Military Sees Broader Role for Special Operations Forces, in Peace and War
Military Sees Broader Role for Special Operations Forces, in Peace and War by Thom Shanker, New York Times.
Here at the headquarters of the Army , planning is well under way for a significantly increased presence in Africa, Asia and Latin America for the Special Forces soldiers with the distinctive green berets who were the first American troops into after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Special Operations forces, which include Green Berets, teams, the Rangers and specialized aviation units, have historically been a small corner of the military and not always embraced by conventional commanders.
But they took on large and central roles for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and their integration with the conventional military transformed the way the Defense Department is thinking about future conflicts…
Recognition of the contribution of JOC is past due. Proactive thinking such as laid out in this article will no doubt reduce overall costs of war and garner a new level of respect for U.S. objectives!
Could it be this simple:
Recently the United States has — with its military in the lead and via more direct means — attempted to:
a. Transform outlier states and societies along modern western lines and
b. Incorporate these outlier states and societies into the global economy.
Now the United States will attempt to achieve these objectives using indirect means (by, with and through allies and partners) and with its military playing more of a supporting role.
Big Military being thought to be the proper tool for use with the direct approach to achieving these objectives.
Special operations forces being thought to be the proper tool to use in the indirect approach.
I can follow the reported logic of a greater role for US SOF, but wonder if this has been fully examined outside SOF.
My first concern is with partnership working. From the reports in the public domain the use of SOF in a training role in Mali appears to have been a failure; which is not the only known failure.
What happens when a political regime changes, where SOF have been present, conducting training and more? Could the potential legacy damage US interests, Iran after the 1979 revolution comes to mind and the allegations of torture etc in Latin America.
Secondly there is a big downside to a greater, possibly secret role. A number of charities, NGOs and other agencies already report having difficulty in working in developing countries, whether post-disaster or not, as they rely on Western expatriate staff – who the local population may come to regard as spies and SOF. See the recent US press report on covert SOF participation in Kashmir after an earthquake.
On a strategic level is there a greater gain for US national interests to have free entry, exit and movement within developing countries of Western expatriate staff?
In many instances I would argue maintaining this access can enable the passage of knowledge to the public – who may influence policy. This has been well illustrated by the appearance of “in country” expertise in Mali via Twitter, including several US citizens who appear to know more than US officials.
Incidentally this problem is not helped by the seemingly lax security regime around US covert action.
The real danger to the USA and the pursuit of its national interests is the potential, some would already argue actual danger that many will only see Americans and the USA as those who are barricaded inside embassies, compounds and maybe in the shadows SOF.
America stands for far more, alas this report indicates there is only one player in international policy – the DoD, of which SOF is one part.
Just an aside:
Change 1, dated 18 March 2013, to FM 3-07, Stability Operation, is out.
http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_07c1.pdf
Of note is the fact that — along with other changes:
a. Chapter 1, “The Strategic Context,” is rescinded.
b. Chapter 2, “Stability in Full Spectrum Operations,” is rescinded. And
c. Chapter 4, “Planning for Stability Operations,” is rescinded.