United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee
on Military Readiness and Management
Support, Committee on Armed Services
U.S. Senate
May 1999
MILITARY
OPERATIONS
Impact of Operations
Other Than War on the
Services Varies
GAO/NSIAD-99-69
United States General Accounting Office National Security and
Washington, D.C. 20548 Leter
International Affairs Division
B-279505 Letter
May 24, 1999
The Honorable James Inhofe
Chairman, Subcommittee on Military
Readiness and Management Support
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Since the end of the Cold War, the frequency of U.S. military involvement in
operations other than war1 (OOTW) has increased, while the force
structure and number of military personnel have been reduced. You asked
us to examine the impact of OOTW on the military services. As agreed with
your office, we examined the (1) impact of OOTW on the warfighting
capability of each of the services, including the time to recover warfighting
skills; (2) extent to which reporting systems fully capture the impacts;
(3) available information on the effect of OOTW on morale and retention;
(4) ability of U.S. forces to respond to a major theater war while engaged in
OOTW; (5) Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to alleviate any adverse
impacts; and (6) funding provided by Congress for OOTW. We focused our
efforts primarily on Army and Air Force units that have been engaged in
operations in Bosnia and Southwest Asia (SWA) over the past several years
and also included Navy units engaged in counterdrug operations in the
Caribbean.
Results in Brief U.S. military forces have become increasingly involved in OOTW over the
past decade. Based on our review of unit readiness and capability
assessments and observations confirmed at military headquarters such as
the U.S. European Command, U.S. Army Europe, U.S. Air Forces in Europe,
and the Air Force’s Air Combat Command in the United States, OOTW has
adversely affected the combat capability of deployed units in Bosnia and
Southwest Asia and some units that remain at the home station as they
have to pick up the work of the deployed units. At the same time,
1 For
the purpose of this report, “operations other than war” includes low-intensity peacekeeping
operations, such as military observer duty, and counterdrug and high-intensity peace enforcement
operations.
Leter Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
deployments for these operations can have some positive affects, such as
fostering unit cohesion. OOTW has affected Army and Air Force units
more than it has Navy and Marine Corps units. Returning units to their
wartime mission capability levels during peacetime can take from several
weeks for some support units to more than a year for some combat units,
although in wartime the recovery period can be compressed if necessary.
On the other hand, many units and/or personnel in the Army and the Air
Force have been relatively unaffected by OOTW. While the services are
reporting some adverse impacts of OOTW and impacts are regularly
reported to senior-level DOD readiness forums, we found that there is
considerable additional information on OOTW impacts that are not readily
apparent in readiness reports.
The effects of OOTW on morale and retention is a mixed picture. Army
morale studies indicate that morale was generally high among soldiers in
Bosnia, but Air Force personnel indicate that morale is declining partly due
to recurring OOTW deployments. Navy and Marine Corps personnel said
that retention is an indicator of morale. The Army has been meeting its
overall retention goals and U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR), which until late
1998 provided most of the soldiers deployed to Bosnia, has met or
exceeded the overall Army’s retention rates since 1994. However, retention
is a problem in some of the services, particularly the Air Force, but
according to the services, OOTW is only one of several factors affecting
retention.
In the 1993 Bottom-Up Review and the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review
of national military strategy and associated force structure, DOD
concluded that the same forces needed for war would be used for OOTW
until they were needed to meet wartime requirements. Addressing the
impacts of OOTW while maintaining the ability to engage in major theater
wars will present a complex management challenge for DOD. DOD
recently provided Congress a report on the effects of its involvement in
Bosnia on the ability to conduct two major wars. Its European Command
is studying how it would disengage and redeploy forces from Bosnia if
there were a war, but results may not be available until later this year. The
Joint Staff and the military services are taking steps to reduce the impact of
OOTW, but either there is insufficient data available to know if the steps are
achieving their intended objectives or the steps are too new to assess. One
of these steps includes an Air Force plan to shift 5,000 personnel slots from
occupations not heavily used in OOTW to occupations that are heavily
used, beginning next year. If Congress and the executive branch conclude
that the effects of OOTW are unacceptable, other than reducing U.S.
Leter Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
participation, it may be necessary to include OOTW needs in determining
future force structure.
Congress has provided funding for OOTW, but to prevent growth in overall
government spending, it reduced other planned defense spending in fiscal
years 1995, 1996, and 1997. In fiscal year 1998, Congress did not reduce
other planned defense spending to offset OOTW funding.
Background American military forces have been engaged in OOTW throughout the
nation’s history. The U.S. military’s current OOTW involvement includes
providing forces in and around SWA, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and, until
recently, Macedonia, and for other operations such as counterdrug. The
Army has deployed no more than 75,000 soldiers to Bosnia since the
operation began in December 1995, with the size of the force at any one
time ranging from less than 34,000 in the first year to slightly more than
6,000 soldiers in March 1999 in a total Army of 1 million personnel. On any
given day in 1997, the Air Force deployed about 14,600 personnel for OOTW
in a total Air Force of 370,000 personnel. Few Navy and Marine Corps
personnel are deployed exclusively for OOTW.
Since the end of the Gulf War in 1991, the Air Force and the Navy have
enforced U.N. restrictions over Iraqi air space and supported U.S. forces in
Bosnia; the Navy has inspected ships in the Persian Gulf to enforce the
U. N. embargo on Iraq; and the Army has provided ground forces in Bosnia
and Macedonia and air defense protection for Israel, and participated in
combined training with Kuwaiti forces. Appendix I contains additional
details on the level of U.S. military involvement in OOTW since the Gulf
War.
Participation in OOTW OOTW has affected the combat capability of each of the military services to
varying degrees. We found that the Army and the Air Force were more
Adversely Affects Parts affected than the Navy and the Marine Corps, although many parts of the
of the Military While Army and the Air Force have been relatively unaffected. Army units
engaged in OOTW generally require more recovery time than Air Force
Leaving Other Parts units, and combat units in the Air Force and the Army require more
Relatively Unaffected recovery time than support units. The Navy and the Marine Corps are less
affected because they generally perform OOTW missions with forces that
have been deployed as part of their continuing U.S. overseas presence. On
Leter Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
any given day, naval and Marine Corps forces are deployed around the
world, primarily in Carrier Battle Groups and Amphibious Ready Groups.
Many skills decline to some extent if not used regularly. In the military the
skills of individual personnel can decline under a variety of circumstances,
including while attending schoolhouse training or serving in staff positions,
although these experiences provide valuable training and experience of a
different kind. The skills of individual personnel as well as entire units can
decline as well if not used regularly, as is the case while participating in
OOTW.
OOTW Erodes the Skills of Within the Army, units from the European-based 1st Infantry Division, 1st
Army Combat Units More Armored Division, and V Corps have repeatedly deployed to Bosnia since
December 1995 and to a lesser extent to Macedonia. For example, as
Than Support Units described by the 1st Armored Division’s Commanding General, in the
3 ½-year period ending in March 1999, the division deployed to Bosnia
twice and was involved in peacekeeping training prior to its deployment.
The division initiated training for peacekeeping in August 1995, making it
unavailable for high intensity conflict missions, deployed to Bosnia in its
entirety from December 1995 to November 1996, retrained to its high
intensity conflict standards upon its return from Bosnia, was told it would
return to Bosnia as it was completing its retraining for high intensity
conflict, and partially deployed to Bosnia again between October 1997 and
October 1998.
The primary mission of combat units is the destruction of enemy forces
and/or installations. Among combat units, an armored division’s mission is
to close with and destroy the enemy, and the tank is its primary offensive
weapon. Moreover, mobile ground operations require the use of armored
and mechanized infantry forces to train and fight as a team to defeat enemy
armed forces. Mechanized infantry equipped with infantry fighting
vehicles, such as the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, can accompany tanks in
mounted attacks. To train for its mission in peacetime, the Army training
standard is for armored units to drive their tanks 800 miles per year and for
mechanized units to drive their Bradley Fighting Vehicles 940 miles per
year. In addition, armored and mechanized units conduct gunnery training
and participate in training exercises both at home stations and at combat
training centers such as the Combat Maneuver Training Center in Germany.
In Bosnia, the primary mission of the armored and mechanized units
deployed there is to implement the General Framework Agreement (also
Leter Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
known as the Dayton Agreement). Operations in Bosnia required that
combat units maintain the zone of separation called for in the Dayton
Agreement by (1) conducting mounted and dismounted patrols,
(2) manning checkpoints, and (3) performing weapons storage site
inspections. These units also performed cordon and search and
reconnaissance operations and provided basecamp and convoy security.
However, the mechanized infantry and armored units primarily conduct
these operations mounted on Up-Armored High Mobility Multipurpose
Wheeled Vehicles and not on the Bradley Fighting Vehicles and M-1 tanks,
which they organized and trained to use for their wartime combat missions.
While in Bosnia, armored and mechanized infantry units generally do not
conduct any armored maneuver operations and are relieved from tank and
Bradley gunnery requirements. The Army’s peace operations field manual
states that units selected for peace operations missions may be required to
perform tasks that may be different from their wartime tasks.
Recent Testimony Detailed How In a March 1999 testimony before the House Committee on Armed
OOTW Participation Affected Services, Subcommittee on Military Readiness, the Commanding General
Peacetime Training of the 1st Armored Division said that at the battalion level in Europe the
division’s training doctrine establishes a 6-month repetitive, iterative
training cycle.2 This cycle is evident in battalions’ 6-month cycle of major
training events such as participation in live gunnery certifications and
annual Combat Maneuver Training Center rotations. At the brigade and
division level, the division’s training doctrine establishes a 2-year training
cycle based on the Battle Command Training Program.
The General, who had commanded U.S. military forces in Bosnia at the
time of our August 1998 visit, said that peacekeeping operations are a
double-edged sword. At the company level and down to the individual
soldier, the effects of peacekeeping operations are overwhelmingly
positive. At battalion, brigade, and division levels, peacekeeping detracts
from the Army’s established training cycle to sustain highly trained and
combat-ready teams. This includes rotations through training centers, such
as the Combat Maneuver Training Center in Germany, and participation in
the Battle Command Training Program. Furthermore, the General said that
in the case of the 1 st Armored Division, the historical development of
peacekeeping operations in Bosnia has had a long-term impact on its ability
to participate in high intensity conflict training. Effectively, the division
has had to participate in two 1-year peacekeeping tours in Bosnia during
2A division is divided into brigades, its brigades into battalions, and its battalions into companies.
Leter Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
the last 3 years with a significant, cumulative effect on its ability to train for
high intensity conflict missions.
The 1st Cavalry Division’s headquarters and one of its three brigades are
now deployed in Bosnia. In the same March 1999 hearing, one of the
division’s company commanders testified that the Bosnia operation offers
substantial benefits at the small team level—squads, sections, and
platoons—and that noncommissioned officers mature immeasurably.
However, he also said that the operation comes at a high price on typical
warfighting readiness. He said that 4 months prior to his company’s
deployment, it ceased training on several habitual wartime mission-
essential tasks as it focused on new peacekeeping requirements.
Specifically, the company altered its focus from tasks like conducting a
movement to contact, a deliberate attack, or defending, to peacekeeping
tasks like conducting presence patrols, performing weapons storage site
inspections, and establishing checkpoints.
The company commander also described how personnel turbulence,
primarily caused by the length of deployment, can take its toll on trained
and ready teams. He said that prior to deploying to Bosnia he had
stabilized the company’s tank commander and gunner positions, the
bedrock of combat readiness for an armored or mechanized unit. However,
he said that stabilizing personnel for an extended deployment causes
significant turbulence at the conclusion of the mission, whereas at home
station and during shorter rotations, this personnel turbulence would occur
over a longer period of time. As a result of the Bosnia deployment, the unit
must accommodate this challenge in a shorter time period.
One of the 1st Cavalry Division’s master gunners also testified at the March
1999 hearing. He said that when the division was notified in April 1998 that
it would be deployed to Bosnia, it had several major events in progress.
These included deployment of a task force to Kuwait; rotation of a brigade
to the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California; a Corps warfighter
exercise; and completion of the fielding of M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks
to one of its brigades. He described tank fielding as a significant point,
considering that one of the battalions deploying to Bosnia had just
completed its new equipment training and gunnery. He then said that
sustainment of M1A2 specific skills is an ongoing challenge at home station
for units that have had the equipment for a longer period of time and that
the challenge is multiplied exponentially when the units are deployed to an
area with no M1A2s on hand for training. He said that only two of the eight
tank companies in Bosnia were equipped with M1A1 tanks and the other
Leter Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
six were equipped with Up-Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled
Vehicles. Regarding the use of tanks, during our visit to Bosnia we were
told that for the most part tanks are kept in the motor pool and are used
when a show of force demonstration is needed; they were not being used in
day-to-day operations.
The master gunner said that tank crewmen were not the only soldiers to
face a skill degradation. The division also deployed 58 mechanized infantry
crews to Bosnia. Enough Bradley Fighting Vehicles were issued to
accommodate some sustainment training, but gunnery skills, which are
extremely perishable, could not be adequately practiced due to the lack of
live fire ranges. The closest range to practice live fire with both tanks and
the Bradleys is well to the southwest of where U.S. forces are stationed in
Bosnia. He said that sending U.S. units to this range was largely untenable
because of extreme logistical difficulties in traveling to this range and
operational requirements that would preclude releasing even a platoon,
much less a company, for any length of time.
