by Dave Maxwell
Why Does Special Forces Train and Educate for Unconventional Warfare?
Why is it Important?
A Quick Response to Robert Haddick
by Colonel David S. Maxwell
Download the full article: Why Does Special Forces Train and Educate for Unconventional Warfare?
There is tremendous emotion, misunderstanding and just plain baggage surrounding Unconventional Warfare (UW). Most discussions revolve around the definition itself with little understanding of the breadth and scope of what UW entails. However, since most who discuss UW are only concerned with the words in the definition and do not delve into the intellectual foundation of UW, this short paper will seek to explain and interpret the words in the definition and answer the questions in the title. The USSOCOM approved definition for UW is:
"Activities conducted to enable a resistance movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt or overthrow a government or occupying power by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary and guerrilla force in a denied area."
Since this will be a discussion of a doctrinal definition it may be instructive to recall the words of LTG (RET) John H. Cushman writing in his 1993 pamphlet "Thoughts for Joint Commanders" in which he recalls some historical admonitions on doctrine:
"A 1950 definition called doctrine 'the compilation of principles and theories applicable to a subject, which have been developed through experience or by theory, that represent the best available thought and indicate and guide but do not bind in practice.'" (emphasis added)
"Doctrine is basically a truth, a fact, or a theory that can be defended by reason."
"Doctrine cannot replace clear thinking...under the circumstances prevailing."
This is wise counsel for anyone who wants to narrowly interpret doctrine. Doctrinal "purism" is unhelpful particularly when faced with the complex, ever evolving characteristics of war in the 21st Century. Doctrine can be used to train, prepare, and guide but it is effective strategy with campaign plans for implementation that are required to achieve objectives in the national interest.
Download the full article: Why Does Special Forces Train and Educate for Unconventional Warfare?
Colonel David S. Maxwell, U.S. Army, is a Special Forces officer with command and staff assignments in Korea, Japan, Germany, the Philippines, and CONUS, and is a graduate of the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth and the National War College, National Defense University. The opinions he expresses in this paper are his own and represent no U.S. Government or Department of Defense positions.
Comments
Maybe a way to socialize the importance of UW, as well as SF capabilities in this area, would be to bring conventional types, and maybe even the interagency, as observers of Robin Sage? Or create some videos of the exercise for viewing by appropriate audiences? Just a thought.
Colonel Maxwell, that is a fantistic article but what concerns me is just how much SF has gotten away from it's orgiinal mission. Somehow SF became an international SWAT instead of what they were created to be.
Also how come SF stopped publishing Special Warfare magazine? They haven't come out with a new issue in like 6 months. Thats all skint up and stuff!
Dave,
Thanks for this. The SF community needs to "lift the skirt" on topics like this to facilitate understanding of complex and controversial topics. UW is clearly such a topic.
Mine has been a lonely voice for several years now to attempt to shape perspectives on the value of seeing AQ less as a "Terrorist" organization, but more as a "UW" organization. There is little value in defining an organization by its tactics, as that only results in a counter-tactic approach. CT and GWOT are a coutner-tactic approach. By defining AQ by their mission we can then shape a more holistic mission to neutralize the problem. A "Counter-UW" perspective provides a framework into which a broad family of activities (COIN, FID, CT, Civic Action, etc) can be built into; and provides a clearer perspective as to balancing and directing the same.
One area you did not touch on in this great piece that I personally think is critical in SF being built upon a foundation of UW is that the study of UW is the study of insurgency. SF soldiers are specifically selected for those with certain physical and mental toughness as all SOF, but uniquely selected for those with an aptitude for insurgency. It is the selection that makes SOF Special; the training is the icing on the cake. Icing without cake is what one gets without such selection.
It is this inherent understanding and thinking process on insurgency itself that, I think, makes US SF the effective force it has proven to be over the years, in peace and war, across the spectrum of the wide range of missions you lay out in your diagram.
(On a related topic, it the lack of this inherent understanding and thinking of insurgency in FM 3-24 that contributes most to that sense that many have that the manual is not quite right, but that they can't put their finger on. We can't let USAJFKSWCS sit out on the re-write as they did on the original)
Nice job.
Bob
I couldn't agree more with you. Lots of people just don't understand what Special Force Units are trained for.
Also, it's a pleasure to read your posts. I also post on the similar topic. I write about Navy SEALs and Delta Force. Please have a look when you have time.
Cannot the logic for the continued training and education of the Special Forces for unconventional warfare also be found in the new US foreign policy direction -- which is focused on transforming weak and failed states and better aligning these "loose cannons" with the United States' strategic interests?
Certainly when contronted with the requirement to (1) transform as per our orders and (2) align specifically as to our interests, the potential for resistance by the governments of these weak and failed states is highly likely.
Therefore, preparations for dealing with the numerous potential rebellions of these various governments may need to be planned and prepared for; this, so as to cause our new foreign policy initiative to have sufficiently credible "teeth" with which to back up its demands.
It seems logical that (1) an exceptionally robust and credible unconventional warfare capability will be needed to (2) help execute and carry out our new "weak and failed states" foreign policy direction and initiative.
As such, should there not be even greater emphasis placed on unconventional warfare training and education of US Special Forces today -- in light of our new foreign policy direction?
Col. Maxwell:
An excellent essay, the conclusions of which I fully support.
In my essay, to which you are responding, I noted (as did Col. Witty in his essay) that UW campaigns can be politically problematic. That does not seem to be a controversial conclusion. But it also doesn't mean that USSOCOM and the rest of the U.S. government shouldn't also prepare for UW. In fact, in my essay I predicted that "the appeal of unconventional warfare as a policy option is likely to rise" and "[t]he job for Witty and his special operations colleagues is to make sure policymakers have a usable [UW] option should they call for it." I believe this matches the conclusions you arrive at in your essay.