    Afghanistan Security: Efforts to Establish Army and Police Have
    Made Progress, but Future Plans Need to Be Better Defined
    (30-JUN-05, GAO-05-575).

    After more than two decades of war, Afghanistan had no army or
    functioning police and, before September 11, 2001, was a haven
    for international terrorists. In April 2002, the United States
    and several other nations agreed to reform the five pillars of
    Afghanistan's security sector--creating an Afghan army,
    reconstituting the police force, establishing a working
    judiciary, combating illicit narcotics, and demobilizing the
    Afghan militias. As the leader for the army pillar, the United
    States has provided about $3.3 billion. For the German-led effort
    to reconstitute the Afghan police, the United States has provided
    over $800 million. We examined the progress made, and limitations
    faced, in developing the army and police forces. We also
    identified challenges that must be addressed to complete and
    sustain these forces.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-575
        ACCNO:   A28617
      TITLE:     Afghanistan Security: Efforts to Establish Army and
    Police Have Made Progress, but Future Plans Need to Be Better
    Defined
         DATE:   06/30/2005
      SUBJECT:   Army personnel
    	     Combat readiness
    	     Federal aid to foreign countries
    	     International cooperation
    	     International relations
    	     Law enforcement
    	     Military forces
    	     Military training
    	     Police
    	     Police training
    	     Defense capabilities
    	     Afghanistan

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-05-575

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO	Report to the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives

    June 2005

    AFGHANISTAN SECURITY

     Efforts to Establish Army and Police Have Made Progress, but Future Plans Need
                                  to Be Better Defined

                                           a

    GAO-05-575

    [IMG]

    June 2005

    AFGHANISTAN SECURITY

    Efforts to Establish Army and Police Have Made Progress, but Future Plans Need
    to Be Better Defined

                                     What GAO Found

    As of March 2005, Defense had trained more than 18,300 Afghan combat
    troops-over 42 percent of the army's projected total of 43,000-and
    deployed them throughout the country. During 2004, the Department of
    Defense significantly accelerated Afghan combat troop training. However,
    Defense efforts to fully equip the increasing number of combat troops have
    fallen behind, and efforts to establish sustaining institutions, such as a
    logistics command, needed to support these troops have not kept pace.
    Plans for completing these institutions are not clear.

    Germany and the United States had trained more than 35,000 police as of
    January 2005 and expect to meet their goal of training 62,000 police by
    December 2005. However, the Department of State has just begun to address
    structural problems that affect the Afghan police force. Trainees often
    return to police stations where militia leaders are the principal
    authority; most infrastructure needs repair, and the police do not have
    sufficient equipment-from weapons to vehicles. Furthermore, limited
    fieldbased mentoring has just begun although previous international police
    training programs have demonstrated that such mentoring is critical for
    success. Moreover, the Afghan Ministry of the Interior (which oversees the
    police force) requires reform and restructuring. Finally, neither State
    nor Germany has developed plans specifying how much the program will cost
    and when it will be completed.

    Without strong and self-sustaining Afghan army and police forces and
    concurrent progress in the other pillars of security sector reform,
    Afghanistan could again become a haven for terrorists. However,
    establishing viable Afghan army and police forces will almost certainly
    take years and substantial resources. Available information suggests that
    these programs could cost up to $7.2 billion to complete and about $600
    million annually to sustain. Furthermore, the other lead nations have made
    limited progress in reforming Afghan's judiciary, combating illicit
    narcotics, and demobilizing the militias.

                 Five Pillars of Security Sector Reform in Afghanistan

    Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data.

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    Contents

      Letter

    Results in Brief
    Background
    U.S. Training of Afghan Combat Troops Has Outpaced Efforts to

    Equip and Sustain Them Difficult Conditions Have Hampered Reconstituting
    of Police and State Does Not Have an Overall Plan to Complete the Effort
    Efforts to Complete and Sustain the Afghan Army and Police Face

    Major Challenges Conclusions Recommendations for Executive Action Agency
    Comments and Our Evaluation

    1 2 4

    11

    19

    27 33 33 34

    Appendixes
                    Appendix I:             Scope and Methodology              36
                                Assistance Provided to Afghan Army and Police
                   Appendix II:                  by Non-U.S.
                                                    Donors                     40
                  Appendix III:    Comments from the Department of Defense     43
                  Appendix IV:     Comments from the Department of Justice     45
                    Appendix V:     Comments from the Department of State      47

    Tables     Table 1: U.S. Support for the Afghan Army and Police, Fiscal
                                                                         Years
                                         2002-2006                              9
               Table 2: Number of Afghan Police Reported Trained as of January
                        2005 and Training Targets for December 2005            20
                Table 3: Estimated Value of Assistance Provided to Afghan Army
                               and Police by Non-U.S. Donors                   41

    Figures	Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4:

    Figure 5:

    Figure 6: Figure 7: Five Pillars of Security Sector Reform in Afghanistan
    5 Afghan Army Commands and Police Training Centers 7 Kabul Military
    Training Center 12 Defective Boot Purchased Locally and an Afghan Soldier
    Wearing Sandals 16 Police Regional Training Center in Jalalabad-Dining
    Facility and Classroom Building 22 Jalalabad Police Station 24 Heavy
    Weapons Cantonment Site Outside Kabul 32

    Contents

    Abbreviations

    State/INL Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement

    Affairs OMC-A Office of Military Cooperation-Afghanistan NATO North
    Atlantic Treaty Organization

    This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
    work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
    separately.

    A

    United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

    June 30, 2005

    The Honorable Henry J. Hyde
    Chairman
    The Honorable Tom Lantos
    Ranking Minority Member
    Committee on International Relations
    House of Representatives

    After more than two decades of war left Afghanistan without an army or a
    functioning police force, the country became a haven for international
    terrorists, including the al Qaeda terrorist group that attacked two U.S.
    cities on September 11, 2001. Since ousting the Taliban regime from
    Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has spent almost $3 billion to help
    reconstruct this poor and ethnically divided country.1 However, pervasive
    internal security threats-including terrorists, ethnic and regional
    militias
    commanded by powerful warlords, and a large trade in illegal narcotics-
    continue to undermine efforts to rebuild Afghanistan's shattered economy,
    government, and infrastructure. The United States and allied nations
    maintain more than 28,000 combat and support troops in Afghanistan to
    counter these threats.2

    To help Afghanistan provide for its own security, the United States and
    several other nations agreed at a conference in December 2002 to help
    create multiethnic, professionally trained Afghan national army and police
    forces.3 Donor nations also agreed to help establish a working judicial
    sector, combat the narcotics trade, and demobilize Afghanistan's militias.
    As leader of the effort to create the new army, the United States provided
    approximately $3.3 billion during fiscal years 2002 through 2005 toward
    the
    goal of eventually establishing a 70,000 man force that includes 43,000
    ground combat troops. The Department of Defense facilitates the training
    and equipping of the Afghan army through its Combined Forces

    1For a detailed discussion of efforts to reconstruct postwar Afghanistan,
    see our report Afghanistan Reconstruction: Deteriorating Security and
    Limited Resources Have Impeded Progress; Improvements in U.S. Strategy
    Needed, GAO-04-403 (Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2004).

    2These forces include about 8,300 North Atlantic Treaty Organization
    peacekeepers.

    3The conference's final communique, also known as the "Bonn II" Agreement,
    supports efforts started under the Bonn Agreement of December 2001 to
    promote national reconciliation, lasting peace, stability, and respect for
    human rights in Afghanistan.

    Command's Office of Military Cooperation-Afghanistan (OMC-A) in the
    capital city of Kabul. As the largest donor for the reconstitution of the
    national police, which is led by Germany, the United States provided about
    $804 million during fiscal years 2002 through 2005 for police training,
    equipment, and infrastructure. The Department of State oversees the U.S.
    police effort through its Bureau for International Narcotics and Law
    Enforcement Affairs (State/INL) in Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Embassy
    in Kabul, with assistance from the Department of Justice. In its fiscal
    year 2006 budget request, the executive branch has requested nearly $60
    million for the Afghan police but, according to Defense officials, no
    additional funds for the Afghan army.

    To review the status of U.S. efforts to strengthen Afghanistan's security,
    we (1) examined the progress made, and limitations faced, by the United
    States and other donor nations in building Afghanistan's national army;
    (2) examined the progress made, and limitations faced, by the United
    States and other donor nations in reconstituting Afghanistan's national
    police forces; and (3) identified challenges that the United States, other
    donor nations, and Afghanistan must address to complete and sustain the
    Afghan army and police forces. To address these objectives, we reviewed
    pertinent Defense and State planning, funding, and evaluation documents
    for the Afghan army and police programs. We discussed these programs with
    cognizant officials from the Departments of Defense, Justice, and State in
    Washington, D.C., and Kabul, Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, we traveled to
    Herat and Jalalabad to view Afghan army facilities and a police training
    site, respectively, and to meet with cognizant U.S. and Afghan officials.
    We also met with government officials from Germany and other key donor
    nations. We determined that the data provided to us were sufficiently
    reliable for the purposes of this report. (See app. I for a more complete
    description of our scope and methodology.)

    We conducted our review from January 2004 through May 2005 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Results in Brief	The United States has made important progress in training
    and deploying Afghan army combat troops but has not fully addressed
    limitations that impede its progress in establishing a self-sustaining
    Afghan army. Defense has established programs for recruiting and training
    battalions of ethnically mixed combat troops, including a field-based
    mentoring program. In 2004, as security concerns persisted, Defense
    significantly accelerated Afghan combat troop training, and as of March
    2005 more than 42 percent of the

    army's total projected combat strength of 43,000 troops was deployed in
    strategic locations throughout the country. However, OMC-A's efforts to
    fully equip the increasing number of combat troops being trained have
    fallen behind. In addition, OMC-A's efforts to establish institutions
    needed to support these troops have not kept pace with the accelerated
    training program. Plans for the completion of these institutions are not
    clear. Nonetheless, U.S. trainers and other military officials have stated
    that Afghan combat troops generally perform well in small units, despite
    some shortcomings.