Our assessment of the 1st Cavalry Division’s training plan indicates that the
division is missing training opportunities as a result of its deployment to
Bosnia. Although two of the division’s three brigades trained at the Joint
Readiness Training Center specifically to prepare for its deployment to
Bosnia, one in June 1998 and the other in January 1999, this training was
not considered a normal combat training center rotation. This division
usually conducts training at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin,
California. From February 1999 through March 2000, these two brigades
were not scheduled for any other combat training center rotations. The
division’s third brigade, which is not deploying to Bosnia, is scheduled for
two combat training center rotations at the National Training Center in the
same period—one in August 1999 and one in January 2000.
Combat Units’ Warfighting Skills Generally, the skills of combat units were degraded the most. According to
Declined While in Bosnia the USAREUR Chief of Staff, high-intensity combat skills such as
battlefield synchronization, maneuver, and gunnery are being degraded in
Bosnia because (1) units do not train in these skills or (2) the missions or
tasks undertaken in Bosnia differ from missions in a high-intensity conflict.
Our analysis of the readiness reports of combat units that deployed to
Bosnia, the written assessments of these units’ commanders, and
discussions with those commanders indicated that their wartime combat
skills were degraded during their Bosnia deployment. For example,
according to the assessment of the commanding officer of a mechanized
Leter Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
infantry/armor unit we visited in Bosnia, his unit’s combat skills were
degraded because the soldiers were performing infantry tasks, such as
guard duty, rather than their primary wartime tasks, such as operating in
their M-1 tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. According to the
commander, his battalion conducted extensive individual and unit training
prior to deploying to Bosnia, including tank gunnery and a rotation through
the Combat Training Center in Germany. After rotating through the Center,
the battalion was at the peak of its training readiness. After months in
Bosnia, the commander assessed his battalion as only partially trained to
meet some of its major warfighting requirements. Another battalion
commander we visited in Germany had recently returned from Bosnia. He
also assessed his unit as only partially trained against its wartime
requirements. According to the commander, his brigade headquarters
conducted a command inspection of his battalion shortly after its return
and it failed the inspection. One failed area was operator maintenance of
the battalion’s equipment because the unit did not use its Bradleys and
other equipment and the troops had forgotten specific maintenance
procedures. Table 1 shows the assessments of these two units’
commanders of their units’ key capabilities.
Table 1: Commanders Assessment of Their Units’ Capabilities as of Summer 1998
Mechanized unit
Mechanized/armored recently returned from
Capability unit in Bosnia Bosnia
Deploy/redeploy Trained Trained
Movement to contact with enemy Partially trained Partially trained
Attack Partially trained Untrained
Defend Partially trained Untrained
Perform support operations Trained Partially trained
Perform peace operations Trained Trained
Source: U.S. Army unit data.
To reduce the degradation of wartime skills, early in the Bosnia mission
USAREUR established gunnery ranges in Hungary for the use of personnel
deployed to Bosnia and units deployed with training simulators. However,
the Army last used the ranges in Hungary in September 1997 and they were
closed in January 1998. As noted earlier, the use of a range in Bosnia for
tank and Bradley live fire gunnery was not considered tenable.
Leter Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
In the previously discussed March 1999 testimony before the House
Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Readiness, the
Commanding General of the 1st Armored Division also said that the Bosnia
deployment had a significant impact on combat readiness and at the same
time positive impacts, primarily at the smaller unit level. The General, in
part, testified that:
“Understandably, the Balkans peacekeeping mission has had a significant impact on combat
readiness: however, contrary to popular belief, the impact on combat readiness at squad,
platoon, and company levels, and even to a degree at the battalion level, is overwhelmingly
positive. Unit cohesion, concentration on soldier common skill tasks, emphasis on small
unit operations, a clear mission focus and enforcement of training standards result in
confident, competent, and mission capable units. This positive effect at the small-unit level
results from a combination of the intense environment presented by peacekeeping
operations and ample opportunity to ‘train to task’ with teams of soldiers who are generally
stabilized for the duration of the deployment.”
Support Units Skills Were Not As Support units that deployed to Bosnia were not as adversely affected as
Adversely Affected by Bosnia combat units. Support units provide a wide variety of services to combat
Deployment units, including intelligence, medical, signal, logistics, transportation, and
engineer support. In visiting military intelligence, signal, and medical units
in Bosnia, we found that they used most, but not all, of their wartime skills
while deployed there. For example, the commanding officers of both the
signal and medical units in Bosnia at the time of our August 1998 visit told
us that they operate in one place, whereas in wartime they would be
moving with the combat units, constantly setting up their equipment,
breaking it down, and setting it up again as the battle progressed.
OOTW Also Erodes the Air Force fighter squadrons are also adversely affected by OOTW. In
Skills of Air Force Combat meetings before combat operations began against Iraq in December 1998,
F-15 and F-16 fighter squadron personnel frequently described most routine
Units More Than Support OOTW missions as having little combat training value, particularly in
Units Operation Southern Watch in SWA. The missions usually provided
opportunities to refuel in the air and perform air combat control, which are
considered basic flying events. However, many critical wartime events are
not required by OOTW. For example, an F-16 squadron commander
estimated that the amount of quality training received is only about 5 to
10 minutes on a 3- to 4-hour mission. A 1997 Air Combat Command
operation tempo briefing provided an assessment of the quality of training
at squadrons’ home stations versus what had been typically available
during Operation Southern Watch for some critical F-16 combat events, as
shown in table 2.
Leter Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
Table 2: Comparison of the Quality of Training Opportunities at Squadrons’ Home
Station Versus in Operation Southern Watch for F-16 Pilots
Quality of Training Opportunities
Critical combat event Home station Southern Watch
Night precision weapon employment Good Poor
Medium-altitude employment Good Poor
Air strike control Good Poor
Four aircraft a air-to-ground employment Good Limited
a
Four aircraft air-to-air employment Good Limited
Tactical navigation Good Limited
Maverick missile employment Good Poor
aTraining to this event in groups of four aircraft is a critical combat task.
Source: Air Combat Command.
While we describe adverse operational impacts on fighter squadrons
participating in OOTW, in commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated
that its SWA operations contribute significantly to its strategy in the event
of war. Specifically, DOD said that its forces decrease the likelihood that a
full-scale war will occur and those participating units would be part of the
U.S. initial response if war were to occur, increasing the probability of
successfully achieving national objectives.
The proficiency of Air Force support forces that are engaged in OOTW,
such as air refueling and security police, is less negatively affected because
these type units typically perform more tasks that are wartime related. For
example, security forces usually provide force protection much like they
would in wartime.
Time Required to Recover The services have varying means of ensuring that their personnel regain
Warfighting Skills Varies wartime mission-essential skills lost as a result of participating in OOTW.
The Army and the Air Force have initiated deliberate processes to recover
these skills, whereas the Navy and the Marine Corps view skill recovery as
part of their routine forward presence deployment preparation. The
recovery period during peacetime varies from several weeks to more than 1
year, depending on the service and type of unit. For example, in the Army
an infantry battalion reported that it would take up to 14 months to recover
its warfighting skills, an aviation unit estimated it would take 9 months, and
a signal battalion estimated it would take 4 months. In wartime, recovery
time could be compressed if necessary. In the Air Force, squadrons
Leter Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
estimated that it would take from 1 to at least 3 months to regain full flying
proficiency. In summary, Army units generally require more recovery time
than Air Force units, and combat units in both the Air Force and the Army
require more recovery time than support units.
Army and Air Force Units Entire units are not always deployed to OOTW because of force size
Remaining at Home Station constraints and the types of skills that are needed for the mission. In these
instances, part of the unit deploys and the elements that stay behind must
Generally Work Longer continue to perform their missions at the home station, a phenomena
Hours and Combat Training known as split-based operations. Both the deploying and nondeploying
Suffers portions of the unit have been adversely affected by deployments. At 17 of
44 Army units we examined, the nondeploying portions of the units had to
give up people or equipment to bring the deploying portion up to strength.
For example, before the 1st Cavalry Division’s3 headquarters and one of its
three brigades deployed to Bosnia, nondeploying portions of the division
provided 581 of the 747 additional soldiers needed for the Bosnia mission.
The balance of the soldiers came from III Corps and other units throughout
the Army. The two remaining brigades were insulated during the division’s
preparation for Bosnia because a second brigade replaced the initially
deployed brigade in April 1999. According to a division personnel officer,
the division diverted new arrivals from the remaining brigade but needed
an additional 122 soldiers to round out the second rotation. III Corps and
USAREUR agreed to provide 101 of the 122 soldiers; other U.S.-based units
provided the remaining 21 soldiers. During the rotations, junior grade and
nondeployable personnel have been used to form rear detachments for the
deployed brigades.
As a result of deploying partial units, the nondeployed portions (1) lacked
the officers and senior noncommissioned officers needed to train more
junior soldiers, (2) could not conduct training above the small unit and
individual soldier level, and (3) had to do their work and that of the
deployed portion of the unit.
Both the Army and the Air Force had instances where training at home
stations suffered because of OOTW. We have previously reported that
officials at the 1 st Infantry Division and 1st Armored Division told us that
the shortage of noncommissioned officers in these divisions, in part due to
3 Thehome station of the 1st Cavalry Division is Fort Hood, Texas. It deployed to Bosnia in August 1998
and formally took command in October 1998.
Leter Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
deployments to Bosnia, is a detriment to readiness because crews, squads,
and sections are led by lower level personnel rather than by trained and
experienced sergeants. 4 According to the Chief of Staff of the 1st Armored
Division, which had been operating as a split-based unit for much of 1998,
the portion of the division at the home station could only conduct platoon-
and company-level exercises when the rest of the division was in Bosnia.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that the underlying
cause of this personnel shortage is a serious shortage of noncommissioned
and junior officers throughout the Army. DOD further commented that the
deployment burden only exacerbates these problems within the
nondeployed units and that home station training suffers because of a
shortage of noncommissioned officers across the Army.
In the Air Force, numerous squadrons we visited reported that junior
airmen’s training had been interrupted because senior noncommissioned
officers and officers who provided on-the-job training were often deployed.
The result is that training has taken longer and is less comprehensive.
Nondeploying airmen also told us that they normally work long days and
weekends to accomplish their work and that of deployed personnel. We
were told that support squadrons typically have been understaffed since
the force drawdown and that deployments have made the situation much
worse. At the wings we visited, the lack of personnel at the home station
caused other impacts such as canceled vacation leave and training.
Some Aircraft Are Also Aircraft participating in OOTW are being flown more hours than during
Adversely Affected by regular training missions. For example, in December 1997, the 1st Fighter
Wing’s F-15C aircraft deployed to SWA accounted for 35 percent of the
OOTW
wing’s sorties but 60 percent of its flying hours. An F-15C wing operations
official estimated that the wing was putting about 2 years worth of hours on
aircraft in about 6 months on its SWA deployment. This accumulation of
flying hours, combined with the age of some types of aircraft, has revealed
maintenance problems that are not typical, particularly on the F-15C and
the A-10. F-16 units we visited did not report similar problems because,
according to unit officials, the aircraft are not as old. In addition, officials
in the Air Force units we visited said that the pace of deployments was, at
least in part, causing aircraft mission-capable rates to decline and
4 Military
Readiness: Observations on Personnel Readiness in Later Deploying Army Divisions
(GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126, Mar. 20, 1998).
Leter Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
cannibalization5 rates to increase. Since 1991, the percentage of Air Force
fighter aircraft that were mission capable at any one time has decreased
from 85 to 75 percent.
Many Military Personnel Only portions of the services are involved in OOTW. Large parts of the
and Units Are Not Involved Army, for example, have been relatively unaffected by the Bosnia
operation. Of the 1 million personnel in the Army during fiscal year 1998,
in OOTW about 570,000 were in the reserves and 495,0006 were in the active Army, of
which about 170,000 were in active combat divisions, special operations
forces, and other combat units. While the Army could not provide us with
the actual number of soldiers that have served in Bosnia, it appears that no
more than 75,000 soldiers have deployed there since the operation began in
December 1995. In addition, a smaller number of soldiers that remained at
home stations were affected by the Bosnia deployment.
At the peak of the operation, between December 1995 and December 1996,
less than 34,000 soldiers were deployed to Bosnia and surrounding
countries. In fiscal year 1998, less than 10,000 were deployed there at any
one time and as of March 1999, the force level was down to slightly more
than 6,000. Until recently, most of these personnel were from active forces
assigned to USAREUR. The Army’s two divisions in Europe, the 1 st
Infantry and 1st Armored Divisions, alternated providing a division
headquarters and at least one combat brigade. The other eight divisions in
the active Army had not deployed before August 1998. Before that time, the
largest U.S.-based force in Bosnia was the 2 nd Armored Cavalry Regiment,
which deployed nearly 3,000 soldiers in August 1997. U.S.- and European-
based units also provided about 2,700 individual augmentees to the
deployed units. The portion of the total active Army in 1998 that was
assigned to the European-based combat units, the remaining active Army
combat units, and the rest of the active Army’s support and headquarters
forces are shown in figure 1.
5 Cannibalizationis the removal of parts from one aircraft to use on another aircraft, usually because
parts are unavailable in the supply system.
