the sourcing solution to the Secretary of Defense. Once  approved, the GRF-assigned unit will be allocated to the combatant  commander.

section_title: DOD Has Generally Used the GRF to Augment Combatant Command Capabilities and Has Not Assessed the Risk on Its Ability to Respond as a Joint Force
paragraphs: According to an official from the Joint Staff office responsible for  managing the GRF across DOD, since 2010 DOD has used the GRF 35  times in support of worldwide contingencies—with 32 of those uses  involving individual GRF units being deployed in support of or to augment  combatant commander needs. However, according to Joint Staff officials  overseeing the management of the GRF, DOD has not assessed the  extent to which it assumes risk associated with the potential unavailability  of GRF units for a short-notice deployment as a joint force in response to  a contingency, given the predominant use of the GRF as a resource for  combatant commands to obtain individual units. According to an official  from the Joint Staff, deployment of select GRF units as part of a joint task  force has occurred three times: once to Haiti in support of an earthquake  humanitarian response, and twice to Afghanistan in July 2010 and June  2011 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. According to these  officials, GRF capabilities in support of Haiti included command and  control, security, and transportation and distribution of humanitarian  supplies. GRF units in support of Operation Enduring Freedom provided  force protection to coalition forces as well as train, advise, and assist  capabilities.

The predominant use—32 of 35 deployments—of individual GRF units to  augment a combatant commander’s needs has, in turn, diminished the  set of units available for mission scenarios related to the GRF’s use as a  tailorable joint force, and accordingly the capabilities available for  inclusion under a GRF joint task force. For example, Joint Staff officials  stated that DOD deployed a ballistic missile defense unit designated for  the GRF to a geographic combatant commander’s area of responsibility  to augment that combatant command’s missile defense capabilities.  According to Joint Staff officials, the deployment of individual GRF- assigned units is intended to be a temporary solution for a specified  period of time. According to these officials, the ballistic missile defense  unit’s deployment was extended beyond its original timeframe and it was  not replaced on the GRF menu of forces with another such unit because  there are not enough of these particular types of units to meet the  requirements across the combatant commands. Therefore, during the  ballistic missile defense unit’s deployment, the particular capability that  unit supplied to the GRF was not available as part of a tailorable joint  force to respond quickly to a potential worldwide contingency—the other  broad intended use of the GRF. Given that DOD has not defined an  acceptable level of risk—relative to the length of time during which units  remain committed to augmenting combatant commanders’ needs—DOD  lacked reasonable assurance that extending the ballistic missile defense  unit’s deployment would not surpass an acceptable level of risk to mission  for either of the GRF’s uses.

Two other units with capabilities particularly suited for use as part of a  joint force have also been deployed individually to augment combatant  command capabilities. One is U.S. Transportation Command’s Joint  Enabling Capabilities Command, which provides joint communications,  planning, and public affairs support to a joint force or joint task force  headquarters. A second is U.S. Transportation Command’s Joint Task  Force – Port Opening, which provides capabilities able to deploy within 12  to 36 hours to support the opening of a port, including the capability to  rapidly establish and initially operate an aerial or sea port of debarkation,  conduct cargo handling and movement operations to a forward  distribution node, and facilitate port throughput in support of contingency  operations. Like ballistic missile defense units, these two units are limited  in number. According to officials from U.S. Transportation Command,  because the units have been used primarily to augment geographic  combatant command capabilities, they are at times unavailable for use as  part of a tailorable joint force that can be used to respond quickly to  unforeseen worldwide contingencies. Because DOD has not defined the  risk it assumes in its use of GRF units, it cannot determine the likelihood  that units used to augment combatant commanders’ needs might be  required to constitute a joint force composed of GRF units, nor has DOD  defined the significance of the risk it incurs by not having a given  capability available to the GRF. Further, although DOD has used the GRF  primarily to augment combatant commanders’ needs, risks for both uses  should be identified and analyzed appropriately since neither use is  prioritized over the other. While DOD did not encounter issues accessing  GRF units that it required during any of the three instances in which the  GRF was deployed as part of a joint force, Joint Staff officials have  nonetheless raised an issue concerning the degree of risk that DOD  continues to assume by using GRF capabilities to augment combatant  commander needs that may be needed by the GRF to constitute a joint  force.

