• The TOC
  • SOFREP Explained
  • The Loadout Room
  • Team Room
SOFREP.com - THE Special Operations Forces Report
SOFREP Logos AFSOC MARSOC NSWC USASOC
  • News & Intel
    • SOF News
    • Op-Ed
    • AFSOC
    • MARSOC
    • NSWC
    • USASOC
    • Coalition SOF
    • SOF History
    • Special Operations
    • Black Ops & Intel
    • Admin
    • No Kidding There I Was
  • About Spec Ops
    • AFSOC
    • MARSOC
    • NSWC
    • USASOC
    • Coalition SOF
  • SOFREP TV
    • Inside the Team Room: U.S. Army Rangers
    • Heroes of U.S. Special Operations
    • Inside the Team Room: U.S. Navy SEALs
  • SOFREP Radio
  • Charities
  • Comms Check
    • Share Your War Stories
    • SOFREP Explained
  • The PX
Home Previous story Next story
submit to reddit
Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Youtube
Home » Op-Ed » The Future of Special Operations: Dull Spear, Sharp Sword

The Future of Special Operations: Dull Spear, Sharp Sword

by Patrick Rogan · December 6, 2012 · Posted In: Op-Ed
SEAL Snipers with Spotter
As stated in the “Blunt End of the Spear” (SOFRep, November 22, 2012) many in the National Security world and the military.  For this reason there is no doubt SOF will continue to be a viable option in many areas of the world. However, these two facts have the potential to lead to two unique problems. First, will SOF as a whole be required to change its mission set, adapt to more non SOF oriented operations and generally lose its unconventional edge? The second issue is whether conventional forces will be modified, reorganized and re-trained to accommodate this vision of the future. Essentially conventional and unconventional forces will and have begun to integrate and work more closely together, but will this effort begin to blur the lines between regular and special forces?

Related Posts
  • A look at future battlefields with the IDF
  • The Blunt End of The Spear: The Coventionalization of SOF
  • The Future of USASOC: Projecting forward into the coming decades

“The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provided a tremendous battlelab for Army Special Operations Forces. And now, with one war over and the other winding down, we have to make sure we don’t lose the gains we have made,” said Lt. General Cleveland (Commander ASOC) at this years meeting of the Association of the United States Army.  Army SOF now has established doctrinal regulations to guide its path forward, most hope this will ensure Army SOF remains unconventional and able to meet the needs of what it was designed to do.  This is good news for ASOC however the more important element in this potential quagmire is what Big Army is doing.

Big Army acknowledges that future conflicts will be less about large scale tank battles and more about isolated events revolving around skill sets such as COIN, village stability, and surgical strikes. “For this reason, the regular Army is focusing on the squad as the foundation of the force”, states Daniel Goure, Ph. D. On the on hand this sounds like a good thing. The Army, Big Army is shifting gears in anticipation of the next series of conflicts and is preparing itself to be more strategically and operationally agile. However, in the same way it is difficult to change course once an aircraft as begun its turn so it is with regular Army. The concern then is, will the regular Army’s move towards less conventional methods begin to envelope or overrun that of Army SOF. Will this creep of policy and doctrine create one large special force that will no longer be able to address the more asymmetric threats of the future? Additionally will this shift cause conventional Army units to lose sight of their best practices, best practices based on decades of experience? Are we, the United States leaving ourselves open to being ill prepared to handle a conventional adversary should one arise?

To answer many of these questions we must take a step back and look back at look at why SOF was developed. For this reason I leave you with what I believe to be one of the most authoritative definitions of Special Operations by Dr. Robert Spulak from his standout paper “A Theory of Special Operations” (2007).

“Special Operations Forces (SOF) are small, specially organized units manned by carefully selected people using modified equipment and trained in unconventional applications of tactics and against strategic and operational objectives. Further, the successful conduct of special operations relies on individual and small unit proficiency in specialized skills applied with adaptability, improvisation, and innovation against adversaries often unprepared to react. It has often been stated that the unique capabilities of SOF complement those of conventional forces.”

About Our Links
We link to other websites if we find their content compelling. We also link to relevant products on Amazon.com as affiliates. The money we earn from these sales helps keep our website running and a few beers on ice.