6 For fiscal year 1999, the size of the active Army was reduced to 480,000.
Leter Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
Figure 1: Portions of the Fiscal Year 1998 Total Active Army in European-based
Combat Units, Non-European Active Combat Units, and the Rest of the Active Army
Non-European Combat 29.1%
European Combat 5.3%
Other Army Forces 65.6%
Source: Department of the Army.
Besides deploying forces for Bosnia, the Army has two other ongoing
OOTW and one OOTW that ended in March 1999. One operation is the
quarterly deployment of a battalion-size task force of about 1,100 soldiers
to Kuwait to train with Kuwaiti military forces in desert armored warfare.
A second operation is the continuous deployment of a similarly sized task
force to the Sinai in support of the Multinational Force and Observers.7 A
third operation had been the continuous deployment of a battalion of about
350 soldiers to Macedonia as part of the U.N. Preventative Deployment
Force. In March 1999, the United Nations decided not to renew the mission
in Macedonia.8
7 Since1982, the United States has deployed an infantry battalion to the Sinai continuously as part of a
multinational effort to observe and report violations to the Egyptian-Israeli treaty of peace resulting
from the Camp David Accords.
8 From 1993 through March 1999, USAREUR had maintained a continual presence in the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as part of a multinational peacekeeping force. USAREUR provided a
combat battalion of around 350 personnel whose mission was to observe, monitor, and report on
activities within their assigned sector.
Leter Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
In the Air Force, OOTW deployments are concentrated in a small
percentage of career fields, and a large majority of personnel have little or
no OOTW deployments. Our analysis of the Air Force’s database that
tracks all temporary duty (TDY), including OOTW deployments, showed
that approximately 31 percent of active duty Air Force personnel had no
TDY in fiscal year 1998. Another 53 percent were on TDY at least 1 day, but
less than 60 days. It is unlikely that many in this group participated in
OOTW because most deployments exceed 60 days. On the other hand,
about 5 percent of Air Force active duty personnel accounted for
27 percent of total TDY in fiscal year 1998. Pilots, for example, comprised
4 percent of total active duty personnel but accounted for 9 percent of total
TDY. The 5 percent of personnel who accounted for 27 percent of TDY
consisted of about 16,700 assigned personnel, each of whom had TDY of
120 days or more in fiscal year 1998. The Air Force’s goal is to keep TDY
for any individual to no more than 120 days per year.
Air Force officials stated that a number of occupations, such as those in the
medical, space, and missile fields, are seldom used during current OOTW
but could be used during more intense hostilities. This factor contributes
to their low TDY rates. In addition, U.S. Air Forces in Europe officials told
us that even within squadrons, not all skills are tasked to support
contingencies. For example, of all occupations in U.S. Air Forces in
Europe, about three-fourths of all officers and half of all enlisted personnel
do not deploy to OOTW.
Appendix II contains additional details on OOTW impacts on the services
and the time required to recover warfighting skills.
A DOD Reporting The readiness reporting system used by DOD, the Global Status of
Resources and Training System (GSORTS),9 has information that indicates
System Shows Some, that the readiness of units engaged in OOTW in all of the services has been
but Not All, Impacts of adversely affected. These effects are particularly evident in Army lower
unit-level readiness ratings. The Joint Staff, the Office of the Secretary of
OOTW
9 GSORTS, which evolved from the Status of Resources and Training System developed by DOD during
the Cold War, requires each unit to indicate the current level of personnel, equipment on hand,
equipment serviceability, and training and the commander’s overall assessment of the unit’s readiness
to undertake its wartime mission. A C-1 unit can undertake the full wartime mission for which it is
organized and designed; a C-2 unit can undertake most of its wartime mission; a C-3 unit can undertake
many but not all elements of its wartime mission; a C-4 unit requires additional resources or training to
undertake its wartime mission; and a C-5 unit is not prepared to undertake its wartime mission.
Leter Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
Defense, and the military services regularly review the impact of OOTW in
senior-level readiness forums such as the Joint Monthly Readiness Review
and the Senior Readiness Oversight Council. These forums meet monthly
to review readiness concerns and direct corrective actions. However,
important information about a unit’s condition is not readily apparent in
GSORTS or reported at all. For example, some impacts are only noted in
the detailed commanders’ comments. Furthermore, GSORTS does not
clearly show some conditions that may adversely affect the ability of units
to perform their wartime missions. These masked conditions include the
counting of temporarily assigned personnel against wartime manning
requirements, optimistically estimating training status, and reporting
against different standards. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD
stated that based on congressional direction, it is examining revisions to
readiness reporting in relation to the deployment of personnel.
Reported Readiness of Until late 1998, the Army’s Directorate for Readiness had been summarizing
European-based Army Units Army division-level readiness in reports to the Army Chief of Staff. It has
since begun analyzing data for units within the divisions. We found that the
Has Declined readiness reported for the Army’s 10 active divisions had not declined
much. For example, from fiscal year 1995 to 1998 only two of those
divisions reported a readiness rating below C-2 and those occurred in fiscal
year 1995. Division-level reports are composites of their battalion and
other units’ reports prepared under the guidance of division commanders.
GSORTS data at the battalion level, however, show an adverse impact on
the readiness of Army units that had been deployed to Bosnia.
We analyzed GSORTS data to see how often Army battalions were
reporting at high levels (C-1 or C-2) and lower levels (C-3 or C-4). While the
specific ratings are classified, as can be seen in figure 2, since fiscal year
1995 the frequency at which the units in European-based divisions have
reported their readiness at C-1 or C-2 has decreased 17 percent, from 87
percent in fiscal year 1995 to 72 percent by fiscal year 1998. Over this same
period, the frequency at which the other eight active Army divisions
reported C-1 or C-2 increased 14 percent, from 80 to 91 percent.10 Even
more significantly, by fiscal year 1998, divisional units in the eight active
Army divisions outside Europe were reporting at the lower readiness levels
10The U.S.-based brigades of the divisions stationedoutside the continental United States are not included
in these percentages. Including these brigades with the other eight active Army divisions had little impact
on our reported calculations.
Leter Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
(C-3 or C-4) only 8 percent of the time, whereas European-based divisional
units were reporting readiness at those lower levels 27 percent of the
time.11
Figure 2: Frequency at Which Divisional Units Reported C-1 or C-2 Versus C-3 or C-4 From Fiscal Year 1995 to 1998
C-1 or 2 C-3 or 4
In Percent In Percent
95 30
90 25
85 20
80 15
75 10
70 5
1995 1996 1997 1998 1995 1996 1997 1998
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Non-European European Non-European European
Divisional Units Divisional Units Divisional Units Divisional Units
Source: Department of the Army data.
11The European-based divisional units’ GSORTS data for fiscal year 1998 include readiness ratings on
two specialized engineer units that, according to USAREUR, are typically not found in Army divisions.
Removing the two units’ ratings from European-based divisional units’ GSORTS data decreases the
percentage of time they reported C-1 or C-2 in fiscal year 1998 by 1 percentage point and increases the
percentage of time units reported at C-3 or C-4 by 1 percentage point.
Leter Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
European-based Army Units The reported decline in European-based Army combat units’ readiness
Subjectively Upgraded Their would have been greater had commanders not subjectively upgraded their
units’ ratings. GSORTS allows and notes whether a unit’s readiness rating
Readiness Ratings More is the result of the commander’s decision to report that the unit is at a
Often Than Other Active different level of readiness than the data would normally support. Our
Army Units analysis of GSORTS data shows that the commanders of the European-
based Army divisional units exercised their prerogative and subjectively
upgraded their units’ readiness ratings more frequently than the rest of the
active Army divisional units. From fiscal year 1995 to 1997, the European-
based divisional units more than quadrupled the frequency at which they
upgraded their readiness to C-1, from 13 percent to 61 percent. The
frequency then declined to 39 percent in 1998, triple the level of 1995. 12
European-based divisional units also more than tripled the frequency at
which they upgraded their readiness to C-2 between fiscal year 1995 and
1997, from 8 percent to 27 percent, before it declined to 16 percent in 1998.
Over that same period, the divisional units in the other active divisions
reduced the frequency at which they subjectively upgraded their status to
C-1 by almost half, from 27 to 14 percent of the time and to C-2 by half,
from 16 to 8 percent. Figure 3 depicts this information graphically. We are
reporting the results of our analysis, not making any judgments about the
appropriateness of these upgrades or the practice of allowing such
upgrades.
12Removing the two specialized engineer units’ ratings from the European-based divisional unit
GSORTS data decreases the upgrade percentage for fiscal year 1997 by 3 percentage points and for
fiscal year 1998 by 9 percentage points.
Leter Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
Figure 3: Frequency at Which Commanders in Divisional Units Upgraded Readiness Ratings to C-1 and C-2 in Fiscal Years
1995-98
C-1 C-2
In Percent In Percent
70 30
60
25
50
20
40
15
30
10
20
10 5
1995 1996 1997 1998 1995 1996 1997 1998
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Non-European European Non-European European
Divisional Units Divisional Units Divisional Units Divisional Units
Source: Department of the Army data.
Other Services’ Readiness The other services’ data indicated that units engaged in OOTW were
Also Affected by OOTW reporting lower readiness levels more frequently than they were several
years ago. Air Force fighter squadrons in the Pacific, which have been less
involved in OOTW, reported higher readiness levels than similar squadrons
based in the United States and Europe. However, our analysis of the extent
of subjective upgrading in the other services did not find that units heavily
engaged in OOTW were subjectively upgrading their readiness ratings in
GSORTS more frequently than in the past.
Leter Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
Commanders’ Comments Unit commanders may add comments to their GSORTS ratings to provide
Reveal Conditions Not information or clarify circumstances surrounding their numerical ratings.
Our review of these comments revealed details and concerns about the
Reflected in Reported impact of OOTW that were not apparent in the ratings. For example, one
Ratings USAREUR unit commander commented that his GSORTS personnel rating
was high because he had 116 percent of the senior graded personnel, but
the unit still had personnel who lacked the required skill level or rank to
meet requirements. He said that junior officers had to serve in more senior
positions and that the situation was sufficiently serious to subjectively
downgrade his unit’s readiness to C-2. Nine commanders noted that
despite reporting both high personnel and overall unit readiness levels,
they lacked sufficient senior enlisted personnel in key skill areas.
Furthermore, when units were split-based, knowing the units’ condition at
each location was difficult unless it was noted in the commanders’
comments. For example, a commander in Bosnia reported his unit’s
personnel status as high and upgraded the unit’s overall readiness, although
two of the battalion’s tank companies that were not deployed were
critically short of deployable combat and support soldiers. The
commander explained that the upgrade was warranted because infantry
companies were attached to his unit in Bosnia and with the attached
companies, his unit could execute combat or peace operations. Without
commanders’ comments, such circumstances affecting GSORTS ratings
would not be clear.
Other factors also affect unit readiness reporting and thereby mask the
impact of participating in OOTW. They include the way personnel are
counted, training assumptions used, and the mission the unit is reporting
against. Appendix III discusses these other factors and also contains
details on other OOTW impacts that are not readily evident in DOD
reporting systems.
The Army is Beginning to Until recently, the Army’s Readiness Directorate was only examining the
Analyze GSORTS Data reported readiness of its divisions. In reports and testimony since October
1994, we have reported that the Army needs to broaden its analysis and
Differently reporting of Army readiness data. In November 1997, as part of the Fiscal
Year 1998 Defense Authorization Act, Congress directed that DOD’s
Quarterly Readiness Reports be expanded to include information on active
battalion, squadron, or equivalent units that receive a C-3 rating or below
for any month of the year covered by the report. Additionally, the
Readiness Directorate staff and the Chief of Staff of the Army have been
Leter Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
hearing concerns about readiness that were not reflected in the division-
level reports. These concerns often were relayed directly to the Chief of
Staff in his visits to units as well as to Members of Congress who visited
units in Bosnia and other locations. The most recent expanded Quarterly
Readiness Report was delivered to Congress in early 1999.
Impact of OOTW on Morale data have been obtained through personnel surveys in the Army and
the Air Force and indirect means in the Navy and the Marine Corps. Army
Morale Varies by data do not indicate that OOTW create significant morale problems, but Air
Service and OOTW Force data indicate that OOTW is one of several factors affecting morale. A
recurring theme in both Army and Air Force morale surveys is that
Contributes to Some deployments negatively impact families and marriages. Navy and Marine
Services’ Retention Corps personnel said that retention is an indicator of morale. Retention is
Problems a problem in some of the services, but OOTW is only one of several
contributing factors. We have several efforts underway examining
retention and quality-of-life issues in the services and will report our results
later this year.
Army Surveys Show Morale On the basis of USAREUR surveys involving thousands of military
High Albeit With Some personnel deployed to Bosnia, the Army has described morale there as
high. These surveys covered a number of topics, including morale, family
Concerns issues, leadership, unit effectiveness, equipment, and attitudes toward
peacekeeping. While the soldiers’ morale declined during their first year in
Bosnia and increased afterward, the surveys showed that more than
60 percent of the participants reported that their morale was high. A July
1997 survey of forces deployed throughout Bosnia also showed morale as
relatively high. Morale increased by rank, with officers reporting higher
morale than noncommissioned officers and noncommissioned officers
reporting higher morale than lower enlisted soldiers. There was no
comparable survey for 1998.
Soldiers reported positive and negative aspects of their deployments.