    Germany and the United States have made progress in training individual
    Afghan policemen and policewomen but have not addressed many limitations
    impeding the reconstitution of a national police force. As of January
    2005, the Department of State and Germany have trained more than 35,000
    police and expect to meet their goal of training 50,000 national and
    highway police and 12,000 border police by December 2005. However,
    trainees face difficult working conditions. They return to district police
    stations that need extensive reconstruction or renovation; militia leaders
    are often the principal authority; and they lack weapons, vehicles,
    communications, and other equipment. In addition, the police training
    includes limited field-based training and mentoring, although previous
    international peacekeeping efforts showed that such mentoring is critical
    to the success of police training programs. Furthermore, the Afghan
    Ministry of the Interior (which oversees the police force) faces several
    problems, including corruption and an outdated rank structure, that
    require reform and restructuring. Finally, neither State nor Germany have
    developed an overall plan specifying how or when construction tasks and
    equipment purchases will be completed, how much the buildup of the police
    will cost, and when the overall effort to reconstitute the police will be
    finished.

    The United States, other donors, and the new Afghan government face
    significant challenges to establishing viable Afghan army and police
    forces. Although Defense and State have not yet prepared official cost
    estimates, the army and police programs could cost up to $7.2 billion to
    complete and about $600 million annually to sustain. Moreover, slow
    progress in resolving other Afghan security problems-the lack of an
    effective judiciary, the substantial illicit narcotics industry, and the
    continued presence of armed militias-threaten to undermine overall
    progress made toward providing nationwide security and ensuring the
    stability of the Afghan government.

    We are recommending that the Secretaries of Defense and State develop
    detailed plans for completing and sustaining the Afghan army and police
    forces, including clearly defined objectives and performance measures;
    milestones; funding requirements; and a strategy for sustaining the
    results achieved. In addition, we are recommending that the Secretaries
    work with the other lead nations to help ensure that progress in the other
    pillars of Afghan's security reform is congruous with the progress made in
    the army and police programs. In both cases, we recommend that the
    Secretaries report their progress to the Congress. In commenting on a
    draft of this report, the Departments of Defense and State generally
    concurred with our recommendations, but both stated that appropriate
    reporting mechanisms are already in place. The Department of Justice
    strongly concurred in regards to the Afghan police training program and
    noted that its expertise could be more effectively utilized.

    Background	Afghanistan, a mountainous and land-locked country in central
    Asia, is one of the poorest countries in the world. More than 60 percent
    of its population is illiterate. Afghanistan lacks effective nationwide
    communications, banking, and transportation systems. Its estimated per
    capita gross domestic product for 2003 was about $700. The International
    Monetary Fund estimates that Afghan government revenues will average $387
    million per year during 2005 through 2008-less than half of its projected
    average annual expenditures for government salaries and operations of $879
    million. Afghanistan remains dependent on other nations for support;
    international assistance provided 93 percent of Afghanistan's $4.75
    billion budget for 2005.

    Afghanistan's economic plight is partially the result of its long history
    of war and civil strife. Afghanistan's ethnically mixed population is due
    to its location on historical invasion and trade routes. The Soviet Union
    invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and withdrew only after waging a prolonged and
    destructive war against Afghan resistance groups. Following a protracted
    civil war, most of Afghanistan fell under the control of the
    fundamentalist Taliban group by 1998. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan
    became a haven for terrorists, and, as a result, the United States and a
    coalition of its allies invaded Afghanistan after the terrorist attacks of
    September 11, 2001.

    Afghanistan's security institutions, including its national army, police,
    and judiciary, collapsed or were severely damaged prior to the U.S.
    occupation. During the Taliban rule the army disintegrated and was
    superseded by various ethnic and regional militias. The Afghan national
    police force,

    which was organized as a two-track system of career officers and largely
    untrained conscripts who served for 2 years, had also declined over the
    past 25 years.

    Afghanistan continues to face significant internal threats. Widespread
    trade in opium and heroin provides drug producers and traffickers with the
    resources and motivation to resist efforts to curb the illicit narcotics
    industry. Taliban fighters and terrorist groups remain active in parts of
    the country, and attacks on civilian reconstruction workers have prompted
    some international assistance groups to leave the country. Regional
    warlords maintain thousands of militia fighters who could be used to
    challenge the authority of Afghanistan's new central government.

    To help Afghanistan address such threats, the United States and several
    other donor nations met in Geneva, Switzerland, in April 2002. At the
    conference, the donors established a five-pillared security reform agenda
    and designated a donor country to take the lead in reforming each pillar.
    The United States volunteered to lead the army reform effort, and Germany
    volunteered to lead the police reform effort (see fig. 1).

    Figure 1: Five Pillars of Security Sector Reform in Afghanistan

                  Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data.

    Army	At a December 2002 conference (Bonn II) near Bonn, Germany, the
    Afghan government and the donor nations agreed that the new Afghan army
    should be ethnically balanced, voluntary, and consist of no more than
    70,000 individuals (including all civilian and Ministry of Defense
    personnel). They also agreed that the army's commands should be located in
    Kabul and other geographically strategic locations. The Afghan government
    and the donors did not set a deadline for the completion of the army.

    Following the Bonn II conference, U.S. Defense planners, in conjunction
    with Afghan officials, developed a force structure for the army that
    includes (1) 43,000 ground combat troops based in Kabul and four other
    cities, (2) 21,000 support staff organized in four sustaining commands
    (recruiting, education and training, acquisition and logistics, and
    communications and intelligence), (3) 3,000 Ministry of Defense and
    general staff personnel, and (4) 3,000 air staff to provide secure
    transportation for the President of Afghanistan.4 According to Defense,
    the mission of the new army will include providing security for
    Afghanistan's new central government and political process, replacing all
    other military forces in Afghanistan, and combating terrorists and other
    destructive elements in cooperation with coalition and peacekeeping
    forces. As of May 2005, Defense's target date for completing the army is
    the fall of 2009.

    U.S. efforts to establish the army are led by Defense, with support from
    State. The Defense-staffed Office of Military Cooperation-Afghanistan
    (OMC-A) in Kabul oversees the development of the Afghan army's force
    structure, decision processes, and garrisons, and provides equipment.
    OMC-A works closely with Task Force Phoenix, which is a joint coalition
    task force charged with training Afghan army battalions at the Kabul
    Military Training Center and elsewhere in the country. The U.S. Joint
    Chiefs of Staff and U.S. Central Command provide planning and other
    support, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is constructing facilities
    for the Afghan army's central and regional commands (see fig. 2). In
    Washington, D.C., the Defense Security Cooperation Agency uses Defense and
    State funds to provide financial and administrative support for OMC-A. The
    agency purchases services and equipment requested by OMC-A through the
    U.S. Army Security Assistance Command and transfers funds to OMC-A to
    allow it to procure services and equipment from local vendors.

    4As currently planned, the air wing would not be able to transport large
    numbers of Afghan troops from one part of the country to another.

    Figure 2: Afghan Army Commands and Police Training Centers

    Army Central Corps Kabul Police Academy Army regional commands Police
    regional training centers Kabul Military Training Center Police Central
    Training Center

    Sources: GAO analysis of Departments of Defense and State data; photos
    (GAO); Map Resources (map).

    Police	Afghanistan's police reform process began formally in February
    2002, when Germany, as the leader for this sector, convened a conference
    in Berlin to discuss international support for the Afghan police.
    Subsequently, donor nations agreed to establish a multiethnic,
    sustainable, and countrywide 62,000-member professional police service
    that is fully committed to the rule of law. The overall goal of the
    program is to enhance security in the provinces and districts outside of
    Kabul. They did not set a deadline for completing the police.

    U.S. support for the police sector is overseen by State/INL in Washington,
    D.C., and by staff at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. State has a contract with
    DynCorp Aerospace Technology to train and equip the police, advise the
    Ministry of Interior, and provide infrastructure assistance, including
    constructing several police training centers (see fig. 2). Defense has
    also provided infrastructure and equipment to police in border regions. In
    addition, Germany has a training program for police officers at the Kabul
    Police Academy and has convened several donors' conferences. Germany also
    tracks pledges and projects implemented by various donors. Furthermore,
    various donors established the United Nations' Law and Order Trust Fund
    for Afghanistan to help ensure that the police are paid regularly and are
    issued adequate equipment.

    U.S. Support	The United States has provided approximately $4.1 billion
    during fiscal years 2002 through 2005 to support the Afghan army and
    police force.5 In the President's budget request for fiscal year 2006, the
    administration has requested an additional $58.5 million for the Afghan
    police program but, according to Defense officials, no additional funds
    for the Afghan army. (See table 1.)

    5About $1.4 billion of this amount was provided during fiscal years 2002
    through 2004, of which more than $980 million had been obligated and more
    than $511 million had been expended as of January 2005. Over $1.8 billion
    of this amount is part of the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental
    which was enacted into law on May 11, 2005.