Related Posts

  • rangerskandahar

    A look at future battlefields with the IDF

  • Screen Shot 2012-11-20 at 4.22.36 AM

    The Blunt End of The Spear: The Coventionalization of SOF

  • The Future of USASOC

    The Future of USASOC: Projecting forward into the coming decades

Follow Sofrep on:
Follow @sofrep OR  rss
41 comments
  Livefyre
  • Get Livefyre
  • FAQ
Sign in
+ Follow
Post comment
 
Link
Newest | Oldest
DieHardDeuce
DieHardDeuce 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Really didn't want to post this under one of the light nature article, but I just found this on Drudge. Looks like we lost a SEAL during the rescue operation yesterday:

 

 

 

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/09/15799890-navy-seal-killed-in-rescue-of-american-doctor-in-afghanistan?lite

 

 

 

 

The interal flag is at half staff tonight for a fellow brother in arms.

patrickrogan64
patrickrogan64 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

To "Majrod's" point, there is no doubt in my mind, and many others that Big Army is looking for its niche to remain relevant. This is a verifiable fact (which I will hit on in the next post). This does not however mean that the current state of operations is a direct reflection of this "acknowledgment" of the future. I speak in the current post from a policy and doctrinal standpoint. There are those and they are probably in the majority of the conventional leadership who have no interest in becoming "less" conventional. Hence the situation we are currently in with the field not reflecting doctrine (or in some cases proposed doctrine). 

 

The other factor to consider is how to define "unconventional", which is the reason I ended with its definition in this post and hope to address this further in the next post (which I think may clear some things up, Africandian I really like your comments related to this, especially not reinventing the wheel). Because at the current time unconventional is measured against our perception of conventional because SOF was designed to support or "compliment" conventional forces. In this way SOF is supposed to, theoretically adjust to the needs of Big Army. In the new paradigm SOF is a force unto itself that "collaborates" with conventional forces but also has a clear mission of its own (doctrinally). This concept will allow SOF to maintain its autonomy as well as be a force multiplier during more conventional maneuvers. 

 

Once again I am impressed with the feed back and certainly appreciate everyones point of view. 

 

May the games begin.

Surf375
Surf375 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Why doesn't the Army re-assume the Air Force, and ride on its coat tail for relevance. Status quo for Navy/USMC. But create an entirely new, separate military branch from SOCOM, thus streamlining process and funding. Army/Air Corps handle inland/air and Navy/Marine Corps handle coastal and water, then SOCOM/DIA handles all things covert, plus FID to DA. Simplify, cut bureaucracy, just have 3 branches of the military.

Recon6
Recon6 moderator 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @Surf375  Lol, because it Might be the sensible thing to do?!  Has Mother ever done anything that made a hell of a lot of sense?  Not in my experience.  Each group wanting to retain autonomy and trump the other, such b.s.  I agree with your pos....6

Surf375
Surf375 5pts

By handling all things covert, you're also freeing up the CIA to do straight Foreign Intel and Counter Intel, instead of playing G.I. Joe. Get out of the short con game and focus on long cons.

576575
576575 5pts

there's a difference between SOCOM 'covert' and CIA 'covert'...  and CIA strictly conducting foreign intelligence and counter intelligence would never happen, and shouldn't i.m.o. 

hjw1dr
hjw1dr 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

What is that truism?  Generals always prepare to fight the last war.  

 

With so much technological change coming at us so rapidly, it's hard to imagine how to plan for a future war. I suppose all you can do is extend the tactics and strategies of the present into the future. But wasn't that the mistake that the French made after WWI with the Maginot Line proir to WWII?

 

The assumptions you make of the future are key.  Knowledge of human conflict and and trend in ideology would seem to shape capabilities. Asymmetrical warfare  is likely, but what other tactics or weapons could change war in the future.

 

Seems to me you almost need a  "real science" science-fiction writer (Isaac Asimov comes to mind) to team with knowledgeable military strategists  to come up with scenarios to game future conflicts. 

576575
576575 5pts

 @hjw1dr I think a computer would be better for creating military conflict situation with time tables and information needed to determine the outcome of a battle, the question is, who would be the right to ask for a program like this?

blkreggren
blkreggren 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 7 Like

Interesting article, that brought something to mind.  In the Bible, one of King Saul's weaknesses of leadership was having a force of about 3,000 that could quickly respond to border incursions by Israel's neighbors, but that was unable to cope when multiple incursions occurred.  He had to break off pursuing David to deal with border threats on several occasions.  As King, David on the other hand had a spec ops force of 30+ fighters/leaders who were there to help apply pressure in major battles, and provide PSD to the David himself when the fighting got intense.  David, it appears, had a much larger standing army.  David's Mighty Men, as they are known, stood out for their exploits as individuals, and as teams.  David's regular army had skilled artillery slingers, that in the midst of the conventional force, stood out for the skill in that specialty.  The slingers are mentioned for their skill of being able to sling a stone, 'within a hairs breadth' of their intended target.  Seems they were noticed by their giant-killer king who, years earlier, had used his sling in a particularly effective fashion.  Oh, for the days gone by of presidents who lead on the battlefield before leading in the oval office.