Positive aspects included financial benefits (the income tax exemption
while deployed and receipt of imminent danger pay) and educational
benefits (the ability to take college courses through distance education
while deployed). Negative aspects cited by soldiers who deployed the first
year of the operation included the length of deployments and uncertainty
about when they would return home. Soldiers deployed in 1996, the first
year of the operation, and those deployed in 1997 often cited the adverse
impact on families and marriages. For example, 47 percent of soldiers
Leter Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
surveyed in June 1996 reported moderate to extreme stress due to marital
or relationship problems and 45 percent reported that the deployment had
hurt their relationships with family members. In the July 1997 survey,
54 percent of the soldiers reported that the number of deployments 13 had
hurt the stability of their marriages. Among survey respondents with
families, 54 percent of active duty soldiers, 47 percent of U.S. Army Reserve
soldiers, and 71 percent of National Guard soldiers reported that the
number of deployments had put a big strain on their families. Soldiers we
talked to in nine units noted that predictability, knowing when you would
be deployed and for how long, is a key to improving family morale.
According to USAREUR officials, the command was especially concerned
about the effects of OOTW on the morale of both deployed soldiers and
their families. They believed that the Army had significantly improved
living conditions and pointed to the establishment of the Family Support
System in Germany consisting of Family Assistance Centers, Family
Support Groups, and Rear Detachment Commanders as steps that they had
taken. USAREUR officials acknowledged that providing a soldier with
some sense of deployment predictability is a key.
Eight of the 12 USAREUR morale indicators for the command as a whole
were positive. For example, retention rates increased from fiscal year 1994
to partway through fiscal year 1998, from 113 percent to 144 percent of
goals for mid-term enlisted personnel and 117 percent to 127 percent of
goals for first-term personnel. Substance abuse enrollments declined from
47.4 per thousand in fiscal year 1993 to 31.9 per thousand in fiscal year
1997. Drug detection and suicide rates also declined.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that it considered
USAREUR’s concerns in subsequent unit deployments to Bosnia. For
example, DOD said that the 1st Cavalry Division had set up a family support
center with video conferencing, e-mail, and support personnel to improve
the quality of life for the entire family. Units scheduled for rotations to
Bosnia are establishing similar facilities and capabilities. DOD further
stated that it is continuously seeking ways to mitigate the effects of OOTW
through global unit sourcing, reducing deployment time frames, and earlier
deployment notification to individuals.
13Seventy-six percent of the soldiers surveyed reported that they had previously deployed to Bosnia.
Leter Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
OOTW Is One of Several The Air Force 1997 Chief of Staff Organizational Climate and Quality of Life
Factors Affecting Morale of Survey, the most recent available, showed that about half of all personnel
reported high morale. This was the first time the issue of unit morale was
Air Force Personnel addressed in the survey. Survey officials said that their analysis showed
unit morale was most closely associated with attitudes toward unit
leadership. The survey did not specifically address OOTW and its effect on
morale. However, the 1st Fighter Wing, a unit that deploys predominately
to SWA, had the lowest surveyed morale of the units we visited. In units we
visited, Air Force personnel described morale as declining due to the
nature of operations and the conditions and length of deployments.
As was the case in the Army, Air Force deployments often had a negative
impact on relationships with families. An Air Force official stated that the
percentage of married personnel in the Air Force even among junior
personnel is higher than in the past. The result is that deployments affect
not only the servicemember, but also the spouse and other family members.
The deployment schedule causes personnel to miss family events, such as
birthdays and holidays. Morale also suffers in units where people are not
deployed because they have to work long hours to cover for those that are
deployed. In meetings with personnel of Air Force units engaged in OOTW,
we were told that people not deployed may not have much more
opportunity to spend time with family because they may also work holidays
and weekends and may not be able to take scheduled vacations. The 1997
Quality of Life Survey found that high operating tempo caused personal
problems for about a third of officers and enlisted personnel generally and
more than half of pilots.
OOTW Contributes to The Army has been meeting its overall retention goals. Within the Army,
Retention Problems, but despite deployments to Bosnia, USAREUR’s retention rates for initial and
mid-term enlisted soldiers have generally met or exceeded the overall
With Some Exceptions, the Army’s rates since 1994. For those who leave the Army, OOTW
Services Have Been Meeting deployments are sometimes cited as one of the reasons. For example,
Retention Goals 19 percent of the soldiers that deployed to Bosnia during the first year of
the operation reported that they decided to leave the Army as a result of the
deployment. However, a study of Army reservists that deployed to Bosnia
concluded that deployments were just one of a number of reasons for
leaving the service. Other reasons cited included pay, leadership, and
career advancement.
The Air Force is experiencing retention problems in a number of
occupations, particularly pilots, and in critical enlisted specialties that may
Leter Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
be worsening. For example, Air Combat Command data indicate that 6 of
the 10 occupations with the highest deployment rates are not meeting
retention goals for personnel completing their first enlistment term. Air
Force officials in the squadrons and wings we visited said that they were
having difficulty retaining personnel and believed that many of the
retention problems were partly or primarily the result of repeated
deployments to undesirable OOTW and increased workloads when not
deployed. However, Air Force data on the reasons people separate are
mixed, with operations tempo and quality of life cited as factors for pilots,
while pay, promotion, and leadership issues are more commonly cited as
factors for enlisted personnel. Discussions with unit representatives and
statements by high-level Air Force officials indicate that the decision to
separate from the Air Force is a complex one and other factors besides
TDY or OOTW play a big part in such a decision.
Overall, the Navy has been meeting its fiscal year 1998 first-term retention
goals. Exit surveys routinely show family separation as one of the top
three reasons for officer and enlisted personnel leaving the Navy. However,
Navy officials could not measure the actual degree of impact caused by
OOTW operations. The Naval Personnel Office has begun a study to better
understand why personnel are staying in or leaving the service.
The Marine Corps also has been meeting its retention goals, although there
are some critical shortages in career fields such as counterintelligence,
imagery interpretation, career recruiters, and pilots. While the Marine
Corps is aware of the above retention problems, it has no data that link
them to OOTW. A Marine Corps official in the Office of Manpower and
Reserve Affairs told us that the Corps is developing a retention survey to
determine why Marines remain in or leave the service, which is scheduled
to be administered for the first time in January 2000.
Appendix IV contains additional details on morale.
Responding to Major The services develop their force structure based on the requirements of
engaging in major theater wars and providing forward presence. Two of
Theater War While DOD’s major force structure analyses, the 1993 DOD Bottom-Up Review
Engaged in OOTW and the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, stated that all 10 active Army
divisions are needed to fight and win two nearly simultaneous major
Presents Challenges theater wars. However, these analyses show that some of the forces
necessary for a major theater war are also expected to be used for OOTW
and until needed, would likely be involved in OOTW.
Leter Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
One of the Quadrennial Defense Review’s major analyses identified some
issues critical to ensuring that U.S. forces can transition from OOTW to
major theater wars. For example, redeploying forces committed to various
regions around the world would be difficult and could seriously strain the
services’ mobility and support forces. Also, some types of units, such as
military police and signal, would be stressed. Although DOD did not use
the results to recommend force structure changes, such as reducing some
combat capabilities or adding others more suitable to OOTW to reduce the
operating demands on some units, the analysis makes it clear that DOD still
has much work to do in assessing the impact and managing the demands of
OOTW.
In April 1996, DOD, in its Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress, began
noting some concerns about its ability to engage in a major theater war
while involved in an OOTW the size of the one in Bosnia. The April 1996
report and subsequent reports have noted concerns about the ability to
quickly disengage and redeploy from OOTW. DOD said that,
“Diversion of strategic lift assets needed for withdrawal from an ongoing operation can
impact arrival of forces and sustainment stocks to support a Major Regional Contingency
(MRC). In addition, indigenous rail, highway, and seaport conditions can limit the ability to
withdraw rapidly. National and international politics could complicate a rapid withdrawal,
and of course, a non-permissive disengagement environment would increase the risk to our
forces.”
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that the latest
Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress downgraded this concern based
on steps taken to mitigate the risk such as modifying deployment schedules
for units engaged in OOTW and substituting other equally capable units.
The unclassified version of this report described the assessment of the
cumulative impact of ongoing operations, including the Bosnia operation,
on the outbreak of a major war in SWA followed by a major war in Korea.
The report stated that most major combat and key support forces are ready
to meet assigned missions, but the pace of contingency operations
continues to stress the readiness of certain segments of the force. It also
stated that U.S. forces remain capable of executing the two major war
strategy, but cited several factors, including mobility and logistics, that add
to risk.
Leter Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
DOD Is Studying How to According to current DOD guidance, the services should plan for the
Disengage From Bosnia if possibility of withdrawing from OOTW in the event of major theater wars.
DOD recently provided Congress a classified report on the effects of its
There Were a Major Theater involvement in Bosnia on its ability to conduct two major wars occurring at
War about the same time. In 1998, the U.S. European Command began to study
how it would withdraw U.S. forces from Bosnia if the United States had to
disengage before the end of the mission to respond to a major theater war.
The command estimates its study will take over a year to complete. In the
summer of 1998, officials we talked to at the Sarajevo headquarters of
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led forces in Bosnia, the 1st
Armored Division in Tuzla, the European Command in Germany, and the
Army’s III Corps and 1st Cavalry Division in the United States did not know
how forces would be withdrawn from Bosnia if needed for a major theater
war.
According to the European Command’s Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations, one primary issue is that some of the military units that are
needed to facilitate withdrawal from Bosnia are the same ones needed to
facilitate a deployment to any new theater of operations. He suggested it
may take 18 months to eliminate any conflicting requirements in the plans.
The command estimated it will take 90 days to disengage forces from
Bosnia and redeploy them to a major theater war—45 days to redeploy
from Bosnia and 45 days to reconstitute, train, and redeploy to another
theater. Other issues that would have to be addressed include coordinating
with NATO, identifying any continuing support U.S. forces might provide to
remaining NATO forces, and, if other NATO forces also withdrew,
determining how facilities, such as roads, ports, and airfields, would be
shared.
Appendix V contains additional information on responding to a major
theater war while engaged in OOTW. We are also preparing a separate
classified report on the withdrawal of forces from Bosnia for a major
theater war.
Effect of Actions Taken The Joint Staff and the services recognize the need to reduce the impact of
OOTW on U.S. military forces and have established some programs to
to Reduce OOTW achieve this goal. These programs include the Global Military Force Policy
Impact on Forces Not (GMFP), the Army’s new stabilization policy, and the Air Force’s initiative
to establish the Expeditionary Air Force. However, the Joint Staff and the
Yet Known services do not know the extent to which these programs are achieving
Leter Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
their goals either because there is insufficient data available to assess them
or they are too new to assess.
GMFP Seeks to Manage There is a greater demand during peacetime for some military assets than
High Demand Assets the services can meet without degrading the readiness of these assets and
causing lost training opportunities and reduced quality of life for personnel
in these units. These assets in the active force include some major
platforms, weapon systems, units, and personnel that exist in limited
numbers but are in high demand. For example, the Air Force has six
Airborne Battlefield Command and Control Center aircraft and at least
three have been deployed continuously to OOTW since 1994. To balance
these needs, the Joint Staff established GMFP in July 1996 as a peacetime
prioritization process for allocating those assets among the theater
warfighting commanders for use in crises, contingencies, and long-term
joint task force operations. The policy’s goal is to ensure that, while
meeting the theater commanders’ requirements, these service-specified
assets are maintained at the highest possible level of readiness and are
available to respond to crises when they arise.
The Joint Staff is responsible for administering GMFP. It coordinates with
the warfighting commanders and services to (1) determine mission
priorities, (2) establish or validate the assets’ requirements, (3) assess their
availability, and (4) develop allocation options for the Joint Chiefs and the
Secretary of Defense. The services nominate the assets to be tracked
under GMFP, provide criteria for how often they can be used, and monitor
their status. The list of GMFP assets and the criteria for their use are
updated annually. As of November 1998, the services had designated 32
assets to be managed under GMFP.
The Joint Staff’s focus is managing the level of activity for assets covered
under GMFP. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that it
believes GMFP has been a significant factor in recent decisions about
deploying these assets, although Joint Staff officials are uncertain about
the policy’s overall impact and have not formally analyzed its use.
Historical data that could help determine the overall success of the effort
are not maintained by the Joint Staff. Therefore, we were unable to
ascertain the Joint Staff’s or services’ effectiveness in keeping the
operating tempo of the GMFP-managed assets within established criteria.
GMFP does not address whether the services have adequate numbers of
those assets covered by the program because, according to the Joint Staff,
Leter Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
GMFP was not designed to do so. It further said that other processes
within the services and Joint Staff, such as the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council and the Joint Warfighting Capability Analysis, are
supposed to determine whether the military has the right numbers and mix
of assets. The Joint Staff noted that a key question DOD faces is what
requirement should determine the number of assets: a wartime
requirement or a peacetime requirement. DOD and the services have been
sizing military forces to fight two major theater wars, but GMFP is designed
to better manage the peacetime demands on these assets.
In its January 1999 draft report to Congress on GMFP, DOD reports that it
and the Joint Chiefs are aggressively managing the demand and use of the
GMFP assets. Furthermore, DOD reports that the services (1) are taking
steps to manage the force structure of the assets under GMFP within
available funding and (2) in a few instances, are planning to increase the
number of some assets that are managed under GMFP.