DOD officials stated that using GRF units to augment geographic  combatant command requirements leaves them unavailable for use as  part of a joint force ready to respond to an unforeseen worldwide  contingency. They stated that this is largely due to the fact that some  GRF units are limited in quantity but in high demand worldwide. For  example, according to DOD officials, while intelligence, surveillance, and  reconnaissance systems are in such high demand that they are  consistently used to augment combatant commanders’ requirements,  they are also typically used as an essential part of a joint force. As such,  there is a likelihood that a GRF joint force might require, but not have  access to these capabilities, thus potentially increasing the risk of not  accomplishing a given mission. DOD officials stated that in the event of a  crisis requiring the employment of GRF units as part of a joint task force,  GRF units currently employed elsewhere could be reassigned. It is  uncertain, however, whether such reassignment would enable a GRF  joint task force to meet its timeframes for deployment given that GRF  units are expected to be ready for deployment on very short notice.  Moreover, the potential effect of and risks associated with such an  occurrence—specifically, the unavailability of required forces to assemble  GRF units as part of a joint force—has not been assessed. The  identification and analysis of risks provides the basis for developing  appropriate risk responses, such as, in this case, further defining and  prioritizing the GRF’s intended uses and missions. Because DOD has not  identified or analyzed risks associated with the uses of the GRF, it may  lack reasonable assurance that this response will be sufficient to mitigate  the risks. Further, without identifying risk, DOD is not well positioned to  develop other risk-mitigating strategies, and to know when to activate  them.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government establish that  management should assess risks related to achieving defined  objectives. Specifically, the standards state that management should  analyze the identified risks to estimate their significance and define  tolerances for levels of risk assumed, thereby providing a basis for  responding to the risks. The standards also call for management to  design responses such that risks are contained within the defined risk  tolerance for the identified objective. DOD has not assessed the risks to  readiness for mission scenarios that it might assume for both uses of the  GRF because of its general reliance upon the GRF as an augmentation  capability available to individual geographic combatant commands for  response to unforeseen challenges or opportunities.

Furthermore, we found that there are varying perspectives within DOD  concerning the intended uses of the GRF, although the GRF EXORD  generally identifies two overarching uses, as previously discussed.  Specifically, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness and the Joint Staff stated the view that the  GRF is a menu of forces, each unit possessing unique capabilities that  can be used either individually to address geographic combatant  command-identified capability gaps or collectively as a joint force to react  to unforeseen worldwide contingencies. However, officials from U.S.  Africa Command and U.S. Central Command view the GRF primarily as a  pool from which they can draw forces, and it is these geographic  combatant commands that have most often requested those capabilities  provided by individual GRF units. Officials from the Army expressed  another perspective, based in large part on the requirement for the Army  to provide a joint task force headquarters for the GRF. Army officials said  that, in their view, the GRF serves primarily as a pool of forces from which  a joint task force can be created to meet unforeseen worldwide  contingencies.

Although the GRF EXORD generally identifies the two uses, it does not  prioritize the use of GRF assets to meet either. Additionally, DOD has not  defined the risk to meeting the objectives of either of the two uses, and,  thus does not have the necessary knowledge to determine when to  deploy units for one use or the other. As previously stated, DOD has used  the GRF to augment combatant commanders’ forces more frequently—32  out of 35 deployments—rather than retaining the units assigned to the  GRF to support a rapidly deploying joint force.

Conducting a risk assessment that identifies any risks associated with the  use of the GRF could help DOD to design responses, such as further  defining and prioritizing the GRF’s intended uses and missions in an effort  to mitigate any identified risks. Without conducting a risk assessment and  taking steps to address any identified risk to accomplishing either of the  GRF’s uses, DOD’s attempt to satisfy one of the two intended uses of the  GRF may inadvertently hamper the other intended use.