StormR
StormR 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 5 Like

 @blkreggren "Oh, for the days gone by of presidents who lead on the battlefield before leading in the oval office."    I think the days of a 'peace time President' are gone forever.   14 or 15 years ago, I would have disagreed with the notion of a President needing to have military experience, and I would have argued for the continued separation of military from governance.  But 14 or 15 years ago, I believed that war involved a clearly recognized enemy state and the war would be brutally, but quickly fought.  And if the world survived nuclear blasts and fall-out, then America would, of course, win.   911 changed that assumption very quickly.   There are enemies aplenty, but the 'enemy state' seems murky and ever-changing.  I'm not sure America will ever know peace - or illusion of peace again.   Presidents will now need a solid and in-depth understanding of defense and for me, military experience has become a 'required' not a 'desirable'.   What are the chances, one wonders, of a candidate versed in both governance and defense?

Recon6
Recon6 moderator 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @StormR  @blkreggren Stormy, in my recent dull state of comprehension I have attempted to follow most of these threads.  I have noted a couple espousing for "prior Military leaders", and while I definitely 'rec' the idea, to be honest I am definitely less than enamored with some of Those so called leaders.  I knew McCain's time had passed, John Kerry appears to me as a Clown, sorry squids, this guy is a bitch, imo.  His military history is full of holes, and they aren't bullet holes.

My last fav was Alan West, whom I voted for, and was shocked when he didn't win.  A true Leader,with Experience, that could carry the day.

I am quite sure @majrod could add many more as he is more current than I, and seems to have a solid grasp on circumstances.  Hell,  in his locale perhaps Rod is laying the groundwork for something similar?

We need/require Leaders with a firm grasp of what a world in flux, economically as well as Militarily, will require  of America and where we should put our footprint.....6

DieHardDeuce
DieHardDeuce 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Ha!

TKW406
TKW406 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @DieHardDeuce Copy.  Will do......WTF Deuce, you callin' Montana "bush league" ??  I'm playin' with ya.  We're good.

DieHardDeuce
DieHardDeuce 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

Good, I'm happy to hear that as well. In that case, tell him to graduate out of the bush league and step up to the majors. LOL

 

TKW406
TKW406 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

 @DieHardDeuce I've mentioned this before.  But, over the last six months I've gotten to know Cdr. Zinke.  He is an American patriot, extremely well informed & very intelligent.  I have nothing but the utmost respect for him as a man, a state senator & as a retired Navy SEAL. 

DieHardDeuce
DieHardDeuce 5pts

That was supposed to read, " I had high hopes for Petraeus..."

 

See what typing too fast gets you. LOL

DieHardDeuce
DieHardDeuce 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Well, I for one had high hopes until he used his foot for a 50 meter target. Nailed that sucker center mass too. Apparently so did General "Kip" Ward - frat brother, and someone else I respected. There's that Montana State Senator, Ryan Zinke; but I don't know much about him. I suppose there are plenty of potential candidates with experience that just aren't on the radar yet, or haven't decided to get active in politics yet. (Who could blame them)

 

You can always try to convince McCrystal to come back and make a run at it.

DonovanE
DonovanE 5pts

Maybe the Big Army is going towards a more Ranger type mililtary: light, fast, and mobile; and will leave the unconventional warfare to SOCOM.

majrod
majrod 5pts

“Big Army acknowledges that future conflicts will be less about large scale tank battles and more about isolated events revolving around skill sets such as COIN, village stability, and surgical strikes.”

 

Respectfully disagree Pat.  The CTCs are conducting rotations that include conventional high OPTEMPO phases and operating from the field vs. the FOBs we see as characteristic of the last decade.  The fact is the Army doesn’t know what the next fight will look like and is trying to maintain competency across the whole spectrum of operations. 

 

The Army’s discussion of focusing units on certain regions is also not a big change from the past Units stationed in Korea and Europe were always regionally focused while units like the 82nd and 101st had to do it all from soup to nuts.