      Table 1: U.S. Support for the Afghan Army and Police, Fiscal Years 2002-2006

    Dollars in millions

    2005 2005 Supplemental 2006 Fiscal year 2002 2003 2004 (estimated)
    (estimated) (proposed) Total

    Afghan army

                    Statea $74.9 $191.4 $434.4 $421.4 $0 $0 $1,122.1

                    Defenseb 4.3 156.2 285.0 429.3 1,285.0 0 2,159.8

                   Subtotal 79.2 347.6 719.4 850.7 1,285.0 0 3,281.9

    Afghan police

         Statec       26.6    0      160.0     65.0     360.0     58.5      670.1
        Defensed         0    0       47.0     7.8      137.3         0     192.1
        Subtotal      26.6   0.0     207.0     72.8     497.3     58.5      862.2
         Total      $105.8  $347.6   $926.4   $923.5   $1,782.3  $58.5   $4,144.1

    Source: Departments of Defense and State.

    aMost of State's funds for the Afghan army come from its Foreign Military
    Financing program. Foreign Military Financing funds are administered by
    Defense through its Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which provides
    funds, equipment, and services for the army through OMC-A. State also
    supports the Afghan army through its Peace Keeping Operations program
    (from which the salaries for Afghan troops are financed) and International
    Military Education and Training program.

    bDefense funds for the Afghan army are drawn from three principal sources:

    The Afghan Freedom Support Act (P.L. 107-327), as amended, states that the
    President may exercise his drawdown authorities (as authorized under
    section 506 (A) (2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) by supplying
    Afghanistan with defense services, articles, and education "acquired by
    contract or otherwise." Under this provision, OMC-A has been given
    authority to spend U.S. Army operations and maintenance funds to train and
    equip the Afghan army. During fiscal years 2002 through 2004,
    approximately $287 million was drawn down via such contracts by Defense.
    In addition, under section 506 (A) (2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
    1961, as amended, approximately $11 million in military trucks and armored
    personnel vehicles were drawn down from Defense for the Afghan army. For
    more details on such drawdowns, see Foreign Assistance: Reporting of
    Defense Articles and Services Provided through Drawdowns Needs to Be
    Improved, GAO-02-1027 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2002).

    The Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act for Defense and for the
    Reconstruction Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004, (P.L. 108-106), and the Defense
    Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 (P.L. 108287) authorize Defense to
    use U.S. Army operations and maintenance funds for several purposes,
    including training and equipping the new Afghan armed forces. Defense has
    provided a total of $440 million in such funds for the Afghan army.

    The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War
    on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending September 30,
    2005, and for other purposes (P.L. 109-13) authorizes Defense to provide
    up to $1.285 billion in assistance to the Afghan army. Of this amount,
    $290 million will be used to reimburse the U.S. Army for costs incurred to
    train, equip, and provide related assistance to the Afghan army.

    cState has supported the Afghan police through programs managed by its
    Bureau for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Affairs. Of
    the $160 million that State provided in 2004, $50 million was drawn from
    fiscal year 2003 Emergency Response Funds.

    dDefense has supported the Afghan police with counternarcotics funding
    provided through its Office for Special Operations and Low Intensity
    Conflict, as authorized by the Emergency Supplemental

    Appropriation Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and
    Afghanistan, 2004, (P.L. 108106). Defense also drew on approximately $17
    million in Commanders Emergency Response Program funds to support police
    projects.

    Other Donor Support
    More than 40 nations and international organizations have also provided
    funds, equipment, and training to support the Afghan army and police. As
    of March 2005, other donors had provided about $193 million to supplement
    U.S. efforts to create the Afghan army and about $246 million for
    reconstituting the Afghan police. (See app. II for more information on
    other donors' support for the army and police.)

        Allied and multilateral forces

    Pending the creation of functioning Afghan army and police forces, more
    than 28,000 foreign troops operate in Afghanistan. These include about
    18,000 U.S. troops, an estimated 1,900 troops from other members of the
    coalition, and over 8,300 peacekeepers from the North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization (NATO). In August 2003, NATO assumed control over the
    International Security Assistance Force in response to a United Nations'
    mandate to provide security in the Kabul area and to support the
    reconstruction of Afghanistan. In addition, NATO's members agreed to begin
    establishing provincial reconstruction teams in northern and western
    Afghanistan. Although NATO has had difficulty persuading nations to
    provide the resources needed for these teams, it has established seven
    provincial reconstruction teams. After taking control of a team sponsored
    by Germany in Kabul, NATO announced in June 2004 that it would also assume
    control of four additional teams in northern Afghanistan. These teams are
    sponsored by the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. British and
    German officials informed us that their teams focus primarily on
    reconstruction and have limited roles in providing direct security for
    local Afghans and in working with the Afghan army and police. On May 31,
    2005, NATO took control of two additional provincial reconstruction teams
    in western Afghanistan. They are sponsored by Italy and the United States.

      U.S. Training of Afghan Combat Troops Has Outpaced Efforts to Equip and
      Sustain Them

    Defense, with the government of Afghanistan, has established programs for
    recruiting and training battalions of Afghan combat troops. OMC-A
    significantly accelerated Afghan combat troop training in 2004, and over
    42 percent of the army's total projected combat strength of 43,000
    soldiers was deployed throughout the country. However, OMC-A's efforts to
    fully equip the increasing number of combat troops have fallen behind. In
    addition, OMC-A's efforts to establish the institutions needed to support
    these troops have not kept pace, and plans for their completion are not
    clear. Despite some shortcomings, OMC-A personnel and the embedded
    trainers we met with told us that Afghan combat troops have generally
    performed well under U.S. supervision.

        The United States Has Established Recruiting Effort

    Defense, in conjunction with the government of Afghanistan, is
    establishing recruiting stations in each of Afghanistan's 34 provinces. To
    help ensure that the army is ethnically balanced, Defense attempts to form
    new battalions6 for training with volunteers drawn from Afghanistan's
    major ethnic groups.7 Information provided by OMC-A indicates that the
    army as a whole generally reflects the country's balance of major ethnic
    groups.8

    While many of those initially recruited left the army before competing
    their terms, by late 2004 the army's attrition rate had dropped to 1.1
    percent per month.9 While attrition appears to have abated, U.S. and
    Afghan officials told us that soldiers often leave their units without
    permission for as long as 2 weeks to take their pay home to their
    families. The officials attributed these unauthorized absences to the lack
    of an Afghan national banking

    6An Afghan battalion consists of about 610 men.

    7According to Defense officials, volunteers are vetted through community
    elders and State. Ex-militia fighters may enlist on an individual basis,
    but United Nations reports indicate that less than 2 percent had done so
    as of February 2005.

    8According to the U.S. government, as of January 2004, the ethnic
    composition of the Afghan population was 42 percent Pashtun, 27 percent
    Tajik, 9 percent Hazara, 9 percent Uzbek, and 13 percent "other."
    According to OMC-A, as of February 15, 2005, the ethnic composition of the
    Afghan army was 49 percent Pashtun, 21 percent Tajik, 6 percent Hazara, 3
    percent Uzbek, and 22 percent "other" (the total of the individual
    percentages is greater than 100 percent due to rounding). Individual units
    vary in their ethnic balance. According to OMC-A, at least two battalions
    have no or very few Uzbek troops.

    9Defense fielding plans for the army assume an attrition rate of 2 percent
    per month. Soldiers absent for more than 60 days are dropped from the
    army's rolls.

    system and the absence of significant penalties for such absences from the
    volunteer Afghan army.

        Army Troops Receive Basic and Field Training

    OMC-A and Task Force Phoenix have established programs for training Afghan
    army troops in battalions at locations including the Kabul Military
    Training Center (see fig. 3) and in the field. Battalions now receive 14
    weeks of training at the center and elsewhere, including training for
    officers and noncommissioned officers. According to Joint Chiefs of Staff
    planners, this training includes 6 weeks of basic training, 6 weeks of
    advanced individual training, and 2 weeks of collective training. The
    program also includes training on human rights and the laws of war, as
    well as specialized training for some troops in tank maintenance,
    logistics, and medical skills. OMC-A and Task Force Phoenix officials
    informed us that the Afghan army now conducts basic training classes. U.S.
    officials also stated that France and the United Kingdom have helped train
    Afghan army personnel.

                        Figure 3: Kabul Military Training Center

                                      Source: GAO.

    Training at the Center is followed by training in the field. OMC-A embeds
    a team of U.S. trainers and mentors in each battalion to help achieve full
    operational capability. The embedded team accompanies the battalion into
    the field and provides leadership, tactical training, and logistical
    support. As originally envisioned, embedded trainer teams were to include
    16 U.S. officers and noncommissioned officers and remain with battalions
    for 2 years.

        Defense Accelerated Training

    At OMC-A's recommendation, Defense accelerated its training of Afghan
    combat troops throughout 2004 by more than doubling the number of
    battalions in basic training at a given time. As a result, OMC-A had
    deployed more than 42 percent of the army's total projected combat
    strength at commands throughout the country as of March 2005. OMC-A
    projects that it will complete basic training for all 43,000 combat troops
    by the fall of 2007.

    Defense time frames for building the Afghan army were in flux throughout
    2004. As security concerns persisted, OMC-A accelerated the training and
    fielding of combat troops.10 In January 2004, OMC-A increased the number
    of battalions in training at one time from two to three; in May 2004, it
    began training four battalions; and, as of the end of January 2005, it was
    training five. These concerns also prompted Defense and the Afghan
    government to change their plans for establishing the army's four regional
    commands. At the beginning of 2004, they had planned to establish the four
    regional commands in sequence, with the fourth command to be established
    in 2006. By May 2004, Defense and the Afghan government had decided to
    establish all four regional commands by the end of September 2004, with as
    few as 150 troops stationed at each one.

    According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff planning staff, as of March 2005,
    more than 18,300 troops-over 42 percent of the army's total projected
    combat strength of 43,000 men-had completed basic training. Having fully
    staffed the Kabul central command with about 10,500 troops, OMC-A assigned
    the remaining 7,800 troops to the four regional commands.11 It plans to
    field

    10The security concerns included factional unrest in Herat in March and
    August 2004, as well as violence preceding Afghanistan's first-ever
    democratic presidential election in October 2004.

    11The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is constructing facilities at these
    locations. As of January 2005, funding provided to the Corps for this
    effort totaled $740 million.

    combat troops to the regional commands as quickly as possible to provide
    more security for Afghanistan's parliamentary elections (currently planned
    for September 2005). Accordingly, it increased the number of combat troops
    assigned to regional commands by more than 18 percent between February and
    March 2005.

