全球智库信息集成服务系统

Evaluation of Combatant Command Security Cooperation Objectives

• Most individual country objectives did not meet the SMART criteria of being specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and results-oriented, and time-bound. In particular, most objectives were not yet measureable or time-bound, and their achievability could not be determined.
• Combatant command security cooperation planning was "SMARTer" than individual country objectives. Although most country plan objectives failed the SMART test, country plans overall and other supporting documents showed more-positive results.
• Combatant command security cooperation planning could benefit from greater standardization. Combatant commands have different objective hierarchies, and they do not define their terms in the same way.
• Responsibility and priority for developing country objectives differed by combatant command.
• Understanding of the SMART concept varied among stakeholders. For the most part, communication of the SMART concept was informal and ad hoc.
• SMART objectives did not adequately serve as a foundation for security cooperation assessment, monitoring, and evaluation. The entire security cooperation planning system needs to follow a SMART approach, with different levels of detail linking broad end states to concrete tasks.