areas for improvement including sufficient infrastructure at
the regional level and analyst training at all levels.14 Using staff
training programs to train the analysts, and others, provides
AFRICOM with efficient capacity building mechanisms which
can be expanded to include other warfighting functions.
Command and Control (C2) is one such function which provides AFRICOM a third venue for regional capacity building.
Many reports note that the current command structure within
the APSA consists of the AU Peace and Security Directorate
and the headquarters of each ASF brigade, but nothing in
between at the operational level.15 These reports recommend
creating a deployable operational level headquarters at AU and
improving the capabilities of the current staffs. As previously
mentioned, creating a new HQ is not recommended; however, the lack of C2 presents a capacity building opportunity.
The ASF structure is designed for centralized planning at the
executive level of the AU with decentralized execution at the
brigade level and below.16 A decentralized execution construct
is not dissimilar from U.S. doctrine and the recent emphasis on
Mission Command. Therefore, AFRICOM is well-suited to
provide the staff training needed at both AU headquarters and
ASF brigades, through the implementation of Mission Command.
While the shortfalls within the APSA present opportunities for
AFRICOM, diverse challenges exist within Africa and the USG
that prevent AFRICOM from acting. The most prominent
obstacle for AFRICOM is the lack of necessary authorities to
conduct multilateral capacity building. A plethora of security
cooperation and security assistance authorities exist between
DoD and the Department of State (DoS); however, these
authorities provide mostly bilateral opportunities.17 Although
bilateral authorities have their advantages for quality control
and funding oversight, providing resources and training directly
to troop contributing countries undermines AU systems.18 By
investing resources to build capacity multilaterally, AFRICOM
can avoid undermining the AU and can use limited resources
more efficiently.
The best available authority is the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA). ACOTA is a program within DoS aimed at enhancing the capacity of African
partner nations to participate in worldwide multinational peace
operations. The program provides field and staff training for
battalion, brigade and multinational force headquarters personnel in a "train-the-trainer" model, but the authorities are built
for bilateral training.19 Once again, the bilateral restriction
hinders AFRICOM from developing the regional institutions.
Although the objectives of ACOTA provide a good foundation,
the scope of the authority should be expanded to allow multilat-
14
eral engagement and additional mission sets outside of peacekeeping operations.
The second type of missing authority is the provision of AFRICOM capacity building for polic R