    In early 2005, OMC-A projected that it would complete basic training for
    the remaining 24,700 combat troops by the fall of 2007 if it continued to
    train five battalions at once. However, in May 2005, OMC-A proposed
    increasing the number of combat troops in the planned force structure from
    43,000 to 46,000 and projected that it could train the additional 3,000
    combat troops by the fall of 2007. Although OMC-A is seeking permission to
    begin training six battalions at once, it has not been able to fully equip
    the units already trained and faces a shortage of embedded trainers.

        Afghan Army Is Experiencing Equipment Shortages

    According to U.S. Defense and Afghan army personnel, Afghan army units are
    experiencing equipment shortages. U.S. embedded trainers and other defense
    personnel informed us that Afghan soldiers have had to cope with shortages
    of useable uniforms, boots, communications gear, infantry weapons,
    ammunition, and vehicles.12 Embedded trainers provided us with examples of
    poorly made uniforms and boots and told us that Afghan army units must use
    old and often faulty small arms and ammunition. OMC-A logistics personnel
    confirmed that Afghan battalions do not have needed vehicles. Embedded
    trainers told us that the equipment shortages have negatively affected the
    army's effectiveness and discipline.

    OMC-A is responsible for managing efforts to supply the army's rapidly
    growing combat element needed equipment, but it has had difficulty
    establishing requirements and complying with security assistance
    procedures to fulfill those requirements. Defense Security Cooperation
    Agency and U.S. Army Security Assistance Command personnel informed us
    that in many cases OMC-A had not provided them with adequately prepared
    requests and forecasts of future requirements in a timely manner. For
    example, Defense Security Cooperation Agency staff noted that OMC-A

    12One embedded trainer informed us that he has had to rely on a cell phone
    that he purchased at a U.S. retail outlet to communicate with his unit
    during operations.

    required almost a year to establish specific requirements for a standard
    light tactical vehicle to transport Afghan troops.13

    OMC-A and other Defense personnel told us that several factors complicate
    OMC-A's efforts to project the army's requirements and to use the defense
    security assistance process. These include the numerous changes that OMC-A
    made in its plans to build the army, including accelerating the number of
    battalions in training and establishing the regional commands
    simultaneously in 2004. OMC-A officials also noted that the involvement of
    nascent Afghan army units in combat and the lack of historical data on
    material usage rates further complicated their efforts to project
    requirements. In addition, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, U.S. Army
    Security Assistance Command, and State officials in Washington, D.C., and
    OMC-A officials told us that OMC-A has not had adequate numbers of
    personnel trained in security assistance procedures to support its
    efforts. OMC-A officials stated that OMC-A has never been staffed at more
    than about 71 percent of its approved personnel level.14 They also noted
    that Defense efforts to train OMC-A personnel in defense security
    assistance procedures and preserve the institutional knowledge of lessons
    learned from former personnel are constrained by the rotation of Air
    Force, Navy, and Marine personnel from OMC-A after as few as 4 months.15

    To address some shortages of needed equipment, OMC-A bought items directly
    from non-U.S. vendors.16 However, it sometimes purchased faulty items
    because it did not take adequate steps to ensure their quality. For
    example, OMC-A purchased combat boots from regional vendors to support the
    new higher basic training rate of five battalions. OMC-A

    13The light tactical vehicle is essentially a modified pickup truck that
    would replace four different types of vehicles now used by the army. These
    vehicles were donated by the United Arab Emirates, Germany, and Greece.
    OMC-A officials told us that these donations helped fill the Afghan army's
    early requirement for transportation but are now complicating the army's
    logistics situation.

    14At the time of our work in Afghanistan, Defense had allocated OMC-A 211
    military positions and 95 contractor and civilian positions.

    15According to OMC-A, Air Force personnel were assigned to Afghanistan for
    4 months, Navy and Marine Corps personnel for 6 months, and Army personnel
    for 12 months. Defense officials in the United States informed us that Air
    Force personnel may now be assigned to fill certain critical positions for
    as long as 12 months.

    16OMC-A requested and received offshore procurement waivers between fiscal
    years 2002 and 2005 to spend up to $596 million to procure non-U.S. items
    overseas.

    officials told us that many boots proved to be defective because OMC-A had
    given vendors too much latitude in filling their contracts. U.S. trainers
    told us that Afghan troops sometimes wore sandals during operations in
    mountainous, difficult terrain because their boots had failed (see fig.
    4). OMC-A personnel informed us that they now use a broader array of local
    vendors, set more stringent specifications, and employ Afghan civilians to
    inspect the quality of locally procured goods.

    Figure 4: Defective Boot Purchased Locally and an Afghan Soldier Wearing
    Sandals

    Defense has also experienced difficulties in obtaining adequate supplies
    of serviceable Soviet-era equipment. Early in the Afghan army program,
    Defense decided to equip the army with donated and salvaged Soviet weapons
    and armored vehicles. It did so because (1) such equipment was widely used
    by the former Afghan army and by Afghan militias and (2) several coalition
    nations once allied with the former Soviet Union were willing to provide
    equipment from their arsenals. However, much of the donated and salvaged
    equipment proved to be worn out, defective, or incompatible with other
    equipment. For example, Defense officials abandoned plans to use Soviet
    armored personnel carriers after they determined that the vehicles had
    been manufactured to differing standards depending on the country of
    origin. Defense and State officials also informed us that the
    demobilization of Afghan militias had yielded fewer serviceable Soviet
    AK-47 assault rifles and ammunition caches than

    anticipated. In response, OMC-A has cannibalized serviceable parts from
    the assault rifles obtained to make usable weapons and has purchased more
    weapons than originally planned. Defense and State officials informed us
    that they are stepping up efforts to obtain donations of serviceable arms.

        Number of Embedded Trainers Does Not Meet Needs

    OMC-A's acceleration of the number of battalions in basic training has
    strained its embedded trainer team program. By increasing the number of
    battalions in training from four to five, OMC-A's requirement for embedded
    trainers increased from about 410 to nearly 700. Because it was unable to
    obtain the additional trainers from the military services in a timely
    manner, Task Force Phoenix reassigned officers from other duties in
    Afghanistan. It also temporarily reduced the number of embedded trainers
    assigned to a battalion from 16 to 12.

    According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff`s Afghanistan desk, another 192
    trainers will be needed if OMC-A increases the number of battalions in
    basic training to six. Because individuals with the skills needed to serve
    as trainers are in demand in other theaters, increasing the training rate
    to six battalions could require Defense to reassign U.S. personnel in
    Afghanistan to serve as embedded trainers.17

    OMC-A's need for more embedded trainers could further increase if it
    determines that individual battalions are not yet ready to operate without
    trainers. While some battalions have already operated with embedded
    trainers for longer than the initially planned 2-year period, OMC-A has
    not yet fully implemented recently developed criteria for assessing a
    battalion's readiness to operate without trainers. As of May 2005, none of
    the Afghan battalions had graduated from the embedded trainer program.

        Sustaining Institutions Are Lagging and Plans for Their Completion Are Not
        Clear

    OMC-A's efforts to establish sustaining institutions (such as an
    acquisition and logistics command) needed to support the combat troops
    have not kept pace with the accelerated basic training program. The Afghan
    army currently consists almost entirely of infantry forces that cannot
    sustain themselves. At the beginning of 2005, Defense planners envisioned
    that the

    17Defense officials informed us that NATO members may contribute embedded
    trainers in the future.

    army would need 21,000 support personnel in four sustaining commands to
    provide essential services to the army's combat elements. However, as of
    March 2005, it had assigned only 1,300 personnel to the sustaining
    commands. In an apparent attempt to address this shortfall, OMC-A
    proposed, in May 2005, that the number of personnel assigned to these
    commands be reduced from 21,000 to 14,000 and that the time frames for
    completing these commands be extended from the end of 2008 to the fall of
    2009.

    Without fully functioning sustaining commands, the Afghan army will
    continue to rely on OMC-A, embedded trainers, and other U.S. military
    forces for acquisition, logistics, communications, and other key support
    functions. OMC-A informed us that it would continue to sustain the Afghan
    army on an interim basis to ensure the rapid introduction of Afghan army
    combat units. According to Defense officials, they plan to use $210
    million from the 2005 emergency supplemental to help ensure that the
    sustaining commands can keep pace with the fielding of combat units.

    To ensure that the Afghan army's combat elements are fully trained and
    supplied and can readily communicate with one another, OMC-A would have to
    recruit, train, and organize at least 12,000 individuals for the
    sustaining commands. To ease the difficulty of doing so in a largely
    illiterate country that has had little exposure to U.S. logistical
    practices, OMC-A may recruit former militia fighters with logistics
    experience. However, Defense plans for ensuring that these sustaining
    commands are fully functional by the fall of 2009 are not clear. Defense
    has not yet adopted plans that would guide OMC-A's efforts to complete
    these commands nor have Defense planners in the United States and OMC-A
    reached agreement on an overall concept of operations for the Afghan army.

        Afghan Troops Said to Perform Well Despite Shortcomings

    Defense officials in Afghanistan, including representatives of the U.S.
    combat operations command, told us that U.S.-trained Afghan troops had
    accompanied U.S. forces in operations against terrorist groups, helped
    restore stability in Herat in response to riots and clashes between
    militias, assisted in providing security for Afghanistan's first
    democratic presidential election, and protected army infrastructure
    construction sites around Afghanistan. U.S. embedded trainers we met with
    near Kabul and in Herat, as well as U.S. combat officers, praised the
    quality, morale, and motivation of the Afghan troops in conducting these
    operations. For example, they noted the speed with which Afghan units were
    able to

    mobilize for transportation to Herat and their ability to quell civilian
    rioters.18 The commander of OMC-A told us that coalition forces have
    sought out opportunities to work with Afghan troops. According to U.S.
    embedded trainers and OMC-A officials, the multiethnic Afghan army units
    typically have developed good relations with Afghan citizens in different
    parts of the country. None reported significant evidence of ethnic discord
    within the army. However, U.S. Defense personnel informed us that Afghan
    troops and officers have not yet gained significant experience in
    battalion	level operations. They also noted the army's command processes
    are limited by the high rate of illiteracy among the troops.