 

The Army's playing around with maintaining an ability to train indigenous troops is of concern to SOF.  Something I believe is a SOF mission and should remain so.  Then again Army SF abdicated FID for much of GWOT to pursue direct action missions necessitating the Army to execute the mission none the less.  It's a tribute to the Army that it has done the lion's share of work in getting that indig training mission done.  It would be nice to get out of it though. 

JackMurphyRGR
JackMurphyRGR moderator 5pts

 @majrod Special Forces never abandoned FID but rather utilized FID to create proxy forces to conduct DA operations.  We did get fixated on DA as did all of SOF and much of the conventional military, but even the CIF was conducting combat FID operations.

majrod
majrod 5pts

 @JackMurphyRGR  The Army got fixated on DA?  How so?  How is taking it to the enemy a "new" mission for the Army?  I'm not understanding you.

 

For years the conventional Army has been conducting FID.  SF doing FID only for special ops units doesn't make up for that.  It takes a special soldier to be able to train another one well.  The way the conventional side selects trainers might actually be part of our problem? I understand why the Army does what it does.  You can't always strip out the best to accomplish a mission.  It leaves the rest of the force well, stripped.  Had a tanker BDE CO once that set incredibly high standards for selection of Bradley commanders/gunners e.g. high GT, no color blindness, high PT etc.  Problem was he was stripping the best guys out of the dismounted squads to their detriment.  I think my training NCO fudged the numbers ;) we still scored 944 out of a 1000 as a company in gunnery.  #1 in Germany for a short time.) 

 

The question is is it appropriate for the conventional Army to do FID and if it is then it shouldn't be accused of assuming a special ops mission.  Maybe that mission isn't special anymore? 

 

(FTR, my position is FID belongs to SF the hands down best organization to do it.)

 

JackMurphyRGR
JackMurphyRGR moderator 5pts

 @majrod The 82nd also trains to do airfield seizures so there is some overlap.  I don't think CF necessarily tried to horn in on SOF missions, more that these were the missions forced on them (and us) by the operational environment.

majrod
majrod 5pts

 @JackMurphyRGR  Understand but raids to capture an HVT has been conventional bread and butter since the 80's when I was in the 101st part of our platoon and company METLs.  For some reason it's taken on this SOF aura but we trained to do them also (granted some units were better than others and CQB now is light years from where it used to be).  I'm coming at this from a perspective that some think conventional is trying to horn in on SOF type missions.  

 

JackMurphyRGR
JackMurphyRGR moderator 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @majrod Fixated on targeted HVT hits.  There was a point when every swinging dick was doing them because it was the cool thing to do in Iraq.  I was on an objective where we collided with a Cav unit and now you've got Rangers and Cav guys dismounted and running down the same street looking for the same guy.  DA has always been part of SF's METL as well, so the fixation is across the board.  Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is something that requires further research.

ufridman
ufridman 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

The Future of U.S. Special Operations

Managing Editor Jonathan Tepperman interviews CFR adjunct senior fellow Linda Robinson on the increasing prominence of special operations forces in U.S. military and foreign policy. Robinson argues that the evolving battlefield of the 21st century, where conventional conflict with states has given way to “irregular threats,” has led to the expanded role of special operations forces in the American response arsenal.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ME2CCuH0i9g

shooten
shooten 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Great article.  I see Big Army trying to be more like the Marines from the tone of this.  For the past 12 years we've fought in a different battle space.  Once the NoKos cross the 38th parallel, we'll be back to large scale. Special Forces have their role.  So does Big Army.  If anything, Big Army needs better training.  Hopefully, they're not bleeding NCOs right and left.  I suspect that they are.

 

I agree with LeverAction too.  Our problems start at the top.  I'll stick with the brass right now since I try not to go political on this board.  Petraus is just a symptom of a much larger malaise.  Sacking McCrystal was a huge mistake IMHO.

majrod
majrod 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

@shooten

“I see Big Army trying to be more like the Marines from the tone of this. “  How so?  Evidence?

 

“If anything, Big Army needs better training.  Hopefully, they're not bleeding NCOs right and left.  I suspect that they are.”  How so?  Evidence?

 

“Our problems start at the top.”  AGREE!!!