Army Initiatives Include The Army has instituted a deployment stabilization policy that recognizes
Stabilization Policy the personnel impacts that frequent and constant deployments have on
Army forces. In February 1998, the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for
Intended to Reduce Personnel announced a policy to provide a period of stabilization for
Personnel Tempo soldiers that are temporarily away from their home stations on operational
deployments. Under the policy, soldiers deployed to OOTW as individuals
or part of a unit for a period of at least 30 consecutive days will be
provided, to the greatest extent feasible, 1 month of stabilization for each
month deployed. For purposes of this policy, these deployments include
operations such as the one in Bosnia, international humanitarian
assistance, counterdrug operations, and domestic civil disturbances.
Deployments for training exercises and schools, which can be months in
duration, and deployments of less than 30 days do not count toward
eligibility for stabilization. During the stabilization period, soldiers are
ineligible to be deployed from their home stations for OOTW-like
deployments. However, stabilization may be waived by the first general
officer in a soldier’s chain of command to meet immediate and critical
operational needs. We were told at USAREUR that waivers had been
issued. Because the Army had begun implementing the policy in mid-1998,
we believe it is too early to determine its success.
To relieve USAREUR of the high operating and personnel tempo it has
experienced since the Bosnia mission began and to allow it to focus on
training for its wartime mission, at the end of fiscal year 1998, the Army
Leter Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
shifted responsibility for providing personnel to Bosnia from USAREUR to
U.S.-based forces. Plans are to continue to deploy U.S.-based forces
through the end of fiscal year 2000.
While the Army is seeking to mitigate the impact of long deployments on
individual soldiers and USAREUR as a whole, it did not consider force
structure adjustments to meet OOTW needs in its 2000-2005 biennial
determination of support needs completed in March 1998. The Army plans
to identify OOTW requirements in its current Total Army Analysis,14 which
identifies planned force structure needs for 2002-2007. As the Bosnia
operation continues or other OOTW arise, the Army is likely to have a
continuing need for specific units that are (1) limited in supply, (2) located
in the reserve component with limited access ability, or (3) assigned to
early deploying force packages needed for major theater war.
Air Force Initiatives to The Air Force has implemented or plans to implement a number of
Reduce OOTW Impact Are initiatives to reduce the impact of OOTW, but most either have insufficient
data available or are too new to assess whether they are meeting their
Too New to Assess intended objectives. These initiatives include developing systems to
increase visibility over stressed systems and skills; reducing aviation unit
(crews and maintenance) deployments to SWA from 90 to 45 days; and
increasing the number of authorized aircraft for two assets under this
program (the RC-135 and HH-60) and the number of aircrews for the
Airborne Warning and Control System, HC-130s, and U-2 aircraft. These
initiatives also include providing time off for members returning from
contingencies; making greater use of the reserves; and, most recently and
broadly, unveiling a major initiative to establish the Expeditionary Air
Force.
The move to the Expeditionary Air Force would involve reorganizing the
Air Force into 10 Air Expeditionary Forces, 2 of which would be on call at
any time for use in contingency operations for a period of 90 days every
15 months. As part of this initiative, the Air Force is beginning to include
OOTW requirements in its force planning. Key bases would receive
personnel increases to smooth home station operations, with 5,000
personnel slots shifted to occupations needed for OOTW, such as security
police, from occupations not heavily used in OOTW. The Air Force projects
14This is the Army’s biennial process to determine the support force needed to meet its warfighting
requirements.
Leter Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
that the Expeditionary Air Force will add predictability to deployments,
which will allow greater use of the total force. When operational in the
year 2000, the Air Force believes that the new structure will reduce
operating tempo for personnel deployed as well as those who stay at home
stations, thereby improving morale and retention.
The Navy Has Used To help keep active component personnel tempo at acceptable levels, the
Reserves to Reduce Tempo Navy has increased its reserve support by over 50 percent since the Gulf
War. In fiscal year 1997, the Navy Reserves provided over 3,000 personnel
to support operational activities and major command exercises overseas
and in the continental United States. This level of support is expected to
remain constant in the future. Some reserve forces used for OOTW
operations such as counterdrug operations in the Caribbean, include Navy
Reserve frigates and P-3 Orion and E-2C aircraft units. To a lesser degree,
Navy Reserve medium airlift and other assets have supported Bosnia
operations.
Congress Has Provided Since 1995, Congress has provided funds to cover most OOTW costs
through a combination of annual appropriations, supplemental
Funding For OOTW appropriations, and reprogramming of appropriated funds. To prevent
While Often Shifting overall government spending from increasing, Congress reduced other
planned defense spending in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. It also
Funds From Other sometimes used savings due to lower than expected inflation and favorable
Planned Defense changes in currency exchange rates to help offset OOTW costs; were it not
Spending for the need to fund OOTW, these funds could presumably have been used
for other unfunded defense needs. In fiscal year 1998, Congress did not
reduce other planned defense spending to offset OOTW funding. Appendix
VI contains additional detail on OOTW funding.
Conclusions Our analysis of OOTW impacts reveals a complex picture, with all of the
military services experiencing adverse effects to varying extent. The Army
and the Air Force appear to be the most affected. Both deployed units, and
some units that remained at home stations and had to pick up the work of
the deployed units, have had their wartime skills adversely affected. While
deployed units and some home station units are clearly adversely affected,
many military personnel are relatively unaffected.
Leter Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
The Bottom-Up Review and the Quadrennial Defense Review did not
include force requirements for OOTW as a determinant of force structure.
Extended OOTW, as evidenced by the Bosnia and SWA missions, have
required extensive use of certain types of combat and support forces, such
as Army divisions and Air Force logistics personnel, as well as aircraft.
Some of these forces and aircraft are sometimes limited in numbers
relative to their use in OOTW, but are judged by DOD to be sufficient for
wartime requirements. The Air Force is beginning to include OOTW
requirements in its force planning, but the Army’s Total Army Analysis of its
warfighting requirements is not expected to identify OOTW requirements
before completion of the 2002-2007 needs determination. If Congress and
the executive branch conclude that the effects of OOTW are unacceptable,
other than reducing U.S. participation, it may be necessary to include
OOTW needs in determining future force structure.
Agency Comments and In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD stated that the report
provided a good overview of the many issues DOD is facing in managing its
Our Evaluation participation in OOTW and made several overall comments on the report
and its key findings. DOD stated that the report presented an incomplete
picture of the purpose or role of OOTW in the overall defense strategy and
the significant contribution OOTW makes to DOD’s strategy. We agree that
OOTW plays an important role in the overall U.S. military strategy and
while we have added mention of that in the report, we were not asked to,
nor did we, examine the role of OOTW in the overall defense strategy.
DOD further stated that it has taken many steps to improve the monitoring
of OOTW and its impact on readiness. DOD’s comments noted some of the
extensive discussion in our report concerning steps DOD has taken to
address OOTW impacts, but it is concerned about the lack of discussion of
senior-level readiness forums, specifically the Joint Monthly Readiness
Review and the Senior Readiness Oversight Council. We have revised the
report to state that these two forums regularly review the impact of OOTW.
DOD believes that our report suggests that it has not planned for the
withdrawal of U.S. forces if a major war occurs. DOD stated that it
continuously reviews and reapportions forces to meet the requirements of
the national defense strategy and the evolving global environment. DOD
stated that it recently sent a report to Congress that addresses in detail the
planning that is involved in disengaging and redeploying forces from
Bosnia in the event they are required for a major theater war. While DOD
has reported to Congress on the issues related to withdrawal and
Leter Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
reapportioned forces to meet national defense strategy requirements, we
found that DOD did not have specific plans to execute a withdrawal.
DOD expressed the view that our report oversimplifies the effects of
OOTW on morale and retention. DOD stated that senior DOD officials have
testified frequently before Congress on the complexity of the morale and
retention issue, noting that while tempo issues certainly play a role, so do
other factors, including the strong competition for skilled personnel from a
robust civilian economy. We agree that the morale and retention issue is
complex. Our report specifically discusses the effects of OOTW on morale
and retention, providing evidence that these effects represent a mixed
picture, including positive and negative effects of OOTW deployments, and
states that OOTW is one of a number of factors affecting retention and that
it is not possible to isolate the extent of OOTW impacts on the decision to
separate from the military. As we stated in the report, we have several
other efforts underway examining retention and quality-of-life issues in the
services.
Finally, DOD commented that our conclusion that OOTW adversely affects
the services is overstated and does not reflect the steps the services and
DOD have taken to mitigate their effect. DOD has not fully characterized
our conclusion, which is that our analysis of OOTW impacts reveals a
complex picture, with all of the military services experiencing adverse
effects to varying extent. While our conclusion does not address the steps
the services and DOD have taken to mitigate the effect of OOTW, our report
contains extensive discussion of these steps.
Appendix VII describes the Scope and Methodolgy of our work and
appendix VIII contains the full text of DOD’s comments. DOD also
provided technical comments on a draft of this report and we modified our
report as appropriate to reflect these comments.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until
30 days after its issue date. At that time we will send copies to other
congressional committees. We will also send copies to the Honorable
William Cohen, Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Louis Caldera,
Secretary of the Army; the Honorable Richard Danzig, Secretary of the
Navy; the Honorable F.W. Peters, Acting Secretary of the Air Force; and the
Honorable Jacob Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will
make copies available to other interested parties on request.
Leter Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
B-279505
Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IX. If you or your
staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-5140.
Sincerely yours,
Mark E. Gebicke
Director, National Security Preparedness
Leter Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Contents
Letter 1
Appendix I 38
History of U.S. Forces’
Participation in
Operations Other Than
War
Appendix II 40
Additional Impacts of
OOTW
Appendix III 48
Department of Defense
Reporting Systems’
Information on the
Impacts of OOTW
Appendix IV 52
Effects of OOTW on
Morale
Appendix V 54
Responding to Major
Theater War While
Engaged in OOTW
Appendix VI 56
Funding for OOTW
Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Contents
Appendix VII 59
Scope and
Methodology
Appendix VIII 61
Comments From the
Department of Defense
Appendix IX 64
Major Contributors to
This Report
Tables Table 1: Commanders Assessment of Their Units’ Capabilities as
of Summer 1998 8
Table 2: Comparison of the Quality of Training Opportunities at
Squadrons’ Home Station Versus in Operation Southern Watch
for F-16 Pilots 10
Figures Figure 1: Portions of the Fiscal Year 1998 Total Active Army in
European-based Combat Units, Non-European Active Combat
Units, and the Rest of the Active Army 14
Figure 2: Frequency at Which Divisional Units Reported C-1 or
C-2 Versus C-3 or C-4 From Fiscal Year 1995 to 1998 17
Figure 3: Frequency at Which Commanders in Divisional Units
Upgraded Readiness Ratings to C-1 and C-2 in Fiscal Years
1995-98 19
Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Contents
Abbreviations
DOD Department of Defense
GMFP Global Military Force Policy
GSORTS Global Status of Resources and Training System
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
OOTW operations other than war
RDT&E research, development, test, and evaluation
SWA Southwest Asia
TDY temporary duty
USAREUR U.S. Army Europe
Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix I
History of U.S. Forces’ Participation in
Operations Other Than War ApIenxdi
Since the end of the Cold War, the frequency of operations other than war
(OOTW) has increased. The Army conducted 10 operational events outside
of normal training and alliance commitments between 1960 and 1991 and
26 during 1992-98. The Marine Corps conducted 15 contingency operations
from 1982 to 1989 and 62 since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and for the first
time the Air Force is experiencing long-term deployments. Both the report
of the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Defense Planning Guidance
predict that OOTW will be the predominate form of U.S. military
involvement for the next 15 to 20 years. The size of the military services
has fallen from post-Cold War levels of 2 million to less than 1.4 million
active duty personnel and from 1.9 million reserve personnel to less than
900,000. The force structure has also been reduced, from 18 to 10 active
Army divisions, 36 to 19 Air Force fighter wings, and 547 to 346 Navy ships.
Bosnia Is Currently the Since December 1995, the United States has deployed military forces in and
around Bosnia to implement the General Framework Agreement (also
Largest Army Mission known as the Dayton Agreement). These forces are part of a multilateral
coalition under the command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO). From December 1995 to December 1996, the coalition was called
the Implementation Force. In December 1996, NATO authorized a new
mission and renamed the coalition the Stabilization Force. In February
1998 NATO approved extending the mission with no deadline for
withdrawal. The decision to withdraw will now be based on achieving
certain conditions within Bosnia.
From December 1995 through October 1998, the U.S. Army Europe
(USAREUR) provided the bulk of the U.S. military forces for the mission in
Bosnia. Parts of both of USAREUR’s two combat divisions, the 1 st
Armored Division and the 1 st Infantry Division, have deployed to Bosnia;
the 1st Armored Division has deployed there twice. During that time, two
combat units were also deployed from the United States to Bosnia: the 2 nd
Armored Cavalry Regiment and elements of the 1st Armored Division’s U.S.-
based brigade. After almost 3 years of continued participation in Bosnia,
USAREUR was provided relief when the Army assigned the mission to a
U.S.-based division. On October 7, 1998, the 1st Armored Division
transferred command and control responsibility of the mission to the 1 st
Cavalry Division, which will retain mission responsibility for a year.
Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix I
History of U.S. Forces’ Participation in
Operations Other Than War
Air Force OOTW According to the Air Force, since about 1989 the average number of
personnel deployed for OOTW has more than quadrupled, from about 3,400
Involvement Has personnel to about 14,600 personnel in 1997. The number of rotational
Increased Over the personnel required to support open-ended OOTW increased from about 750
before the Gulf War to about 12,000 in 1997. During the same period, the
Past 10 Years number of Air Force personnel was reduced about 33 percent, from about
555,000 in 1989 to 370,000 in 1997. In addition, the number of forces
permanently based overseas decreased. For example, the number of
aircraft assigned to the U.S. Air Forces in Europe declined from about 702
aircraft in 1991 to about 215 in 1997. At the same time, the number of
contingencies that the U.S. Air Forces in Europe supported increased,
from 3 in 1991 to 11 in 1997, and the number of personnel and aircraft
involved increased.
The Air Force currently supports three major contingencies with its forces:
the mission in Bosnia and two in Southwest Asia (SWA) over Iraq
(Operations Northern and Southern Watch) that have been underway since
shortly after the 1991 Gulf War. Initially, U.S. Air Forces in Europe
provided the forces for the Bosnia mission and Air Forces in Europe and
the United States provided the forces for the SWA missions. Because these
missions have no end date, the Air Force has begun to use worldwide
forces, including those assigned to the Pacific region and the reserve
components, to relieve the strain of using the same forces. To meet SWA
mission requirements and to maintain a 45-day deployment practice, the
Air Force has scheduled multiple deployments of some fighter squadrons in
a 1-year period because, according to our analysis, the Air Combat
Command and the U.S. Air Forces in Europe do not have enough active
fighter squadrons to allow just one deployment a year. For example, about
16 F-15C squadrons are needed yearly to provide counter air coverage on a
rotational basis for the two Iraqi missions. However, in fiscal year 1998,
only eight active Air Force squadrons were based in Europe and the United
States to cover these areas.
Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix II
Additional Impacts of OOTW ApIpx
Ien
di
In this appendix we discuss additional impacts of OOTW on the Air Force,
impacts on the Navy and the Marine Corps, and the time required to
recover warfighting skills after OOTW participation. Key factors
determining the extent to which participating in an OOTW degraded a
units’ wartime skills appeared to be the unit type, frequency of
participation, and mission skill requirements. Each service has units that
appear to be heavily affected.
Effect of OOTW on Air Within the Air Force, fighter squadrons generally are the most negatively
affected by participating in OOTW. In addition to the previously described
Force Units limited training value of OOTW participation for F-16 fighter squadrons,
other fighter squadrons are also adversely affected. For example, an
official of the 1 st Fighter Wing, which flies the F-15C, estimated that only
about 20 to 25 percent of the tasks needed to maintain pilot proficiency
were accomplished when deployed to SWA.
Regarding the SWA mission, A-10 squadron officials told us that theater
restrictions, which keep them at high altitudes, limit their ability to train for
two of their primary missions, air-to-ground combat and close air support.
These squadron officials believed that their overall combat skills were
better sharpened by local training events or participation in combat
training centers than by the opportunities received in past contingency
deployments.
Several unit officials stated that when deployed to SWA, units not
performing missions have limited training opportunities at best. In some
locations, training ranges are not available and getting clearance to use air
space has been difficult. Even in areas where access has been granted in
the past, these opportunities are not guaranteed because of the sensitive
political climate in that region. The Air Force has been working with host
governments to improve access to training areas.
The Air Force’s participation in OOTW may also be reducing opportunities
to take full advantage of combat training centers and events, such as the
Red Flag1 exercise at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. The Air Force has
increased the interval between unit participation in Red Flag from
1 Red Flag is one of the Air Force’s premier training events. It provides realistic combat training in an
air, ground, and electronic threat environment. It also allows participating units to operate with
multiple weapon systems and other services and U.S. allies.
Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix II
Additional Impacts of OOTW
12 months to 18 months for active units to reduce overall temporary duty
(TDY) assignments. However, unit officials told us that Red Flag is the
event that their unit looks forward to because it challenges their skills.
Moreover, units based in Germany have limited access to airspace and
ranges and see Red Flag as their best opportunity to receive wartime
training. However, some units had to cancel participating in Red Flag
because they were deployed or just returning from a deployment. In
addition, some units that attend Red Flag are less skilled than in the past.
According to Red Flag officials, units participating in recent years have
asked for a decrease in the intensity of the exercise because they tend to be
less experienced. While we were told that units were still receiving some
of the best training in the world, they spent less time in the high-end threat
environment than was typical in the past. As a result, some officials
believed that opportunities were being lost to fully exercise the increased
capability of today’s weapon systems.
Training proficiency of Air Force support forces that are engaged in OOTW,
such as airlift, air refueling, security police, civil engineering, and logistics
units has been less negatively affected because these types of units
typically perform more tasks that are wartime related. For example,
security forces usually perform force protection and logistics personnel
maintain aircraft and equipment much like they would in wartime, so there
is little loss in combat proficiency. However, because support deployments
involve a handful of individuals, unit cohesion is seldom achieved. Some
commanders expressed concern that while their unit’s wartime mission is
to deploy and perform as a unit, contingency missions do not usually
provide that opportunity.
Effect of OOTW on Navy and Marine Corps wartime skills are less affected than those of the
other services because they routinely use deployed forces for OOTW.
Navy and Marine Corps However, a small number of units have been affected by OOTW. Generally,
Units these were the types of units that are limited in number but in high demand.
They include the Navy’s E-2C Hawkeye aircraft squadrons and the Marine
Corps’ EA-6B aircraft squadrons.
The Navy’s E-2C Hawkeye is a carrier-based, all-weather, multimission
aircraft and its squadrons normally deploy as part of a carrier battle group.
The E-2C’s wartime missions include antiair warfare, amphibious warfare,
strike warfare, antisurface ship warfare, and command and control
warfare. However, counterdrug deployments to the Caribbean, which are
separate from normal deployments, do not require the E-2C Hawkeye crew
Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix II
Additional Impacts of OOTW
to exercise the full range of warfighting skills. Therefore, the squadrons
report degraded training readiness because warfighting skills, such as
those used for antiair warfare, amphibious warfare, and command and
control warfare, are not used.
The four Marine Corps EA-6B electronic countermeasure squadrons are
deployed repeatedly to ground bases in support of OOTW. Their missions
are to detect, disrupt, and target enemy electronic and communication
transmissions. The crews use their wartime skills in OOTW and thus are
not degraded, but the continued deployments have degraded the aircrafts’
condition. This degradation has decreased the units’ readiness status and
aircraft availability.
Effect of OOTW on the In December 1997, USAREUR directed that units returning from Bosnia
implement deliberate training plans during peacetime to reestablish their
Services’ Recovery of unit integrity and full range of warfighting skills. The training plans, which
Warfighting Skills have five phases, are to be completed within 9 months of the units’ return
to Germany. These plans include time for the units’ redeployment,
recovery and leave, home station training, weapons qualification, and
participation in a battalion-level exercise at the Combat Maneuver Training
Center in Germany. This process is intended to train the units to the
highest training readiness level for their wartime mission. Air Force
combat units report that recovering wartime skills takes up to several
months.
Army Peacetime Recovery Units we visited in Germany and the United States had recovery plans that
Time varied from 4 to 14 months. One brigade commander thought that his unit
required more time to recover its wartime skills than the training plan
provided. While based on the USAREUR five-phased plan, the commander
based his unit’s recovery time on the brigade’s previous redeployment from
Bosnia and its subsequent experiences at the Combat Maneuver Training
Center.
The Chief of Staff of the 1st Infantry Division in Germany said that its
training plan allows 9 months for the division to recover its warfighting
skills. He noted that the units that deployed to Bosnia had lost much of
their proficiency in wartime mission skills because they were not organized
or performing the types of missions expected in wartime.
Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix II
Additional Impacts of OOTW
The Chief of Staff of the 1st Armored Division in Germany said that the
division would need 6 to 7 months to recover after returning from Bosnia.
A July 1998 command assessment of the division’s readiness showed that
its forces were fully trained in only three of eight mission-essential tasks
and partially trained in key tasks such as its ability to attack, defend, and
conduct force protection because of its split-based operations. He said it
would take 60 to 90 days to reintegrate the deployed forces with those at
the home station, check the systems, and reestablish the command
relationships. In March 1999 testimony before the House Committee on
Armed Services, Subcommittee on Readiness, the division’s Commanding
General said that the division will attain the goal of training to high-
intensity conflict standards in less than 6 months following completion of
its warfighter exercise.
The recovery times for units below the division level that we visited in
Germany varied, with combat units generally taking the longest time and
combat support units the least. For example, one infantry battalion we
visited assessed that the unit was not trained in half of its mission-essential
tasks after returning from Bosnia and that a year would be needed to
rebuild and become a trained battalion once again. The battalion’s
commander did not think the division’s plan provided sufficient time to
recover all of its skills. Similarly, one aviation unit’s officials reported that
they would need up to 9 months to recover their skills. By contrast, a
signal battalion expected to recover in only 4 months. As noted previously,
a signal battalion performs a large part of its wartime skills in Bosnia. Its
commander noted that the battalion’s plan would allow for equipment
repair and soldiers to be retrained on the mobility aspects of their wartime
mission tasks.
The two U.S.-based units we visited that were involved in Bosnia also
expect to take at least 9 months to regain their wartime skills. The 2 nd
Armored Cavalry Regiment, which returned to the United States from
Bosnia in 1998, has a 10-month recovery plan that began in July 1998 and is
expected to end in May 1999. The 1 st Cavalry Division, which began
deploying to Bosnia in August 1998 for 1 year, had already developed a
9-month recovery plan for its forces when they return from Bosnia. This
recovery time, when added to the preparation for and actual deployment
time to Bosnia, means that this high priority division’s wartime readiness
status will be adversely affected for nearly 2 years.
Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix II
Additional Impacts of OOTW
Air Force Peacetime Air Force aviation units we visited reported a degradation in combat skills
Recovery Time and stated that they took from several weeks to several months to fully
regain their warfighting skills. Upon returning from deployments, crews
must regain flight currencies, provide training for inexperienced personnel,
and hone combat skills that could not be practiced while deployed.
Personnel are given administrative leave to catch up on personal affairs
after deployments, which delays recovery for a week or two. One wing
predicted that none of its three aviation squadrons would be fully capable
for at least 3 months after deployment, and two other wings reported that
at least one squadron would require a month to regain pilot proficiency.
This recovery period may be reduced in the future because deployment
lengths have been shortened from 90 to 45 days. Air Force officials believe
that pilot skills will erode less with the shorter periods.
Navy Peacetime Recovery The Navy expects sailors to prepare for their forward presence
Time deployments, including recovering their wartime skills, during the routine
18- to 24-month interdeployment training cycle. Prior to the cycle, there is
a period when personnel rotate and/or take leave and participate in
specialized training, such as the Air Force’s Red Flag exercise for pilots.
Units that engage in OOTW during this period do not have the opportunity
to engage as extensively in specialized training and do not enter the cycle
as proficient as they might otherwise be. For example, the Navy E-2C
squadrons participating in counterdrug operations have 2 months less than
other units to prepare for their next deployment.
Effect of OOTW on According to USAREUR’s November 1998 after-action report on Bosnia
operations, between mid-1996 and June 1998, divisions took personnel
Forces Remaining at from portions of nondeploying units to fill the deploying headquarters and
Home Stations other units with key personnel of the necessary ranks and numbers.
Consequently, the divisions were operating in widely separated locations
with the number of equipment and personnel designed for a single location.
The split in leadership focus led to ad hoc operating and training methods
and eroded unit cohesion, which, according to the report, has long-term
negative effects. For example, subordinate leaders and soldiers at home
stations are denied the attention, guidance, and mentoring they need.
Furthermore, the report predicted that this problem would be exacerbated
by distance for U.S.-based units deployed to Bosnia.
Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix II
Additional Impacts of OOTW
In March 1998, we testified that the readiness of the divisions responsible
for peacekeeping in Bosnia had been especially affected because the
challenges imposed by personnel shortages were compounded by frequent
deployments. According to division officials, the shortage of
noncommissioned officers in these divisions, in part due to deployments to
Bosnia, is the biggest detriment to overall readiness because crews, squads,
and sections are led by lower-level personnel rather than by trained and
experienced sergeants. Such a situation impedes effective training because
the replacement personnel become responsible for training soldiers in
critical skills they themselves may not have been trained to accomplish.
According to the Chief of Staff of the 1st Armored Division, operating
within a split-based environment precludes units remaining at home station
from conducting battalion-level exercises and results in conducting only
platoon- and company-level exercises. After redeploying and reuniting all
of the division’s units from its most recent deployment and recovering in
Germany, the 1st Armored Division will schedule its first brigade-level
exercise in 6 years.
U.S.-based Army forces supporting deployed personnel in Bosnia were also
affected by split-based operations. The 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment’s
partial unit remaining in Louisiana did not train above the individual and
platoon level because the bulk of the regiment was deployed and it also had
to support the deployed forces’ families and meet installation needs.
In the Air Force, the flying program for nondeploying personnel was often
reduced because fewer aircraft were available for training after others
deployed. Some units we visited reported that the deploying squadron
often took the best maintained aircraft from the wing or squadron. The
number of mission-capable aircraft remaining at home stations may only
allow a reduced training program for those that are left behind.