section_title: GRF Units Have Trained Individually to Meet GRF Missions, but They Have Not Trained as Part of an Integrated Joint Force
paragraphs: GRF units train individually to meet GRF missions, but there are no GRF- specific joint training exercises, and the individual GRF units have limited  opportunities to train as part of an integrated joint force, according to  DOD officials. Specifically, according to service officials, GRF readiness,  and that of assigned units, is based on the assigned force’s participation  in their respective service training exercises and are generally focused on  the respective units’ core missions or functions. In addition to service- level training, GRF units can also participate in joint training exercises  sponsored by one of the geographic combatant commands. These  commands can give authoritative direction to subordinate commands and  forces necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command,  including over all aspects of joint training. However, if GRF units are  service retained or assigned to different combatant commands, they  would not all fall under the authority of a single commander that could  direct joint training. According to military service officials, there are no  GRF-specific joint training exercises. However, according to some  combatant command officials, some joint training exercises have included  units currently assigned to the GRF. Few, if any of these exercises,  however, provide opportunities to conduct training for the GRF’s joint task  force headquarters in conjunction with GRF-assigned units. For example,  according to U.S. Southern Command officials, the Joint Staff’s 2017  Joint Task Force Forming Exercises will be held in U.S. Southern  Command’s area of responsibility, and will include the unit currently  assigned as the GRF’s Joint Task Force headquarters. However, the  exercise will not include any other GRF-assigned units. Therefore, the  training will not provide an opportunity for the GRF to demonstrate  readiness, gain efficiencies, or identify deficiencies associated with  deploying elements of the GRF as a tailorable joint task force.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3500.01H, Joint Training  Policy for the Armed Forces of the United States, notes that U.S. forces  may be employed across the range of military operations, and that DOD  must support national security requirements with joint military capabilities  designed to adapt and succeed in any operational environment. It further  states that the department and its mission partners must prepare to  operate in a joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational  environment. Finally, it notes that the joint training challenge is to be  responsive to all emerging and extant mission requirements of the  combatant commanders.

The need for interoperability is especially important for units assigned to  the GRF not only because the GRF EXORD requires that they be ready  for eight global mission scenarios, but because the overall GRF concept  suggests they need to be capable of integration into a tailorable joint  force. Underscoring this need for interoperability and jointness, the GRF  EXORD outlines that combatant commanders should integrate elements  of the GRF into Joint Exercise Program events to help sustain the  readiness and capabilities of those units to execute various mission  capability requirements. It also notes that combatant commanders  should conduct a training event with the GRF’s Joint Task Force-capable  headquarters at least once every 30 months in order to maintain the  headquarters’ readiness to support each geographic combatant  command. While these requirements are important to ensure the GRF  units receive the proper training and are integrated into combatant  command joint exercises, there are no specific GRF joint training  exercises that provide opportunities for individual units assigned to the  GRF to train as a tailorable joint task force.

Joint Staff and service officials told us that the GRF’s assigned forces do  not require additional or special training because they will perform the  core missions for which they train regardless of whether they are  deployed individually or as part of the GRF joint task force. These officials  stated, therefore, that existing training is sufficient to develop and  determine readiness of the GRF. However, the importance of exercising  the GRF Joint Task Force headquarters and associated GRF-assigned  units was demonstrated to us when we observed an Army-sponsored  joint training event involving GRF-assigned forces during a January 2017  Deployment Readiness Exercise at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, during  which several interoperability challenges arose. For example, the Army  and Air Force faced a challenge in calculating the weight of Army heavy  equipment being loaded onto Air Force aircraft preparatory to a simulated  airdrop mission. Based on the Army’s calculations, the equipment load  was well under the specified weight limit for the aircraft, but the Air  Force’s onboard computers showed the load as being over the limit.  While the cause of the difference in the two figures was not identified to  us at the time, Army officials suspected that it could be attributed to a  double-counting of the weight of the parachute. In another example,  inclement weather at Fort Bragg during the exercise caused ice build-up  on participating aircraft. This showed that the Air Force’s de-icing  capability was limited to a few aircraft at a time, which caused delays in  loading and preparing the aircraft for take-off. According to Army officials,  had the mission required more personnel, equipment, and aircraft, this  issue would have created a risk to meeting the GRF’s mission timelines.

