In Game of Strategy, SOCOM Outsmarting Conventional Military
In Game of Strategy, SOCOM Outsmarting Conventional Military by Sandra I. Irwin, National Defense
… All branches of the military do some form of “security cooperation” work with foreign allies, but SOCOM is likely to become a “bigger planner” in this area, said John R. Deni, a professor of security studies at the Army War College and a former political adviser to U.S. military commanders in Europe.
SOCOM leaders have been out in front of the conventional military advocating for this mission, and are now financially in a better position to do it, Deni said last week during a panel discussion hosted by the Reserve Officers Association.
“Special ops is one of the few growth industries in the Department of Defense,” said Deni. In its 2015 budget request, the Pentagon is calling for reductions of conventional forces but is proposing that special operations forces increase from 67,000 to 69,700. That is a slight drop from two years ago, when the Pentagon had sought a SOF force of 72,000.
The U.S. Army also is seeking to play a bigger role in the business of training foreign allies, which the Pentagon calls “building partner capacity.” The Army unveiled a plan last year to form specialized units that would be assigned to work in different regions of the world. But it is doubtful that the service — facing its worst budget crunch in decades — will be able to support this, Deni said. “How is the Army going to fund its regionally aligned force initiative?” he asked. “The Army is trying to get more regionally engaged, but whether and how this is funded will have a lot to do with whether the United States will be able to build partner capacity.” …
Another quasi-myth:
QUOTE Over the past two decades, SOCOM has expanded its expertise from the original Special Forces “Green Beret” adviser to become a specialized trainer of foreign counterterrorism units, Rumbaugh said. “SOCOM breeds other special units,” he said. “It’s an incredible force multiplier. Each SOF team gets me another five SOF teams around the world, and they can draw on American ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance]. That’s a really potent force.” END QUOTE
Yes US SOF has trained and created foreign SOF units. But SOF has and will continue to advise and assist more than just indigenous SOF elements. We should keep in mind that the essence of UW includes undergrounds, auxiliaries and guerrilla forces and the guerrilla forces are usually trained in very conventional tactics (e.g., raids and ambushes). And SOF works with many non-SOF forces throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America. We should not think only of Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe (where we partner with NATO SOF) but all the other places and all the other forces with whom we have and will continue to work.
Dave,
Indeed.
Well said.
The Weird Old/New World of American Special Forces Engagement and Enlargement:
As we “build partner capacity,” note that our partners today are now:
a. Almost always the regimes (as these regimes seek to hold down their respective populations) and
b. Almost never the populations (as these populations seek to have their governments better meet their — the populations’ — individual wants, needs and desires).
This is a strange relationship, indeed, for a country (the United States) which says that it values “self-determination,” and for an entity (the American Special Forces) whose motto is “to free the oppressed.”
The implications of this old/new way forward are amazing.
It suggests that:
a. Populations are expected to become less and less satisfied with their governments.
b. This, because these governments are now working — not for their own people — but, instead, for foreign entities (such as the United States).
c. This alienation of the populations — in favor of foreign entities — causing ever-increasing unrest.
d. In acknowledgement and anticipation of this ever-increasing unrest
e. The foreign entities see the need to — in advance if possible — build up their partner regimes’ military, police and intelligence forces. This, so that these forces might
f. Better stand against the populations of these countries — who have been so alienated.
What does this all mean?
It means that “the will of the people” — because of its contrary, uncooperative, unreliable and/or otherwise troublesome nature — is seen today:
a. Not as our ally and/or as a potential solution to our problems but, indeed,
b. As our enemy and the primary source of our problems.
Thus, the Weird Old/New World of American Special Forces Engagement and Enlargement.
A world that does, in fact, closely resemble the Cold War era, to wit: a world in which “the will of the people” came to be viewed, as it is again today, in a very negative light.
I can’t say SOCOM is outsmarting Conventional Military in BPC when they were and are designed to plan and execute BPC and related assistance and advisory missions. Especially Army SF. It’s kind of like saying, “In ability to fly, birds outsmarting creatures without wings!”
The author is really just describing traditional doctrinal differences between SOF and conventional. Nothing new here and I would hope our SOF are generally a little smarter than our conventional forces because were paying a lot of a lot more money just to train one SOF operator.
Somebody wake me when the headlines read “Conventional Forces outsmarting SOCOM.” That is something worth reading. Who knows, maybe they already are.