 

@jrexilius

“Big Army is trying to say it is SOF too so it has a role for the next decade. “  Evidence?  How so?  The only SOF mission the Army has been forced to execute is training an indigenous force.   The Army is not having a problem demonstrating it has a role in the future.  The AUSA presentations and discussion about the role of the Army in the Pacific bear this out as well as the vociferous counterargument to AirSea Battle in the Pentagon.   We are not mothballing our capability to wage conventional war.  The CTCs have changed the scenarios, floating/predeployed equipment stocks have been restocked. 

jrexilius
jrexilius moderator 5pts

 @majrod  @shooten  I'll admit I'm painting with a broad brush but when I say SOF, I don't mean specifically the traditional Army definition of SOF (FID) but the generalized term that encompasses a lot of what SOCOM does.  My general point being that they are trying to sell themselves as small unit, specially trained, light/quick reaction force-multiplier types.  Characteristics I've never associated with Big Army.

 

Not sure what "counter argument" Army can legitimately make against the concept that we need to be able to reach APAC and break through area denial capabilities of China to exert force in the region.  But I may be misunderstanding what you're saying there.

shooten
shooten 5pts

 @majrod

“I see Big Army trying to be more like the Marines from the tone of this. “  How so?  Evidence?"

 The story says that the Army is now focusing on squad based tactics. I was focusing on that more than anything.  I'm more concerned that the Army is stepping away from its ability to wage conventional war.  Nobody can forecast what the next war will look like.

 

My suspicion about NCOs is based on the uncertainty about the future in the Armed Forces (a political discussion for sure) and the increased tempo of deployments that they've had to go through over the past 11 years.  I've heard this from friends of mine on the Marine side.  Guys are leaving before their 20 years because of incentive and uncertainty.

  @jrexilius 

majrod
majrod 5pts

@shooten

Disregarding I don’t buy Dr. Goure’s assessment why would a focus on squad tactics make you think the Army is trying to become more like the Marines?    As for the Army’s interest/ability to fight, the Army is refocusing on reinforcing and in some areas reviving those skills as I commented about with the Army’s refocus at the three Combat Training Centers (CTCs at Irwin, Polk and Hohenfels Ger).

 

Here’s a link to a story about last month training rotation for the 2nd BDE 82nd Airborne.  The scenario consisted of jumping into an allied nation.  Defending it against a conventional attack by a neighboring country that turns into a counterinsurgency and a counteroffensive involving Bradleys, Strykers, helicopters and the Air Force.   

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/97878/2-82nd-airborne-complete-first-decisive-action-jrtc-rotation

 

Your concerns for NCOs is well founded.

 

@jrexilius

Jrex – “My general point being that they are trying to sell themselves as small unit, specially trained, light/quick reaction force-multiplier types.“    Where did you get that?  What size unit are you talking?  You wouldn’t deem a Battalion out of the 82nd, 101st or 10th ID as small, specially trained light/quick reaction force?  Keep in mind when an SF ODA ran into trouble at the Mazar I Sharif prison it was a platoon that assisted them in quelling the uprising as the rest of the BN relieved Brit SAS & SBS at Bagram.  Then there’s the 173rd that jumped in N. Iraq. 

 

Not sure what you APAC is.  As for China, there is more conventional Army in theatre than any other service.  Given today’s situation I don’t see US Army and Chines forces facing off but then again I don’t see SOF or any of our services facing off.  What does China have to do with the article and the perceived future of SOF?

jrexilius
jrexilius moderator 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

 @shooten  To cast the discussion in a more cynical tone, Big Army is trying to say it is SOF too so it has a role for the next decade.  If they don't make themselves relevant, all the budget goes to USAF, USN and SOCOM.  Everyone wants to believe that war with China or Russia is impossible so why do we need tanks?

 

I'm personally not convinced that mothballing our ability to wage a real war is a brilliant idea but the budget reality will force the issue.

TKW406
TKW406 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

 @jrexilius  @shooten   I'm very interested to hear your position on how the upcoming "fiscal cliff" budget cuts to the Pentagon will affect this Big Army vs SOF debate.

TKW406
TKW406 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 6 Like

 @jrexilius  @shooten  I'm non-mil but have discussed a similar topic w/ a friend who is retired SOF.  His concern was that SOF is already having to carry too much of the load and is still having more added.  "Dog chasing it's tail" comes to mind as SOF will need to grow larger but then will still need it's future DEVGRU types.  

jrexilius
jrexilius moderator 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 6 Like

 @TKW406  @jrexilius  @shooten  I wish a had a crystal ball that worked, but there is no measure of reality or ground truth that survives crossing the beltway DMZ to inform predictions.  The politicians and the top brass will spin, negotiate, lie, bluster and pretend their way through the process, the end result will not be pretty whatever it is.