Despite the challenges encountered during the exercise, Army officials  told us that exercises, such as the Deployment Readiness Exercise  conducted at Fort Bragg, are important because they give units from  different services the opportunity to identify challenges and develop  solutions. As a result, these exercises can enhance the GRF’s joint task  force capability. Additionally, a senior official from the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness’ Force Training  Directorate told us that the ability to act jointly was very important in  military operations and noted the need for joint training.

Two studies conducted on behalf of DOD further underscore the  importance of joint exercises for developing GRF force readiness. The  first study, released by the Institute for Defense Analysis in 2015,  reported that the current joint exercise program did not ensure a proficient  and ready GRF. Specifically, the study identified three key issues  associated with GRF training. First, realistic interoperability training of  individual units assigned to the GRF was not sufficient to ensure overall  GRF readiness. Second, while the then-current version of the GRF  EXORD assigned joint training responsibilities to the services, according  to the study, the service responsible for the Joint Task Force-capable  headquarters element lacked the authority to direct the required level of  joint training for GRF elements provided by other services. Third, the  GRF, in its entirety, had not been exercised or deployed as a joint force  since its inception and thus had not demonstrated the ability to rapidly  deploy as an operationally coherent joint task force. The report  recommended that DOD designate a single commander with authority to  establish and enforce joint integrated training at the tactical level, make  changes to improve training for the GRF’s Joint Task Force headquarters,  and implement a joint demonstration campaign for the GRF. According to  Joint Staff officials, they are not aware of any actions taken in response to  these recommendations. The second study, released by RAND in 2016,  also emphasized that realistic exercises were key to ensuring and  validating the GRF’s readiness. The report added that current exercises  rarely included full and realistic force packages and recommended that  joint airborne exercises be designed explicitly to identify and assess the  implications of possible challenges and validate planning assumptions  about a GRF joint task force.

According to Army officials, a major factor inhibiting joint training  exercises focused at GRF-assigned units as a joint task force is the fact  that it can be difficult to get other services to agree to participate in  service-sponsored events because—as the Institute for Defense Analysis  study pointed out—services lack the authority to direct other services to  supply forces for joint training exercises, even when those forces are  currently on a GRF rotation. Moreover, since the disestablishment of U.S.  Joint Forces Command in 2011, which was responsible, among other  things, for being the lead agent for joint force training, there is no single  commander with the authority to require joint force training. As noted  above, although geographic combatant commanders may direct joint  training of forces under their command, units designated for the GRF  mission may come from forces assigned to different geographic  combatant commands or service-retained forces, according to officials.

According to a senior Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness’ Force Training Directorate official, the  challenge to conducting joint GRF training is that there is no entity having  authority and responsibility for such training. He noted that because the  GRF is department-wide and is not assigned to a single service or  geographic combatant command, there is no single advocate for the GRF  mission and training with the authority to direct the services and  geographic combatant commands with GRF-dedicated units to prepare  for the joint requirements inherent in the GRF mission. As a result, there  are no joint training exercises specifically designed to exercise GRF units  as a joint force. According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government, management should develop an organizational structure  with an understanding of the overall responsibilities, and assign these  responsibilities to enable the organization to operate in an efficient and  effective manner, comply with applicable laws and regulations, and  reliably report quality information. To achieve this, management should  assign responsibility and delegate authority to key roles throughout the  entity.

Without an entity having the responsibility and authority to plan, direct,  and conduct joint training exercises focused on GRF-assigned units  deploying as a joint task force as appropriate, DOD risks undermining the  effectiveness of the rapid deployment of a GRF joint task force in  response to unforeseen worldwide contingencies.

section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOD has developed the GRF as a rapid response force available to react  to unforeseen contingencies or crises. While the GRF has responded to  worldwide contingencies, GRF units have been primarily used to augment  existing geographic combatant command capabilities. DOD has not  assessed the risks it assumes by its reliance upon the GRF for  augmenting combatant commanders’ forces as opposed to having the  GRF-assigned units available for allocation to a joint task force in  response to a contingency. Without performing a risk assessment and, as  appropriate, designing responses to mitigate any identified unacceptable  risks to accomplishing either of the two GRF uses, DOD cannot ensure  that the GRF is able to meet its mission. Additionally, without a  designated authority to establish and enforce integrated joint training for  GRF-assigned units as appropriate, DOD has not developed GRF- specific joint training exercises or fully integrated the GRF into existing  joint exercises. Without making improvements in these areas, DOD risks  the ability of the GRF to respond to unforeseen, worldwide contingencies  as an integrated joint force in a timely fashion with all the resources it  needs.