      Difficult Conditions Have Hampered Reconstituting of Police and State Does Not
      Have an Overall Plan to Complete the Effort

    Germany-the lead nation for rebuilding the Afghan police-and the United
    States have trained thousands of Afghanistan police officers and patrolmen
    and expect to meet training targets for end of 2005. However, many
    trainees return to difficult working conditions, including police stations
    where resources are inadequate and militia leaders are still the principal
    authority, and they receive limited opportunities for follow-up training
    or mentoring. Furthermore, Afghan's Ministry of the Interior, which
    oversees the Afghan police, faces pervasive problems that require reform
    or restructuring. Finally, neither State nor Germany has an overall plan
    delineating what is needed to complete the rebuilding of the police
    sector.

                     Donors Expect to Meet Police Training Targets

    As of January 2005, Germany and the United States had trained more than
    35,000 national, highway, and border police, and they expect to meet the
    overall goal of training 62,00019 by December 2005 (see table 2). The
    United States initiated its police training program in Afghanistan in 2003
    because of concerns that the German training program was moving too slowly
    and was concentrating on officers. Initially, the U.S. program focused on
    training police patrolmen (and some women) to establish a national police
    presence for the Afghan presidential elections.20 The U.S. program has

    18In 2004, Afghan troops were flown to Herat on U.S. military and allied
    aircraft.

    19The target numbers were derived by considering the security needs and
    population density of geographic areas, as well as the expected
    organizational structure of the police.

    20More than 20,000 police were trained before the Afghan presidential
    elections in October 2004.

    emphasized meeting specific training targets set by the Afghan government
    in consultation with U.S. and German governments.21

    Table 2: Number of Afghan Police Reported Trained as of January 2005 and
    Training Targets for December 2005

                                            Police reported
                                    trained as of January     Training target for
               Afghan police rolea                    2005b         December 2005
                   National police                   33,903                47,400
                    Highway police                      220                 2,600
                     Border police                    1,151                12,000
                             Total                   35,274                62,000

    Source: State/INL data (includes German officer training data).

    aNational police fill the traditional role of community law enforcement.
    Highway police focus on road security outside of Kabul. Border police are
    responsible for border protection and control.

    bState/INL could not readily identify the numbers of officers versus
    patrolmen and women by police role.

    The United States employs a "train the trainer" approach. More than 800
    Afghans who have completed a 3-week instructor development course conduct
    the training with DynCorp advisors. The basic training consists of an
    8-week course for new recruits and a 2-week program for veteran police.
    Highway and border police receive 2 weeks of additional specialized
    training. U.S. trainers have also developed a shortened training program
    to accommodate illiterate recruits. According to State/INL and DynCorp
    officials, the Afghan police trainees are generally eager to learn and
    they support the idea of a national police force dedicated to the rule of
    law. In addition, according to these officials, attrition rates have been
    low.

    Germany's chief role in rebuilding the police has been to refurbish the
    Kabul Police Academy near Kabul and establish a permanent training program
    there for commissioned and noncommissioned Afghan police officers.22 The
    program, which began in August 2002, provides 3 years of

    21The United States assumed responsibility for the border police when
    Norway and Germany did not follow through on commitments to provide the
    training. Norway provided some funding for the renovation of the border
    police academy.

    22Commissioned and noncommissioned officers constitute the police's upper
    and intermediate ranks, respectively, while patrolmen are lower level.

    training for officers and 1 year of training for noncommissioned officers.
    According to a German Ministry of Interior official, as of January 2005,
    41 officers and 2,583 noncommissioned officers had completed the full
    German program, and an additional 4,880 commissioned and noncommissioned
    officers had received short-term specialized training. According to this
    same official, Germany plans to train an additional 4,950 commissioned and
    noncommissioned officers at the Academy and the regional training centers
    by December 2005.

    Although the Bonn II agreement calls for a multiethnic police force, the
    Afghan government, Germany, and the United States do not track the
    ethnicity of police trainees. German and State officials reported that
    they had received no complaints about the ethnic composition of police
    units or deployments or their interaction with minority populations.
    However, neither had systematically surveyed the impact of ethnicity on
    police performance, relying instead on anecdotal accounts.

    DynCorp completed construction of the Central Training Center for Police
    in Kabul in May 2003, and in 2004 it constructed and began training at
    seven regional centers across the country. (Fig. 5 shows the police
    training center in Jalalabad, Afghanistan.) The Department of Justice's
    International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program developed
    the curriculums, which include such topics as crime investigation,
    operational police skills, and human rights.

    Figure 5: Police Regional Training Center in Jalalabad-Dining Facility and
    Classroom Building

    Source: GAO.

                        Police Face Difficult Working Conditions

    A number of difficult conditions hamper the effort to rebuild the police
    in Afghanistan. Newly trained police often return to community police
    stations staffed by poorly trained, illiterate conscripts or former
    militia members who have little loyalty to the central government.
    According to State/INL and Defense officials, many of the untrained
    officers remain loyal to local militias in an environment dominated by
    ethnic loyalties. Working with untrained colleagues, newly trained
    policemen often find it difficult to apply the principles they learned
    during training. For example, according to several DynCorp trainers, some
    recently trained police were forced to give their new equipment to more
    senior police and were pressured by their commanders to participate in
    extorting money from truck drivers and travelers. U.S. and other donor
    officials told us that many police resort to corrupt practices, in part
    because their salaries are low and inconsistently paid. The Afghan
    Ministry of the Interior has limited awareness over police operations
    outside of Kabul and has not systematically vetted existing police staff
    for human rights violations or corruption, which complicates the
    ministry's efforts to support and oversee the police.

    In addition, police across Afghanistan confront shortages of equipment.
    According to a 2002 German government assessment, less than 10 percent of
    the police had adequate equipment, and U.S. and other donor government
    officials noted that the police are often outgunned by militias,
    criminals, and drug traffickers because they lack adequate numbers of
    weapons or ammunition supplies. According to DynCorp, the Ministry of the
    Interior has approximately 36,500 serviceable rifles and pistols on hand,
    mainly seized weapons. DynCorp officials estimate that the police need an
    additional 48,500 side arms, 10,000 automatic rifles, and 6,250 machine
    guns. Through March 2005, trainees were not receiving firearms training,
    because the United States and the other donors had not yet provided
    weapons and ammunition. Further, DynCorp officials estimated that the
    Afghan national police have approximately 3,000 serviceable vehicles and
    require an additional 7,400 vehicles. Most police do not perform routine
    patrols because they lack adequate numbers of vehicles and the fuel to
    operate them. State/INL officials reported that police often rely on
    civilian complainants for transportation during law enforcement
    investigations.

    Moreover, poor infrastructure conditions hamper police work. According to
    the 2002 German government assessment, approximately 80 percent of police
    infrastructure was destroyed. According to a Defense estimate, varying
    degrees of construction or renovation are needed for more than 800
    buildings among Afghanistan's provincial police stations, district police
    and border police brigade stations, and subdistrict and village level
    stations.23 State/INL officials reported that criminal suspects are
    sometimes detained in private residences because most police stations lack
    secure holding facilities or reliable electricity and drinking water and
    have only rudimentary office furniture and equipment. On our visit to a
    Jalalabad police station (see fig. 6), we observed prisoners in a communal
    holding facility with dirt floors and rudimentary toilet facilities. We
    also noted that police manning a nearby guard tower were sleeping outside
    between their shifts.

    23The fiscal year 2004 supplemental provided Defense's Office for Special
    Operations and Low Intensity Conflict $73 million to support Afghan border
    security, law enforcement, and counter narcotics efforts. The program was
    refocused in the spring of 2004 to concentrate on police infrastructure
    and capabilities in southern and southeastern Afghanistan.

                           Figure 6: Jalalabad Police Station

    In early 2005, DynCorp deployed police trainers to the field for the first
    time-12 outside of Kabul and 4 at a district headquarters in Kabul.
    International peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor have
    shown that such training is critical to the success of similar programs.24
    Field-based training and mentoring allows trainers to build on classroom

    24According to officials from the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping
    Operations, field-based training of local police by international police
    trainers was key to establishing professional police forces in these
    countries.

                                      Source: GAO.

    In addition, although the U.S. government recently constructed a
    communication network that links the provincial headquarters with the
    Ministry of Interior, police at the provincial, district, and subdistrict
    levels are generally unable to communicate with police in other locations.
    DynCorp officials estimate that the police need 420 base radios for
    district and border stations, more than 10,400 mobile-vehicle mounted
    radios, and 20,700 hand-held radios.

        Limited Follow-Up Training, Mentoring, or Evaluation of Trainees

    instruction and provide a more systematic basis for evaluating police
    performance. Nevertheless, the German, U.S., and Afghan governments have
    only limited ability to evaluate police trainees' performance after
    graduation-especially in the more remote areas of Afghanistan. State/INL
    officials cited the high costs, the security threat to training personnel
    stationed in the field, and the difficulty of recruiting sufficient
    numbers of international police as impediments to implementing a
    countrywide field	based program. OMC-A estimates a first-year cost for
    implementing a countrywide training and mentoring program at approximately
    $160 million.

    Nonetheless, U.S. government and other donor officials reported overall
    improvements in police performance since the training programs began and
    noted that public attitudes toward the police are becoming more positive.
    According to U.S. officials, police played a stabilizing role before and
    during the presidential elections in October 2004. For example, according
    to U.S. military personnel, police confiscated weapons and explosives in
    12 separate incidents on election day in Jalalabad. However, according to
    OMC-A officials, police failed to control a riot that occurred after the
    Afghan government removed the provincial governor from power in Herat in
    August 2004. As a result, the Afghan army was called in to restore order.