Respondents to the 1997 Air Force Chief of Staff Organizational Climate
and Quality of Life Survey indicated that OOTW was affecting home station
activities. Over 50 percent of pilots and more than a third of other officers
and enlisted personnel reported that the level of operational activity over
the previous year had an adverse impact on their ability to accomplish
required training. The survey also showed that personnel who were on
TDY for more than 30 consecutive days in the previous year were more
likely to report that operations tempo made it difficult to receive required
training and professional military education than those who were TDY 30
or fewer consecutive days over the same period.
Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix II
Additional Impacts of OOTW
Security squadron personnel have been one of the areas heavily affected by
deployments of high numbers of personnel. Some security forces in
Europe have worked 12-hour days, and other commands reported that their
security forces have gone to 12-hour days to keep the bases operating. In
some cases, even stretching the workday has not been adequate. Many
bases we visited reported using personnel from other wing squadrons,
including those that may be trained in areas such as personnel or as civil
engineers, to augment the bases’ security forces. These augmentees
received a brief training course and helped to staff gates and perform other
basic duties. Even with augmentation, some law enforcement duties such
as community patrols may be curtailed.
Effect of OOTW on Aircraft Flying more hours and longer sorties during deployments than are flown
during home station training has accelerated the aging of aircraft. As
discussed earlier, the accumulation of flying hours during OOTW has
revealed maintenance problems that are not typical. Maintainers must fix
these problems as well as routine problems that develop. For example,
after the 1st Fighter Wing completed a 6-month deployment to SWA in
December 1997, aircraft availability was a big problem, according to wing
staff. The wing has 63 total aircraft, including backup aircraft, but was
averaging less that 45 aircraft available daily, which was enough to do
about two squadrons’ worth of training. The biggest reason for aircraft
unavailability was corrosion problems in the F-15 fuel cells, which required
an inspection of the entire fleet. In March 1998, the wing estimated that its
entire fleet would be inspected and repaired by December 1998, based on
the assumption that parts would be available when needed. However, we
were told that recent history may make this assumption highly optimistic.
In addition, six of the wing’s aircraft were grounded for structural problems
that either developed in SWA or were discovered on return from SWA.
Other aircraft with landing gear, engine, and other structural problems
awaited repair because maintenance specialists were engaged in fixing the
problems of the aircraft returning from SWA.
Officials in the Air Force units we visited said that the pace of deployments
had, at least in part, caused aircraft mission-capable rates to decline and
cannibalization rates to increase. Since 1991, the percentage of Air Force
fighter aircraft that were mission capable at any one time has dropped from
85 to 75 percent. Officials told us that when aircraft return from
deployments, a maintenance backlog is often created because not all
maintenance can be performed while the aircraft are deployed. Reducing
this backlog may tie up personnel that cannot perform routine maintenance
Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix II
Additional Impacts of OOTW
on other aircraft. Even when personnel are available, parts are often
unavailable, since nondeploying units have lower priority for parts. Thus,
either aircraft are not in a condition to fly or needed parts are taken from
other aircraft to increase the number of aircraft available. Air Force data
show that fighter aircraft are at times being cannabilized at a rate that
exceeds its targets; Air Force officials said that this problem is getting
worse. Air Combat Command officials have attributed the falling mission
capable rates not only to OOTW participation but to inadequate funding for
supply parts and to reductions in the number of experienced maintenance
technicians.
Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix III
Department of Defense Reporting Systems’
Information on the Impacts of OOTW AIpIenxdi
The Global Status of Resources and Training System (GSORTS) does not
clearly capture some conditions in addition to those described earlier that
may adversely affect the ability of units to perform their wartime mission.
These conditions include the counting of personnel temporarily assigned
against wartime manning requirements, optimistically estimated training
status, and inconsistent reporting standards.
How Personnel Are If an Army unit scheduled to deploy to Bosnia for more than 60 days has a
personnel shortage, the Army will temporarily assign some personnel for
Counted Can Be that mission, usually from nondeploying units. The number of temporarily
Misleading assigned personnel in Bosnia at any one time varied from 1,400 in
December 1995 to 365 in April 1999. The Army has instructed that
temporarily assigned personnel be included as part of the deployed units’
personnel total reported in GSORTS. While counting these personnel as
part of the units’ resources may be appropriate for reporting against the
Bosnia mission requirements, GSORTS is expected to measure the units’
readiness to conduct its wartime missions. Therefore, counting temporary
personnel that are expected to return to their home units when their
temporary deployment ends appears to overstate the units’ manning level
for wartime. For example, the military intelligence, signal, and forward
support battalions we visited in Bosnia reported that they were 92 to
100 percent manned. However, when temporary personnel were not
counted, they actually had 80 percent or less of their required personnel,
including those at their home stations.
According to USAREUR’s November 1998 after-action report on Bosnia
operations, counting temporary personnel against a unit’s strength had
impeded getting replacements. This was of particular concern to unit
commanders that needed soldiers to fill personnel requirements in the
portions of their units at home stations that were recovering from previous
deployments. One unit commander told us that he was concerned that the
9 months it might take to fill the personnel requirements in his unit would
exacerbate the unit’s plan for regaining its high-intensity conflict
capabilities.
Page 48 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix III
Department of Defense Reporting Systems’
Information on the Impacts of OOTW
Optimistic The Army and the Air Force allow latitude in how they require units to
report their training status. Army units can report training status in
Assumptions or GSORTS predicated on having unconstrained resources and unrestricted
Waivers Can Overstate training range access if mobilized. In the Air Force, flying requirements can
be prorated based on the time spent deployed. Both practices may allow
Training Readiness units to optimistically rate their readiness.
Army units we visited had planned recovery periods that varied from 4 to
14 months and most routinely reported high training readiness. However,
one infantry brigade official noted that his battalions had not trained above
the company level in over 2 years and an aviation brigade had not trained at
the brigade level for 3 years. Although USAREUR announced in December
1997 that to conduct systematic training upon returning from Bosnia, units
may take as long as 9 months to recover, U.S. European Command officials
stated that this could be compressed to 45 days if units were tasked to
deploy. They said this would be accomplished by moving the units to a
higher priority status for personnel, equipment, spare parts, and access to
facilities. According to USAREUR officials, this compression was
acceptable because their Command is responsible for prioritizing and
eliminating any conflicts in its use of resources and facilities. However, if a
large number of unit training plans assume the units would have
unconstrained access to resources and training ranges, all of the units that
would need to attain proficiency in their high-intensity skills within 45 days
could not realistically expect to obtain the necessary resources and access
quickly.
In the Air Force, pilot combat proficiency may be reduced in some ways
not measured by GSORTS. For example, flying units normally have to
complete a specified number of events yearly to qualify as mission ready.
However, because the mission may not allow deployed pilots opportunities
to perform all events, requirements can be prorated based on the time
deployed, effectively reducing the number of combat events performed.
Actual proficiency in required skills may therefore be overstated. Pilots
that have not deployed are not allowed to prorate training requirements.
Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix III
Department of Defense Reporting Systems’
Information on the Impacts of OOTW
Some Army Units According to the Army, units deployed to Bosnia are still expected to report
their readiness status in GSORTS against their wartime mission
Reported Readiness to requirements. However, some brigade and combat support battalion
Perform the OOTW commanders said that they had reported the training status of their forces
in Bosnia against Bosnia mission skills. While this may allow for a more
Instead of Wartime accurate picture of their capability to perform the less demanding Bosnia
Mission operation, it does not clearly reveal the impact of the operation on their
wartime readiness or provide senior defense leaders with the information
they expect about the preparedness of the units to perform their high-
intensity conflict missions associated with major theater wars. Joint Staff
officials said that they recognize this problem and that the latest change to
GSORTS directives will require units to report against both the wartime
and OOTW mission requirements. They said the services were developing
policies to implement the directive.
Not Counting All Time In addition to GSORTS not presenting a complete picture of reported
readiness, the Department of Defense (DOD) systems for tracking the
Away From Home frequency with which military personnel deploy also have some
Station Presents an shortcomings. The services track the frequency with which their personnel
deploy, but they account for time differently. The Navy, and to a lesser
Incomplete Picture of extent the Marine Corps, does not count all time away from home, which
Operating Tempo serves to understate their operating tempo. As we reported in 1996,1 a
DOD-wide definition of a deployment does not exist, and each service
defines it differently.
The Navy’s procedure for computing personnel tempo rates does not
include all time away from home station. Navy guidance requires that a
person must be gone from a home station for more than 56 consecutive
days to be considered deployed. Furthermore, regardless of the duration,
the time away is not counted if less than 50 percent of the unit is away from
the home station. Additionally, Navy guidance stipulates that (1) a unit
must spend a minimum of 50 percent of its time at a home port over a
3-year period; (2) a unit cannot deploy for more than 6 months or
180 consecutive days; and (3) the minimum turnaround time between
deployments is set at a ratio of 2 to 1, for example, 12 months home after a
6-month deployment. The Navy stated that it has not granted any
1 Military
Readiness: A Clear Policy Is Needed to Guide Management of Frequently Deployed Units
(GAO/NSIAD-96-105, Apr. 8, 1996).
Page 50 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix III
Department of Defense Reporting Systems’
Information on the Impacts of OOTW
exceptions to this guidance since the 1994 Operation Uphold Democracy in
Haiti. However, the Navy is sending E-2C Hawkeye units for counterdrug
operations in the Caribbean for 56 days. Other shorter deployments for
E-2C units have included those for training and other exercises. According
to Chief of Naval Operations guidelines, time away from a home station
should not exceed approximately 166 days during the 18-month period at
home. Navy Atlantic Fleet E-2C squadrons’ data show that if the Navy
counted all time away from home stations, regardless of duration, their
E-2C units would be home 6 months and deployed 12 months.
The Navy reports personnel tempo by ships or aircraft squadrons, not by
individuals. While the Navy’s Bureau of Personnel has the data to identify
personnel tempo by individual, a sailor’s unit commander is not routinely
aware of how much time individuals have been away from the home
station. We were told that individuals are responsible for notifying their
unit heads if the order to deploy exceeds Chief of Naval Operations
guidelines. The Navy was researching better ways to track individual
personnel tempo, and various organizational units, including the Navy
Audit Office, were reviewing this process.
Page 51 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix IV
Effects of OOTW on Morale ApIV
exn
p di
OOTW is one of several factors affecting Air Force morale. At units we
visited, we were told that the first deployment to an area can be a positive
experience, but repeated deployments have declining benefits. The Navy
and the Marine Corps could not measure the actual degree to which OOTW
affects morale and subsequent service retention and both services are
studying why personnel remain in or leave the service.
Impact of OOTW on Air Many personnel in Air Force units we visited described morale as
declining, due both to the nature of operations and to the conditions and
Force Morale length of deployment. Universally, Air Force units, particularly those U.S.-
based units and personnel that have participated in Operation Southern
Watch in SWA since the early 1990s, said that the novelty of deployments
has worn off. Officials at squadrons and wings we visited stated that the
first deployment to an area can be a positive experience and looked upon
as an adventure, but repeated deployments have declining benefits. SWA is
usually cited as the least desirable deployment because living conditions
are less than ideal, free movement is restricted, and monetary benefits are
not as generous as those for other deployments, such as deployments to
Italy to support Bosnia operations.
Other officials stated that the length of deployments was a source of
discontent. We were told that although Air Force personnel, particularly
pilots, are accustomed to some TDY, TDYs of 90 days or more are
considered a hardship, particularly when they occur repeatedly. A recent
Air Force decision to reduce deployments to 45 days for aviation units was
positively received, even if the units are likely to deploy twice as often.
Personnel not part of aviation units still rotate every 120 days, however,
and believe that it is unfair that their deployment length has not changed.
Impact of OOTW on The Navy administers a Navy-wide personnel survey conducted annually at
the request of the Chief of Naval Personnel. While morale is not mentioned
Navy Morale in these surveys, satisfaction levels closely related to morale have been
measured. The report on the results of the 1997 survey, dated December
1998, covered a variety of topics, including overseas duty, job satisfaction,
leadership, and medical facilities. Navy personnel in the Office of the
Assistant Chief of Naval Personnel/Personnel Policy, who said that their
office was responsible for morale and retention issues, told us that
retention is the best indicator of morale in the absence of a specific system
to measure morale.
Page 52 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix IV
Effects of OOTW on Morale
Overall, the Navy met its fiscal year 1998 first-term retention goals. Exit
surveys routinely show family separation as one of the top three reasons
that officer and enlisted personnel cite for leaving the Navy. However,
Navy officials could not measure the actual degree of impact caused by
OOTW. Other reasons frequently cited for leaving the Navy include a lack
of promotion and advancement opportunities, basic pay, quality of Navy
life, and the quality of leadership/management.
The Naval Personnel Office has begun a study to better understand why
personnel are staying in or leaving the service. The study is intended to
provide more timely, accurate, and reliable retention data. The Navy plans
to redesign its reenlistment and exit surveys and investigate different
methods for administering the questionnaires to help ensure more reliable
results.