section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making the following three recommendations to DOD:

The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Chairman of the  Joint Chiefs of Staff, should assess the risks to accomplishing both of  the GRF’s uses: that is, its use as an augmentation capability  available as needed to individual geographic combatant commands;  and its use as a tailorable joint force available for rapid response to a  specific threat. (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Chairman of the  Joint Chiefs of Staff, should, as appropriate following the assessment  of risk, design responses, such as further defining and prioritizing the  GRF’s intended uses and missions, to mitigate any identified risks.  (Recommendation 2)

The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Chairman of the  Joint Chiefs of Staff, should designate an authority to establish and  enforce integrated joint training for GRF-assigned units, as  appropriate. (Recommendation 3)

section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In its  written comments, DOD concurred with our three recommendations and  noted planned actions to address them. DOD’s comments are reprinted in  their entirety in appendix II.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary for Personnel  and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Secretaries  of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force; and the Commandant of the  Marine Corps. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the  GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-5431, or russellc@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and of 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.

section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of our review were to examine the extent to which (1)  Department of Defense (DOD) has used the Global Response Force  (GRF) and assessed any risks associated with its use; and (2) GRF- assigned units are trained to meet GRF missions, both individually and as  a joint force.

For our objective of determining the extent to which DOD has used the  GRF and assessed any risks associated with its use, we reviewed the  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GRF Execute Order (EXORD) to  identify the GRF’s overall uses and the global mission scenarios it is  intended to meet, as well as the operational requirements and forces  assigned to meet the requirements. We also interviewed the responsible  DOD officials to understand how DOD selects, designates, and validates  forces on the GRF, and the processes for making changes to the GRF  EXORD, as well as how DOD decides when to use GRF forces for either  of the two intended uses of the GRF. Also, we reviewed Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government to identify relevant internal  controls—specifically, that management should assess risks related to  achieving defined objectives, analyze the identified risks to estimate their  significance, define tolerances for levels of risk assumed, and design  responses such that risks are within the defined risk tolerance—and  compare them with DOD’s risk assessment efforts for the GRF. Also, we  reviewed the Joint Staff’s GRF deployment information from 2010 to 2017  to understand the frequency of GRF deployments and identify specific  instances in which the GRF’s ability to accomplish its missions was  affected—specifically, instances in which GRF capabilities were  unavailable for use during a GRF operation.

For our objective of determining the extent to which GRF-assigned units  are trained to meet GRF missions, both individually and as a joint force,  we reviewed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GRF EXORD and  DOD’s Guidance for the Defense Readiness Reporting System to  understand how GRF readiness is developed, reported, and evaluated.  We also reviewed DOD’s Joint Training Policy for the Armed Forces of  the United States to identify existing requirements related to joint training,  and documents related to GRF training to determine the extent to which  the frequency and types of GRF training meet overall joint training  requirements as well as training requirements established in the GRF  EXORD. We observed a Deployment Readiness Exercise at Fort Bragg,  North Carolina, to learn about the types of GRF training, as well as  challenges and potential benefits of training exercises for GRF units. We  also interviewed senior officials from the Joint Staff, military service force  providers, and geographic combatant commands to better understand  training practices for the GRF and its assigned units, as well as varying  perspectives regarding the challenges and potential benefits of GRF  training exercises for accomplishing GRF missions.

We interviewed senior officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of  Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Joint Staff; and Army, Marine  Corps, Navy, and Air Force headquarters, and conducted site visits to  force providers at Army Forces Command, Marine Forces Command,  Navy Fleet Forces Command, Air Force Air Combat Command, and U.S.  Transportation Command. We also interviewed officials from U.S. Africa  Command, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command, and  visited U.S. Central Command and U.S. Southern Command. Our  interviews focused on understanding the degree to which DOD  organizations assess and maintain a consistent understanding of the risks  entailed in using GRF forces and gaining an understanding of the  challenges encountered in identifying, designating, and employing forces  on the GRF, as well as the extent to which the GRF’s ability to  accomplish its intended missions has been affected.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to October 2017 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.

section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact

section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, individuals who made key  contributions to this report include Guy LoFaro, Assistant Director; Adam  Anguiano; Alberto Leff; Michael Shaughnessy; Michael Silver; Yong  Song; and Cheryl Weissman.