        Afghan Ministry of the Interior Undergoing Reform

    The Afghan Ministry of the Interior, which is responsible for managing the
    country's national police force, faces a number of problems that require
    reform or restructuring. According to State/INL and DynCorp officials,
    these problems include pervasive corruption; an outdated rank structure
    overburdened with senior level officers; lack of communication and control
    between central command and the regions, provinces, and districts; pay
    disparity between the army and the police; and a lack of professional
    standards and internal discipline. To address these problems, State
    embedded 30 DynCorp advisors within the ministry at the end of 2004 and
    drafted a comprehensive reform program. According to ministry and State
    officials, the reform package was accepted by the Afghan Government, and
    implementation has begun. The ministry adopted a new, streamlined
    organizational structure to address command and control problems,
    including a new rank structure with salaries commensurate with
    responsibilities. The ministry also created a professional standards unit
    (similar to an internal affairs unit) that is responsible for disciplining
    corrupt or underachieving officers throughout the police force. DynCorp
    officials stated that the operation of this unit will be critical to the
    success

    of the police reform effort. However, according to DynCorp officials, the
    overall reform program will require more than a year to implement and will
    not produce results across the country for several years.

    The Ministry of the Interior has not yet reformed its police pay system.
    Patrolmen generally are paid $30 to $50 per month, less than the $70 per
    month new army recruits are paid and often less than day laborers can earn
    on construction sites. According to DynCorp officials, patrolmen's
    salaries are insufficient to support a family's living expenses and often
    cause policemen to resort to corruption to augment their income. Ministry
    officials told us that they are aware that low salaries are hurting the
    professionalism of the police force and that they are working to institute
    a new salary structure.

        State and Germany Do Not Have an Overall Plan for Reconstituting the Afghan
        National Police

    In 2003, Germany developed a strategy paper that assessed the condition of
    the police and proposed ways to reconstituting the police sector. However,
    this strategy was not widely circulated and was not adopted by other
    donors, including the United States; State/INL officials told us that they
    could not provide us a copy of the German strategy because they did not
    possess a copy themselves. According to cognizant German officials,
    Germany has viewed its role as one of advising and consulting with other
    donors and the Afghan government rather than as the major implementer or
    funding source for the police sector.

    State has not developed a plan for addressing the overall requirement of
    equipping and fielding a fully functioning police force by a stated end
    date. Budget estimates produced (at our request) by DynCorp provide a
    partial listing of essential elements for building the police-personnel,
    equipment, facilities and communication equipment-through 2006 that totals
    more than $580 million. However, State has not specified how or when these
    equipment purchases and construction projects will be completed; what
    additional infrastructure, equipment, and training are needed; how much
    the total buildup of the police will cost; and when the overall effort to
    build the Afghan police will be finished.

    In addition, State did not have adequate staff in Kabul to manage the
    day-to	day activities of the police program, hampering State's effort to
    plan for and execute the rebuilding of the Afghan police. In 2003, the
    U.S. Embassy in Kabul had one full-time staff member assigned to manage
    the police program. When this person left to take another position with
    the Afghan Ministry of the Interior, State used a series of temporary duty
    staff in 2004

    and 2005 to manage the program, employing one temporary staff member for
    more than 6 months to manage both the Embassy's police and
    counternarcotics programs.25 According to the temporary-duty official,
    because of understaffing she was limited in her ability to oversee and
    monitor the program, dependent on DynCorp contractors for progress reports
    and management support, and unable to attend many donor and other
    coordination meetings. In January 2005, to help address this problem,
    State/INL established a Narcotics Affairs Section in Kabul to oversee the
    U.S. police and counternarcotics programs. At the time, one full-time U.S.
    direct-hire employee and one personal services contractor were assigned.

    Efforts to Complete The United States, other donors, and the new Afghan
    government face

    significant challenges to their plans to establish viable Afghan army and
    and Sustain the Afghan police forces. Completing and sustaining the army
    and police will cost Army and Police Face several billion dollars over the
    next decade. Moreover, slow progress in Major Challenges resolving other
    Afghan security problems could undermine the prospects

    for effective army and police forces.

        Long-Term Costs Unclear but Likely to Be Substantial

    Defense and State have not clearly defined the long-term costs of
    completing the army and police programs. However, available information
    suggests that these institutions could cost up to $7.2 billion to complete
    and about $600 million per year to sustain.

    o
    Defense has not clearly defined the cost of completing the Afghan army.
    However, in November 2004, OMC-A officials indicated that completing the
    army could cost another $5.4 billion (in fiscal year 2005 dollars).26
    Future funding would be used to fully supply the Afghan army with
    equipment and vehicles; train Afghan troops; complete the regional and
    sustaining commands; and provide the capability to safely transport the
    Afghan president by air. However, these funds would not suffice to provide
    the army with the capability to airlift large numbers of troops

    25By contrast, Defense's Combined Forces Command had assigned up to 10
    personnel to a law enforcement planning cell to prepare for a possible
    Defense role in the police buildup.

    26OMC-A officials stated that the total cost of the army program would be
    at least $7 billion. The United States and other donors have already
    provided approximately $1.6 billion for the army through fiscal year 2004.

    from one part of the country to another. OMC-A officials told us that
    adding this capability could cost as much as $3 billion.27

    o
    State has not clearly defined the cost of reconstituting the police.
    However, our analysis of State and Defense planning documents suggest that
    completing the police program could cost between $800 million and $1.8
    billion.28 Most of these funds would pay for construction and equipment,
    including more than $500 million to construct police stations and
    buildings; about $100 million for trucks, buses, and other vehicles; and
    more than $85 million to provide each patrolman a weapon, uniform,
    ammunition, and related gear.

    Similarly, Defense and State have not clearly defined the annual cost of
    sustaining the completed army and police forces. OMC-A officials and Joint
    Chiefs of Staff planners told us that sustaining the completed Afghan army
    could cost at least $420 million (in 2005 dollars) annually. The majority
    of these costs would be for general equipment repair, maintenance,
    supplies, medical support, salaries, and food. DynCorp police planning
    documents project that maintaining police force operations could cost $180
    million annually (in 2005 dollars). Of this amount, about $100 million
    would cover personnel costs. The rest would pay for fuel, vehicle
    replacement and maintenance, ammunition, and facilities upkeep.

    The United States has not committed to pay for creating and sustaining the
    army and police. To date, the United States has been the major contributor
    to Afghan's security sector reform, providing about 90 percent of funding
    for the Afghan army and the largest share of funding for police,
    judiciary, and counternarcotics efforts. At the same time, other nations
    have not demonstrated the willingness to provide the funds that may be
    needed to complete and sustain these forces. For example, while the United
    States has provided the $277 million it pledged at a 2004 police donor
    conference, as of March 2005, the other donor nations had provided only
    about half of the $73 million that they pledged at the same conference.
    Also, donors have provided the United Nations Law and Order Trust Fund for
    Afghanistan

    27Adding a larger air wing would also require English-language training
    for a greater number of Afghans if the air wing were equipped with U.S.
    manufactured aircraft.

    28The higher estimate includes an expanded field-based training program,
    additional civilian staffing, an aviation capacity, and a doubling of the
    Afghan border police from the current plan of 12,000 to 24,000.

    with about $60 million of the $149 million pledged for April 2004 through
    March 2005.

        Slow Progress in Addressing Other Pillars Could Undermine Afghan Security

    Afghanistan Lacks Effective Judicial Sector

    The ability to field fully functioning Afghan army and police forces is
    dependent on concurrent success in the other security sector reform
    pillars. The lack of an effective judicial sector, the substantial illicit
    narcotics industry, and the continued existence of armed militias
    threatens to undermine overall progress toward providing nationwide
    security and the stability of the Afghan government.

    Establishing a working judiciary based on the rule of law is a
    prerequisite for effective policing. However, according to donor
    officials, few linkages exist between the judiciary and the police, and
    the police have little ability to enforce judicial judgments. In addition,
    judges and prosecutors are not being exposed to police training and
    practices, and the police training curriculum does not include instruction
    on criminal law and procedure. Moreover, according to U.S. embassy
    officials, the Afghan judiciary has not yet acquired the political
    authority needed to adjudicate a criminal or drug case against a
    high-level political or warlord figure.

    Supported by the United States, other donors, and international
    organizations, Italy-the lead nation for reforming the judiciary-has
    followed a three-pronged strategy: (1) developing and drafting legal
    codes, (2) training judges and prosecutors, and (3) renovating the
    country's physical legal infrastructure. The Italian government has
    provided approximately $10 million annually to support the judicial
    reform, and the United States has provided approximately $28 million for
    fiscal years 2003 through 2004. However, according to Italian and U.S.
    government officials, the reform program is under funded and understaffed.

    Italy and the other donors have made some progress in promoting reform.
    These include drafting a new criminal procedure code, training several
    hundred judges, and renovating courthouses. However, these accomplishments
    address only a small portion of Afghanistan's overall need for judicial
    reform. Afghanistan's judicial sector is currently characterized by a
    conflicting mix of civil, religious, and customary laws, with few trained
    judges, prosecutors, or other justice personnel. Furthermore, its penal
    system is nonfunctioning, and its buildings, official records, and
    essential office equipment and furniture have been damaged extensively.
    U.S. and donor officials informed us that progress in rebuilding the
    judicial sector lags far behind the other security pillars and that the

    Illicit Narcotics Industry Threatens GovernmentAuthority

    reform effort is being undermined by systemic corruption at key national
    and provincial justice institutions.

    The production and trafficking of illicit narcotics poses a serious
    challenge to the Afghan government's authority. According to the United
    Nations, Afghanistan produces almost 90 percent of the world's illicit
    opium, generating revenues equivalent to about 60 percent of Afghanistan's
    gross domestic product for 2003. According to State, narcotics revenues
    breed corruption at virtually all levels of the Afghan government while
    providing resources to Taliban remnants, drug lords, and other terrorist
    groups. Solving the narcotics problem in Afghanistan is widely seen as
    critical to achieving security in Afghanistan.