Impact of OOTW on Headquarters Marine Corps believed that retention is an indicator of
morale. Retention goals were being met, although career fields such as
Marines Corps Morale counterintelligence, imagery interpretation, recruitment, and pilots had
critical shortages. For example, the Marine Corps is not meeting its
retention goal for fixed-wing pilots. They are resigning at a rate two times
greater than the 1995 historical average. While the Corps was aware of the
retention problems, it had no data that link them to OOTW. A Marine Corps
official in the Office of Manpower and Reserve Affairs told us that the
Corps is developing a retention survey to determine why Marines decide to
remain in or leave the service, which is scheduled to be administered for
the first time in January 2000.
We did find one instance in which OOTW deployments and retention were
clearly linked. In 1997, and part of 1998, Marines in the 2nd
Counterintelligence Unit, which had about 65 personnel, were deployed
260 days, or 72 percent of the time. Unit personnel stated that high
operating tempo may be acceptable for short time periods, but they saw no
end in sight. This high tempo combined with other factors, such as a strong
economy, resulted in 70 percent of the unit's officers and 65 percent of its
enlisted personnel leaving the Marine Corps. According to a Marine Corps
official involved in tracking retention, this unit had a 20-percent turnover
rate in 1995.
Page 53 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix V
Responding to Major Theater War While
Engaged in OOTW Appx
V
end
i
We examined disengagement from an ongoing OOTW to respond to a major
theater war in a March 1995 report on the impact of OOTW.1 That report
focused on the then current mission in Somalia and the ongoing mission in
SWA. We concluded that certain key Army units and specialized Air Force
aircraft used in recent OOTW had been identified as being needed in the
early stages of a major theater war, but that it may be difficult to disengage
these forces from OOTW and redeploy them quickly to a war.
The Army Is Using In recent years, USAREUR combat divisions were not expected to be
among those rapidly deploying to the first major theater war. Their use in
High Priority Units in Bosnia therefore had less strategic risk than some other units. However,
Bosnia the 1st Cavalry Division, which deployed to Bosnia in August 1998 and
formally took command in October 1998 for 1 year, was cited in war plans
as one of the earliest deploying heavy divisions2 for the two major theater
war plans. Moreover, this division was one of two U.S.-based heavy
divisions immediately available for a major theater war with a high
readiness level and capable of short notice deployments to any part of the
world. As such, it had a high priority for resources and a high level of
readiness.
Following the decision to send the 1 st Cavalry Division to Bosnia, the U.S.
Atlantic Command, the joint command responsible for providing forces to
meet worldwide warfighting requirements, requested that DOD assess the
impact of deploying the division to Bosnia and substituting different forces
in the war plans. The Command was concerned that this high-priority
division, once deployed to Bosnia, would not be available to meet
previously approved time-phased force deployments. According to the
division’s recovery plan, it does not expect to reestablish and test the
required high-intensity conflict warfighting skills until a warfighting
exercise is conducted in March 2000—5 months after returning from
Bosnia. Thus, in a peacetime environment, the division expects to be
affected nearly 2 years by its participation in the Bosnia mission and would
not immediately be deployable for wartime tasking.
1
Peace Operations: Heavy Use of Key Capabilities May Affect Response to Regional Conflicts
(NSIAD-95-51, Mar. 8, 1995).
2 TheArmy defines a heavy division as one organized as armor or mechanized infantry and configured
with tanks and armored fighting vehicles.
Page 54 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix V
Responding to Major Theater War While
Engaged in OOTW
The Joint Staff approved U.S. Atlantic Command’s request and directed that
several of the unified commands and the Transportation Command assess
the impact. Their assessments resulted in changes to the established plans
for time-phased force deployments for potential major theater wars.
Although, according to the U.S. Central Command and the U.S. Pacific
Command, the changes had minimal or negligible impact on the plans, the
U.S. Atlantic Command thought it was important to recognize such changes
to ensure that the unified commands and supporting commands have
accurate visibility of unit readiness and that the U.S. Atlantic Command has
visibility of the readiness of all U.S.-based forces because that could affect
its ability to provide forces.
The Army has also had to use some of its early deploying active and reserve
support forces to meet Bosnia mission requirements. According to an
Army official, the Army had not planned to use its early support forces, 3
but as the mission continued, the Army deployed support forces it had
identified as being needed to support early deploying combat forces in a
major theater war.
3 Early
support forces are known as force support package 1 and 2 units that are needed in the first
30 days of a major theater war and then the next follow-on forces to support the deployed divisions.
Page 55 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix VI
Funding for OOTW ApV
exn
p diI
Until fiscal year 1996, DOD did not budget for the cost of military
operations, including OOTW. It budgeted to be ready to conduct such
operations. When the services conducted such operations, they generally
borrowed funds that they planned to spend later in the fiscal year. If these
funds were not replenished through supplemental appropriations or
reprogramming of previously appropriated funds, then the services would
cancel planned activities.
Beginning in fiscal year 1996, at the urging of Congress, DOD began to
budget for the cost of ongoing OOTW. Congress has then included funds
for ongoing operations in the annual defense appropriations acts. In the
case of new or expanded operations, such as the extension of the Bosnia
mission and the late 1998 deployment of additional military forces to SWA,
costs have not been budgeted in advance and so DOD continues to use its
earlier practice of borrowing from spending planned for later in the fiscal
year and awaiting replenishment.
While the operating commands have had to borrow funds planned to be
spent later in the fiscal year, command personnel told us that they have
been able to execute all or almost all of their planned budget program.
Budget officials at major operating commands we visited said that a trust
has developed between service headquarters and the major commands
regarding receipt of OOTW funding. This trust involves assurances from
service headquarters that funding for the additional costs of OOTW will be
provided. Thus, commands have continued with planned activities and
have not held back funds out of concern about running out of funding in
the fourth quarter and then stopping activities such as training.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that the assurance
mentioned above is based on an indication from Congress that it will
provide funding. Our analysis of supplemental appropriations for OOTW in
fiscal years 1996 through 1998 indicated that the appropriations were
enacted in the third quarter of each fiscal year.
Congress Has Shifted Since 1995, Congress has provided funds to cover most OOTW costs
through a combination of annual appropriations, supplemental
Funds to Offset OOTW appropriations, and reprogramming of appropriated funds. To prevent an
Costs increase in overall government spending, Congress reduced planned
defense funds for other programs in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. It
also sometimes used savings from lower-than-expected inflation and
favorable changes in currency exchange rates to help offset OOTW costs;
Page 56 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix VI
Funding for OOTW
presumably were it not for the need to fund OOTW these funds could have
been used for other unfunded defense needs.
In fiscal year 1995, the executive branch requested $2.6 billion to fund
OOTW. Congress provided supplemental funding of $2.5 billion for OOTW
and an additional $552 million in supplemental funding for enhanced
readiness and military pay. At the same time, Congress rescinded
$2.4 billion in previously appropriated DOD funds and $1.1 billion in non-
DOD funds. This, in effect, more than offset the supplemental funding
provided for both OOTW and enhanced readiness and military pay. Of the
$2.4 billion in rescinded DOD funds, more than half came from
procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E)
accounts. Within procurement, rescissions were made primarily in Army
and Air Force accounts. Within RDT&E, the largest rescissions were in the
DOD-wide technology reinvestment program, almost half of the total
RDT&E rescission.
In fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $647 million for ongoing
operations in SWA. U.S. participation in the Bosnia operation did not begin
until December 1995, and so no funds were requested or appropriated. To
fund the estimated $2.2 billion dollars in fiscal year 1996 Bosnia operations
costs, DOD primarily reprogrammed existing funds. During the fiscal year,
Congress approved almost $1.4 billion in reprogramming and provided
$858 million in supplemental appropriations. The bulk of the
reprogrammed funds—89 percent—was available because of revised,
lower inflation rates, which reduced planned program costs and freed
funds for other uses, in this case, Bosnia operations. Had these funds not
been used to fund Bosnia operations, they could presumably have been
used for other unfunded defense needs. The $858 million in supplemental
appropriations was fully offset by rescissions of previously appropriated
DOD funds, of which most were in procurement and RDT&E accounts.
In fiscal year 1997, Congress included $1.1 billion for planned Bosnia and
SWA operations in the fiscal year 1997 DOD appropriations act through the
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. It later provided DOD
with supplemental funding of $1.9 billion for additional costs associated
with the two operations. At the same time, Congress rescinded $1.9 billion
in defense funding to offset the supplemental appropriation. A large part of
the rescission resulted from a combination of revised inflation rates
(24 percent) and foreign currency savings (22 percent). As was the case in
fiscal year 1996, had these funds not been used for OOTW, they presumably
could have been available for other unfunded defense needs. The balance
Page 57 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix VI
Funding for OOTW
of the rescissions came mostly from procurement, RDT&E, and military
construction programs.
In the fiscal year 1998 DOD appropriations act, Congress provided
$2.2 billion in funds for the ongoing operation in SWA and for the Bosnia
operation through June 1998. The extension of the Bosnia operation and
the crisis in SWA increased estimated costs, and Congress appropriated
$1.8 billion in supplemental funding. Unlike the preceding fiscal years,
Congress did not offset this funding with rescissions or reprogramming.
Page 58 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix VII
Scope and Methodology AppV
enxdIi
To examine the impact of OOTW on the warfighting capability of each of
the services, we obtained briefings, reviewed documents, and interviewed
personnel at Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps locations, at the
office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and at component and unified command
headquarters within the United States and Europe. Our efforts were
primarily focused on the current operations in Bosnia and SWA for the
Army and the Air Force. Our focus for the Navy and the Marine Corps
primarily involved their routine deployments but included counterdrug
operations in the Caribbean. We reviewed after-action reports and
analyzed before and after deployment personnel, equipment, and training
readiness reports of units participating in OOTW and interviewed officials
responsible for the readiness of these units and some of the forces that
participated in these operations.
To determine the impact on the Army of participating in OOTW, we
reviewed the experiences of combat and support forces that operated in
Bosnia, Macedonia, and SWA. We talked with and obtained information
from personnel in units stationed in Bosnia, Hungary, Germany, and the
United States regarding their capability to meet their primary warfighting
missions, the effect of OOTW on combat skills, and the efforts to return to
full combat capability.
As a means of determining the impacts of OOTW on the Air Force, we
visited Air Force units in the United States and Europe. At these units, we
talked with and reviewed documentation from unit officials of combat
forces such as F-15C, F-16C, and A-10 squadrons and support forces, such
as maintenance, security police, and civil engineer squadrons that
participated in OOTW.
We discussed the effect of the Navy’s and the Marine Corps’ participation in
OOTW with representatives of various elements of the U.S. Atlantic and
Pacific fleets. We also examined documents describing the impact of
OOTW and counterdrug operations in the Caribbean.
To examine the extent to which service reporting systems fully reflect
OOTW impacts, we assessed readiness at the unit level by obtaining and
analyzing GSORTS readiness reporting data for fiscal years 1995-98. We
reviewed the GSORTS ratings to determine whether (1) the services had
reported adverse impacts of OOTW participation and (2) unit commanders
had attributed degraded readiness to participation in OOTW.
Page 59 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix VII
Scope and Methodology
To examine available information on the effect of OOTW on morale, we
obtained and reported on the results of Army surveys of personnel
deployed to Bosnia and Air Force quality of life surveys of Air Force
personnel. We did not assess the methodology of these surveys or compare
responses among questions for consistency. In addition, we interviewed
key officials and service personnel to obtain their perceptions about
whether participation in OOTW had affected morale and had caused
personnel to leave the services. To examine retention, we reviewed service
data and morale surveys as they related to the reasons personnel gave for
leaving the military.
To examine the ability of U.S. forces to respond to a major theater war
while engaged in OOTW, we reviewed DOD force structure analyses and
defense guidance. We also discussed the impacts of disengaging from
Bosnia and redeploying to a major theater war with unified and component
command officials and the Army division headquarters deployed to Bosnia.
To examine DOD’s efforts to alleviate any adverse impacts of OOTW
participation, we interviewed personnel at the Joint Staff and Army, Navy,
and Air Force headquarters and reviewed documents establishing
personnel deployment policies and processes to manage the operating
tempo of specific units and platforms.
To examine funding for OOTW, we obtained and analyzed DOD budget
documents and the annual defense and supplemental appropriation acts
and their legislative histories. We also interviewed budget officials at major
commands we visited to determine the extent that funding was available to
meet their OOTW operational needs.
Our review was conducted from February 1998 through March 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 60 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Appendix IX
Major Contributors to This Report ApIX
exn
p di
National Security and Steven H. Sternlieb, Assistant Director
Rodell B. Anderson, Senior Evaluator
International Affairs Anthony J. DeFrank, Senior Evaluator
Division, Washington,
D.C.
Atlanta Field Office Leo B. Sullivan, Evaluator in Charge
Frank C. Smith, Senior Evaluator
Norfolk Field Office Bonita P. Anderson, Senior Evaluator
Frank R. Marsh, Senior Evaluator
C.D. Mills, Jr., Senior Evaluator
Richard G. Payne, Senior Evaluator
(701133) Leetr Page 64 GAO/NSIAD-99-69 Military Operations
Ordering Information
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order made
out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary, VISA and
MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list
from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone
phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain
these lists.
For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:
info@www.gao.gov
or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov
United States Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 GAO
Permit No. GI00
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
PAGE 71 GAO/XXXX-98-??? NAME OF DOCUMENT
Military Operations: Impact of Operations Other Than War on the Services Varies
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-05-24.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)