Question-summary annotations: questions: question: What is the purpose of DOD's GRF?
answer: The Department of Defense's (DOD) Global Response Force (GRF) has two distinct uses: one is to enhance DOD's ability to rapidly deploy forces in response to a range of worldwide contingencies with a tailorable joint force; and the other is to provide a set, or “menu,” of units that combatant commands can request to augment their capabilities in light of unexpected challenges when requirements exceed their capabilities.
child_questions: question: How has the GRF been used since 2010?
answer: Since 2010, according to officials, DOD has used the GRF 35 times in support of worldwide contingencies, with 32 of those times involving deployment of individual GRF units to augment combatant commander needs, and 3 times involving their use as part of a joint task force.
child_questions: question: What are the consequences of these uses?
answer: This predominant use of individual GRF units to augment combatant commanders' needs has diminished the set of units available for mission scenarios related to the GRF's use as a tailorable joint force.
child_questions: question: How might this cause larger issues?
answer: For example, when DOD deployed a ballistic missile defense unit as a part of the GRF to augment a combatant command's missile defense capabilities, the particular capability it supplied to the GRF was not available for participation in a tailorable joint force to respond quickly to a potential worldwide contingency, if such an event occurred.

question: To what extent does DOD evaluate its GRF risks?
answer: DOD does not know what risks it assumes to readiness for GRF mission scenarios due to its general reliance upon the GRF as an augmentation capability available to individual geographic combatant commands, because DOD has not assessed those risks.
child_questions: question: What are potential consequences of this lack of information?
answer: Without conducting a risk assessment and taking steps to address any identified risk to accomplishing the GRF's intended uses, DOD's attempt to satisfy one of the uses (that is, individual GRF-assigned units assisting combatant commands) may hamper the other use (that is, deployment of a joint task force for a contingency).

questions: question: How are GRF units trained?
answer: GRF units train individually to meet GRF missions, but DOD does not conduct any GRF-specific joint training exercises, and the individual GRF units have limited opportunities to train as part of an integrated joint force, according to DOD officials.
child_questions: question: What factors hamper an effort to conduct joint training?
answer: While the GRF Execute Order calls for integrating elements of the GRF into existing joint training, the military services lack the authority to direct other services to supply forces for joint training exercises, even when those forces are currently on a GRF rotation.

question: What were the implications of the disestablishment of the U.S. Joint Force Command?
answer: Moreover, since the disestablishment in 2011 of U.S. Joint Forces Command—which, among other things, was the lead agent for joint force training—and because units designated for the GRF mission may be assigned to different combatant commands or may be service-retained, no single commander has the authority to require joint force training of GRF units. As a result, no joint training exercises are specifically designed to exercise GRF units as a joint task force.

question: Why are joint exercises important?
answer: Army officials told GAO that joint exercises are important because they give individual units from different services the opportunity to identify challenges and develop solutions, thereby enhancing the GRF's joint task force capability.
child_questions: question: What are the drawbacks of lacking a central authority for GRF?
answer: Without an entity having the responsibility and authority to plan, direct, and conduct joint training exercises focused on GRF-assigned units deploying as a joint task force as appropriate, DOD risks undermining the effectiveness of the rapid deployment of a GRF joint task force in response to unforeseen worldwide contingencies.

questions: question: Why did GAO review DOD?
answer: House Report 114-537, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, included a provision for GAO to evaluate challenges DOD may be facing regarding the GRF.
child_questions: question: What did GAO specifically review?
answer: GAO reviewed the extent to which (1) DOD has used the GRF, and assessed any risks associated with its use of the GRF; and (2) GRF-assigned units are trained to meet GRF missions individually and as a joint force.

question: What information did the GAO review for the report?
answer: GAO reviewed GRF deployment information from 2010 to 2017 and the GRF Execute Order, observed a training exercise, and interviewed knowledgeable officials.