    The United Kingdom is leading international counternarcotics efforts in
    Afghanistan and is trying to persuade other nations to contribute to a new
    Afghan counternarcotics trust fund. From 2002 to 2004, the United States
    obligated approximately $380 million and assisted the counternarcotics
    efforts by training Afghan narcotics interdiction units, constructing
    border and highway checkpoint facilities, and supplying operational
    support and nonlethal equipment to Afghan eradication teams. For fiscal
    year 2005, the United States has provided about $966 million for a
    counternarcotics program that includes public information, alternative
    livelihoods, law enforcement, interdiction, and eradication campaigns. The
    goal of the new U.S. program is to ensure that narcotics production and
    drug trade do not subvert efforts to rebuild the Afghan police and army.

    Although the president of Afghanistan took several counternarcotics
    initiatives at the end of 2004,29 the decree banning opium production has
    been weakened by the Afghan government's lack of a transparent criminal
    justice system and the underequipped, decentralized police force. The
    Afghan government's eradication force and provincial forces have
    undertaken only marginal crop destruction in a few locations. U.S.
    officials stated that these eradication efforts have had no material
    effect on the quantity of opium produced. In addition, U.S. proposals for
    large-scale aerial eradication programs have been resisted by Afghan
    government officials and other international donors. According to U.S.
    officials, opium

    29Two days after Afghanistan's December 2004 presidential inauguration,
    the president of Afghanistan launched a counternarcotics campaign. The
    president appointed a cabinet-level minister for counternarcotics and
    created a subcabinet interagency working group that includes the Afghan
    counternarcotics, interior, finance, and rural development ministries.

    is being produced in record amounts in all 34 provinces, and a centrally
    trained and directed Afghan counternarcotics force would likely face
    significant opposition from provincial drug lords and many citizens.
    Although U.S. and internationally sustained counternarcotics and security
    programs could potentially reduce the amount of opium produced over time,
    State officials expect that drug processing and trafficking will continue
    until security is established.

    Militias Have Not Been Fully Although the number of known militia fighters
    has been reduced in recent

    Reintegrated
    months, the disarming, demobilizing, and reintegrating of members of
    Afghanistan's once-dominant militias is not complete. While many militias
    are under the nominal authority of the Afghan Defense Ministry, they pose
    a threat to the stability of the Afghan government and its ability to
    extend control throughout Afghanistan. Of concern, according to Japanese
    officials, is that former combatants may be attracted by the higher
    salaries provided by militia leaders in the illegal narcotics industry.

    To help the Afghan government disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate militia
    fighters, donor nations established the Afghan New Beginnings Programme in
    early 2003. Under the auspices of Japan and the United Nations Assistance
    Mission to Afghanistan, the program oversaw the demobilization of more
    than 34,000 former combatants by January 2005. The program also oversaw
    the seizure or destruction of more than 90 percent of the heavy weapons
    formerly controlled by militias (see fig. 7). Defense is providing
    transportation for heavy weapons and is monitoring the surrender of
    militias' small arms and light weapons. Also, the U.S. Agency for
    International Development donated $4 million to the Afghan New Beginnings
    Programme in fiscal year 2005.

    Figure 7: Heavy Weapons Cantonment Site Outside Kabul

    Source: GAO.

    However, the program's success is not assured. According to U.S. and
    Japanese government officials responsible for monitoring the
    demobilization process, the total number of troops still belonging to
    militias and other armed factions remains unknown.30 In addition, U.S.
    troops monitoring and assisting in the disarmament process reported that
    the Afghan government has collected only limited numbers of poor-quality
    assault rifles and that better quality weaponry may still be held by the
    former combatants and their commanders.

    Former combatants have limited employment opportunities when they leave
    the militias and attempt to reintegrate into society. As of January 2005,
    only one reintegration center in Kabul provided vocational training to
    former combatants. Although Afghanistan plans to open another seven
    regional centers by early 2005, the eight centers together can retrain
    only 2,000 students per year.

    30Estimates of the total number of militia fighters and other armed
    factions operating in Afghanistan in 2002 have ranged from 100,000 to over
    1 million.

    Conclusions
    Without strong and self-sustaining Afghan army and police forces,
    international terrorists could again create a haven in Afghanistan and
    jeopardize donor efforts to develop the country. However, Afghanistan
    remains dependent on other nations for support-international assistance
    provided over 90 percent of Afghanistan's $4.75 billion budget for 2005.
    The International Monetary Fund estimates that Afghan government revenues
    will average less than $400 million per year through 2008-less than half
    its projected expenditures just for government salaries and operations.

    The United States has provided over $4.1 billion since 2002 to help create
    a new Afghan army and reconstitute Afghanistan's police force. Despite
    initial progress, the United States and the other donors continue to face
    numerous challenges. Although Defense has succeeded in training and
    fielding thousands of Afghan combat troops, it has not been able to fully
    equip them and it has lagged in establishing the institutions the Afghan
    army needs to sustain itself. Similarly, while State has trained thousands
    of police, it has just begun to address the structural problems that
    affect the Afghan police force. In addition, neither Defense nor State has
    fully addressed how and when Afghanistan will be able to sustain its
    completed security forces.

    Establishing viable Afghan army and police forces will almost certainly
    require years of effort and the investment of additional resources.
    Available information suggests the army and police programs could cost up
    to $7.2 billion to complete and an estimated $600 million annually to
    sustain. However, Defense and State have not developed detailed plans,
    performance measures, cost estimates, or milestones for completing and
    sustaining these forces. Moreover, progress in the other pillars of
    Afghan's security reform is critical to eventually sustaining and
    maximizing the effectiveness of the Afghan army and police forces. Yet,
    reform of the Afghan judiciary lags behind the other security pillars,
    trafficking in illicit narcotics remains a challenge to the Afghan
    government's authority, and thousands of militia fighters have not been
    disarmed and reintegrated into society.

    Recommendations for
    Because of Afghanistan's prolonged conflict and its limited financial
    resources, we recommend that the Secretaries of Defense and State

    Executive Action
    develop detailed plans for completing and sustaining the Afghan army and
    police forces. The plans should include clearly defined objectives and
    performance measures; milestones for achieving stated objectives; future

    funding requirements; and a strategy for sustaining the results achieved,
    including transitioning program responsibility to Afghanistan. The
    Secretaries should provide this information to the Congress when the
    executive branch next requests funding for the Afghan army or police
    forces.

    In addition, because reform in the other pillars of the Afghan security
    sector-building an effective judiciary, curbing the production and
    trafficking of illicit narcotics, and disarming and reintegrating militia
    fighters-is critical to the success of the army and police programs, we
    recommend that the Secretaries of Defense and State work with the other
    lead donor nations to help ensure that progress in the other pillars is
    congruent with the progress made in the army and police programs. The
    Secretaries should regularly report to the Congress, but no less than
    annually, on the progress made in addressing these other security pillars.

      Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    The Departments of Defense, Justice, and State provided written comments
    on a draft of this report. See appendixes III, IV, and V, respectively. We
    also met with cognizant officials from Defense and State to discuss their
    comments and observations. Both departments provided technical comments
    and updates that we incorporated throughout the report, as appropriate.
    Overall, Defense, Justice, and State found the report helpful, thorough,
    and accurate.

    Justice characterized the Afghan police training program as extremely
    important and enormously complex. It shared our concerns that more
    detailed plans for the creation of a sustainable and effective Afghan
    police force must be developed. Justice went on to note that its
    International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program is
    providing critical support to the Iraqi Police Service and has assisted
    other police training programs around the world, but has almost no role in
    the ongoing efforts to assist the Afghan police.

    Although Defense and State generally concurred with our recommendations,
    both suggested that existing reporting requirements addressed the need to
    report their plans for completing and sustaining the Afghan army and
    police forces. Defense indicated that detailed plans will allow it to
    effectively manage already scarce manpower and resources and should foster
    deliberate and proactive long-term planning with State. State noted that
    coordination efforts have characterized these programs since inception and
    will continue.

    We do not dispute that current law, including the Afghan Freedom Support
    Act of 2002, as amended, and the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental,
    mandate a number of reports on Afghanistan. However, our analysis of past
    Defense and State reporting-both internally and to the Congress- indicates
    that the departments do not have detailed plans for equipping and fielding
    fully functioning Afghan army and police forces by a stated end date. We
    continue to believe that developing and following such plans and ensuring
    concurrent progress in the other security pillars is essential to the
    overall future success of the Afghan security effort. Whatever reporting
    mechanisms Defense and State choose, the departments need to specify what
    their objectives are and how they will assess progress, when the effort to
    build the Afghan army and police will be completed, and what future
    funding will be needed. In addition, in light of the Justice comments, we
    encourage State to take advantage of Justice's police training expertise
    in developing its detailed plans for completing and sustaining the Afghan
    police program.

    As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
    earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
    the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report
    to interested congressional committees and to the Secretaries of Defense
    and State. We will also make copies available to others on request. In
    addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site
    at http://www.gao.gov.

    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
    me at (202) 512-3149 or GootnickD@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report
    were Al Huntington, Pat Dickriede, Reid Lowe, Pierre Toureille, Eve
    Weisberg, and Joe Zamoyta.

    David Gootnick, Director International Affairs and Trade

    Appendix I

    Scope and Methodology

    To examine the progress made, and limitations faced, by the United States
    and other donor nations in creating a new Afghan national army, we
    reviewed documents obtained from several offices and agencies in the U.S.
    Department of Defense, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff/J-5 (Office of
    Strategic Plans and Policy's Afghanistan Desk), U.S. Central Command, the
    Defense Security Cooperation Agency (Middle East, Asia and North Africa
    division), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Army Security
    Assistance Command, the Office of Military Cooperation-Afghanistan, and
    Task Force Phoenix. We also reviewed documents from State's Bureau of
    South Asian Affairs. Our review of these documents provided us with
    information concerning the program's structure, current time frames and
    objectives, progress, limitations, and funding status. In addition, we met
    with the following various cognizant officials to discuss the progress
    made and limitations faced by the United States:

    o
    In Washington, D.C., we met with officials from the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
    the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Defense Security Cooperation
    Agency, the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command, and the U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers. At State, we met with officials from State's South Asia and
    Political-Military Affairs bureaus. In Tampa, Florida, we met with
    officials of the U.S. Central Command, which has military oversight for
    Afghanistan.

    o
    We attended a meeting on the status of Afghan military construction
    projects at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Transatlantic Programs
    Center in Winchester, Virginia, which oversees the Corps' construction
    projects in Afghanistan.

    o
    We attended a 3-day conference in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, where
    representatives from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the U.S.
    Army Security Assistance Command, and the Office of Military
    Cooperation-Afghanistan discussed problems that were impeding security
    assistance to the Afghan army.

