From the U.S. Government Accountability Office, www.gao.gov Transcript for: DOD’s Management of Equipment During Afghanistan Drawdown Description: Audio interview by GAO staff with Cary Russell, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Related GAO Work: GAO-13-185R: Afghanistan Drawdown Preparations: DOD Decision Makers Need Additional Analyses to Determine Costs and Benefits of Returning Excess Equipment Released: December 2012 [Background Music] [ Narrator: ] Welcome to GAO's Watchdog Report, your source for news and information from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. It's December, 2012. As the United States reduces the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the Department of Defense is responsible for handling more than 750,000 pieces of equipment, including weapons and vehicles, that need to be returned, transferred or destroyed. A group led by Cary Russell, a director in GAO's Defense Capabilities and Management Team recently reviewed DOD's plans to manage this equipment. GAO's Jeremy Cluchey sat down with Cary to talk about what they found. [ Jeremy Cluchey: ] About how much equipment is estimated to be in Afghanistan that needs to be transferred as the U.S. draws down our troop presence there? [ Cary Russell: ] Well there's quite a bit of equipment in place there. DOD estimates that it's over, there's over 750,000 major equipment items valued at over $36 billion, and these are equipment items such as weapon systems, vehicles, construction equipment and things of that nature. DOD also estimates that it could cost over $5.5 billion to draw down that equipment from Afghanistan. [ Jeremy Cluchey: ] And where does that equipment need to go exactly? [ Cary Russell: ] Well there's three ways that DOD will draw down that equipment. Some of it will be transferred to the government of Afghanistan or to other governments in the area or even other U.S. government agencies. And some of it will actually be destroyed there in Afghanistan. DOD has set up destruction sites to do that, there in theater. But a lot of it will be returned back to other DOD locations either in the United States or elsewhere where it may be needed. [ Jeremy Cluchey: ] And if I can ask about the equipment that may be destroyed, what's the rationale for that? [ Cary Russell: ] Well, in some cases it's either equipment that's not in very good shape. In a lot of cases that's the way it's done, and it'll be scrapped in many cases and processed that way. [ Jeremy Cluchey: ] Your team looked at potential lessons from the Iraq drawdown to see how they're being applied here. What did you find? [ Cary Russell: ] Well what we found is that DOD and the services have programs to collect lessons from the Iraq drawdown and have applied many of them, where relevant, to drawdown operations in Afghanistan. For example, a key lesson learned from Iraq is to plan early, and DOD has taken action on that and has put plans in place. Such things as coming out with disposition instructions and setting monthly targets for reduction of vehicles and containers of equipment. However, there were some lessons that have not yet been applied. One of those is to maintain visibility and accountability over equipment that is maintained and operated by contractors. That was a problem that was--ah--existed back in drawdown operations during Iraq, and there's still some limitations on the visibility of that equipment there in Afghanistan. But DOD is taking actions and is working on a solution. [ Jeremy Cluchey: ] How has DOD planned for this current reduction in equipment from Afghanistan? [ Cary Russell: ] The DOD's taken a number of steps. At a broader level, they've established command structures and guidance to lay out roles and responsibilities to conduct the operations. They've also done an extensive inventory of equipment in theater that would need to be drawn down. This was a major effort in order to gain the accountability and visibility needed to plan those operations effectively. And in addition to that, they've identified and evaluated routes to move equipment out of Afghanistan, either through surface routes, through land and sea, or to airlift it out. [ Jeremy Cluchey: ] And what steps is GAO recommending here? [ Cary Russell: ] Well what we found is that DOD is not really doing cost benefit analyses to compare the benefits of moving equipment versus the cost to move it out, particularly when there's a case where equipment may be excess to requirements for that equipment. It's a very costly effort to move equipment out. For example, it could cost as much as $43,000 per vehicle to send something out by surface routes, and as much as $150,000 per vehicle just to send it out by air. So it's a good, a good practice to look at the cost associated with it, identify the benefits associated with bringing it back, particularly if it's excess, and then using that as a basis for the decision. So what we've recommended is that DOD ensure that the services conduct these cost benefit analyses before deciding what equipment to move in the case of excess or equipment that's beyond requirements, and then use those as a basis for making those decisions. [ Jeremy Cluchey: ] Finally for taxpayers who are interested in how money's being spent as we reduce our military presence in Afghanistan, what's the bottom line here? [ Cary Russell: ] Well DOD's taken a lot of steps to try to affect the most efficient and effective withdraw of equipment from Afghanistan and I think the big issue there is that there's a few additional steps they can take just to make sure that they are looking at all the right costs, and making the best decisions that benefits the prudent use of funding. [ Music ] [ Narrator: ] To learn more, visit GAO.gov and be sure to tune in to the next episode of GAO's Watchdog Report for more from the congressional watchdog, the U.S. Government Accountability Office. [ Music]