    In Kabul, Afghanistan, we met with officials of the Combined Forces
    Command, the Office of Military Cooperation-Afghanistan, and Task Force
    Phoenix; U.S. embedded trainers; and the Afghan Deputy Minister of
    Defense. Also in Afghanistan, we traveled to Herat, where we met with U.S.
    embedded trainers, the commander of the Afghan army's regional command,
    and some Afghan army troops.

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    To examine the progress made, and limitations faced, by the United States
    and other donor nations in reconstituting the Afghan national police, we
    reviewed relevant documents on police program planning, resources, and
    implementation. We analyzed documents from State's International Narcotics
    and Law Enforcement Affairs/Resource Management Office to obtain a
    detailed costs and funding sources. Defense's Office of Special Operations
    and Low Intensity Conflict provided us with planning materials on the
    police-related counternarcotics program, as well as funding documents for
    this program. In addition, we reviewed the U.S. curricula for Afghan
    police training provided to us by the Department of Justice. We also
    examined documentation from the United Nations Law and Order Trust Fund
    for Afghanistan to obtain an overview of funding from non-U.S. donors. We
    reviewed German government documents on the German strategy for the Afghan
    police, German police program, and its funding information. We also met
    with the following cognizant officials to discuss the progress made, and
    limitations faced, by the United States and the other donors:

    o
    In Washington, D.C., we met with officials from State's Bureau for
    International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs who focus on police
    training and the rule of law, as well as with officials from State's South
    Asia Bureau. At Justice, we spoke with officials from the International
    Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program. We also met with
    representatives of DynCorp Aerospace Technology-the State contractor for
    the Afghan police program. At Defense, we met with officials from the
    Office of the Secretary of Defense's Office for Special Operations and Low
    Intensity Conflict.

    o
    In New York City, we held discussions with representatives of the United
    Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations' Civilian Police Division
    and with officials from the United Nations Law and Order Trust Fund for
    Afghanistan.

    o
    In Afghanistan, we met with U.S. embassy officials overseeing the police
    training program, officials at the Afghan ministry of Interior, and
    representatives of the German embassy charged with overseeing Germany's
    police program. In addition, we traveled to Jalalabad to meet with DynCorp
    police trainers and Afghan police personnel; we also toured a police
    training facility and inspected an Afghan police station.

    To identify future challenges that the United States, other donor nations,
    and Afghanistan must address to complete and sustain the Afghan army

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    and police forces, we reviewed documents prepared by Defense, State, the
    government of Afghanistan, foreign donor governments, and international
    organizations. We also met with Defense, State, and DynCorp officials in
    the United States and Afghanistan to obtain information concerning the
    potential future costs of the army and police programs. In Afghanistan, we
    met with officials at the embassies of Italy, the United Kingdom, and
    Japan to discuss the Afghan judiciary, the Afghan narcotics problem, and
    the continued presence of militia fighters, respectively. In the United
    Kingdom and Germany, we met with officials from those nations' ministries
    of foreign affairs and defense to discuss overall Afghan security issues.
    In Belgium, we met with U.S. officials at the U.S. Mission to the North
    Atlantic Treaty Organization in Brussels, Belgium, and with officials at
    its Supreme Headquarters for Allied Powers in Europe in Mons, Belgium, to
    discuss their perspectives on the challenges posed by the Afghan security
    situation.

    To determine the reliability of the funding data, Afghan army troop data,
    and Afghan police training data obtained from Defense and State officials,
    we compared multiple reports and sources and interviewed cognizant
    officials regarding the controls and checks they used to compile the data.

    o
    To help confirm the completeness and consistency of U.S. and international
    funding data, we compiled and compared data from multiple sources-Defense,
    State, Justice, and other donor countries- with information from cognizant
    U.S. agency officials and donor country officials in Washington, D.C., and
    Afghanistan. We used a questionnaire to address the accuracy of the data;
    the security of the databases used; and the limitations, if any, of the
    data. We also compared the funding data to appropriations and
    authorization legislation, congressional budget requests, and reports to
    the Congress. Although we did not audit the funding data and are not
    expressing an opinion on them, based on our examination of the documents
    received and our discussions with cognizant agency officials, we concluded
    that the funding data we obtained were sufficiently reliable for the
    purposes of this engagement.

    o
    To assess the reliability of the data regarding the number of Afghan
    troops assigned to Afghan army commands, we discussed with Defense
    officials how they check data from the commands and compared it with
    information from embedded trainers and payroll records. To assess the
    reliability of the data regarding the number of Afghan police trained, we
    interviewed State officials who received data from DynCorp, Justice, and
    the German Ministry of Interior to determine how they verify the data; we
    also compared the various information sources provided to us.

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    However, because of the security situation in Afghanistan, we could not
    independently verify or test the army and police training information at
    field locations. Nevertheless, based on our assessments of the data
    provided and our discussions with the cognizant officials, we concluded
    that the Afghan army troop data and Afghan police training data provided
    to us were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

    Appendix II

    Assistance Provided to Afghan Army and Police by Non-U.S. Donors

    Forty-one non-U.S. donors have provided approximately $439 million in
    cash, equipment, and services for the Afghan army and police (see table
    3). Approximately $193 million was donated to supplement U.S. efforts to
    build the Afghan army, and about $246 million was provided for the Afghan
    police program (see table 3). Six donors-the Czech Republic, the European
    Union, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the World Bank-provided
    almost 65 percent of the total donations.

    o
    For the Afghan army, over $52 million was donated in cash and an estimated
    $141 million was donated in weapons, ammunition, vehicles, infrastructure
    support, communications equipment, medical equipment, and clothing.1

    o
    For the Afghan police, over $120 million was donated in cash to the United
    Nations' Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan,2 and an estimated $126
    million was donated in equipment, construction assistance, and training.

    In addition, Defense estimates that approximately $24 million of military
    equipment was recovered from the demobilization of militias and other
    salvaged equipment in Afghanistan.

    1OMC-A and U.S. Central Command calculated the value of donated resources
    and services in U.S. dollar equivalents in the year donated. These figures
    do not include the value of donors' training teams or support to the Kabul
    Military Training Center.

    2Donors reported the monetary value of their donations to the German
    Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the year they provided the donations.

    Appendix II
    Assistance Provided to Afghan Army and
    Police by Non-U.S. Donors

    Table 3: Estimated Value of Assistance Provided to Afghan Army and Police
    by Non-U.S. Donors

    Dollars in millions

                                            Armya                 Police
                       Donor   (as of March 2005)   (as of January 2005)   Totals
                     Albania                   $*                     $0       $*
                   Australia                    0                      1
                     Belgium                    *                      0        *
                      Bosnia                    1                      0
                    Bulgaria                   17                      0
                      Canada                    2                     10
                       China                    0                      2
                     Croatia                    4                      0
              Czech Republic                   59                      0
                     Denmark                    *                      *        *
                       Egypt                    2                      0
              European Union                    0                     86
                     Finland                    0                      *        *
                      France                    5                     20
                     Germany                    1                     68
                      Greece                    2                      0        2
                     Hungary                    9                      0        9
                     Iceland                    1                      0        1
                       India                   10                      0       10
                     Ireland                    0                      1        1
                       Italy                    *                      0        *
                       Japan                    0                     20       20
                  Kazakhstan                    *                      0        *
               Liechtenstein                    0                      *        *
                 Netherlands                    0                      8        8
                 New Zealand                    *                      0        *
                      Norway                    1                      5        6
                    Pakistan                    2                      0        2
                      Poland                    1                      0        1
                       Qatar                    5                      0        5
                     Romania                    8                      0        8
                      Russia                    1                      0        1
                    Slovenia                    2                      0        2

    Appendix II
    Assistance Provided to Afghan Army and
    Police by Non-U.S. Donors

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Dollars in millions

                                                Armya               Police
                            Donor  (as of March 2005) (as of January 2005) Totals
                      South Korea                   1                    0
                            Spain                   2                    0
                      Switzerland                   1                    1
             United Arab Emirates                   3                    0
                          Ukraine                   1                    0
                   United Kingdom                  20                    2
                       World Bank                   0                   22
                            Other                  32                    0
                            Total                $193                 $246   $439

    Source: GAO analysis of data from the U.S. Central Command and U.S.
    Defense Security Cooperation Agency (Afghan army) and the German Ministry
    of Foreign Affairs (Afghan police).

    *Less than $500,000.

    aBulgaria, Canada, France, Germany, Mongolia, Romania, South Korea, and
    the United Kingdom also provided military trainers to the Afghan army.

                                      Appendix III

                        Comments from the Department of Defense

    Appendix III
    Comments from the Department of Defense

                                      Appendix IV

                        Comments from the Department of Justice

    Appendix IV
    Comments from the Department of Justice

                                       Appendix V

                         Comments from the Department of State

    Appendix V
    Comments from the Department of State

    GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
    and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
    its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
    and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
    examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
    and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
    Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
    commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
    accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

    is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
    Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
    Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
    every afternoon, go to

    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
    Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
    to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
    Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
    percent. Orders should be sent to:

    U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    To order by Phone:	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

      To Report Fraud, Contact:
      Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.govFederal Programs Automated answering system: (800)
    424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Congressional	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202)
    512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

    Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202)
    512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548
    *** End of document. ***