 

I personally think Big Army needs to take the brunt of the cut, but rather than try to pretend that the rest of their force is SOF they should focus on maintaining their big army training albeit at a reduced size.  It's not easy to scale up when needed but it's easier than scaling up AND retraining.

LeverAction
LeverAction 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Faith and begorrah but this will get me slandered, but ... here goes ... I'd feel a lot more comfortable about the future of invaluable SOF operations and Operators only if ... first we fix whatever the hell is wrong at the uppermost level of the US Command structure. Something evil, insane, politically correct and just flat out dumb as shit is going on in the top levels of US Force commands. 

 

And I don't mean Petraeus. Although that's another topic. When brilliant operators like Danny Nightingale have to stand for the humiliating bullshit of charges leveled against him by ying yangs not even fit to polish the shit off his shoes - and so many other SOF have to adapt to and overcome the ROE handed by REMF sitting at desks having themselves some government secretaries and blow, or more likely today - an estrogen-fest with their coven - we are in deep shit. 

 

Something very very wrong has infected the Command structure at the top and it apparently is highly infectious. 

 

Fix that and I'll feel a lot better about the role of SOF in the future.

ReyDeLosTiburones
ReyDeLosTiburones 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Yes, until you run into a Chinese force of 20,000,000.  Then numbers will matter.

DieHardDeuce
DieHardDeuce 5pts

Yep, number of tactical nukes...

Africanadian
Africanadian 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 5 Like

I see the niches of the conventional and SOF to be so distinct that it is not a great idea to try to shoehorn conventional forces into doing more and more traditional SOF roles. Trying to use either force in the other's area is a recipe for disaster. This is a lesson that does not have to be learned at all, there are examples from every decade as to why this is not a good idea, especially from the 1960s on. The temptation for conventional forces is that they see specialised units getting the column inches, budgets, media and movie time, and think "o, we can do that to, we just need to change x and y" What then happens is conventional forces lose focus on their vital mission and specialities, and correspondingly you have some "special" units that don't have members of the right calibre, or inter service rivalry gets worse as the grey areas expand between where "conventional" areas of responsibility end and SOF's begin and vice versa.

 

The nature of combat is always evolving and the thing with the future is that no one knows what it is going to be, this means being able to deal with a myriad of potential threats. There is no guarantee that there won't be massed armour battles in the future, likely there won't be, but if you don't have the forces, equipment or training to deal with it, you get destroyed, or suffer heavily. Its totally unlikely that there will ever be a nuclear war, but would it make sense to get rid of the US nuclear weapons?

 

As Spulak says SOF is a vital niche and a complement. SOF adds to conventional forces, and conventional forces (especially air, artillery etc) add to SOF. You need a sharp spear, and a sharp sword, plus a shield probably isn't a bad idea too.

N3V3R_SRRNDR
N3V3R_SRRNDR 5pts

I'm thinking this is the paper the last quote is from?

 

https://jsou.socom.mil/JSOU%20Publications/JSOU07-7spulakATheoryofSpecialOps_final.pdf

usapatriotonthemove
usapatriotonthemove 5pts

 @N3V3R_SRRNDR Thanks guys...will read this next time a get a chance.  Definitely something our leadership I hope, is thinking about going forward. 

 

Africanadian
Africanadian 5pts

 @N3V3R_SRRNDR Yes it is.

Join the SOFREP Team Room, Support Our Veteran Writing Team
  • Hot Now

  • Latest SOFREP

    • Stolen Valor Law II Passes House

      Stolen Valor Law II Passes House

      May 24, 2013, 13 Comments
    • Spies in America: A National Security Debacle (Part 1)

      Spies in America: A National Security Debacle (Part 1)

      May 24, 2013, 15 Comments
    • White House is Dragging Their Feet Re: Benghazi Suspects

      Why The White House is Dragging Their Feet Re: Benghazi Suspects

      May 23, 2013, 121 Comments
    • Hoodlums Howling Allahu Akbar Hack British Soldier to Death on Busy Street in London

      Hoodlums Howling Allahu Akbar Hack British Soldier to Death on Busy Street in London

      May 22, 2013, 466 Comments
    • What's Missing from The U.S. Dept. of State's Mission Statement, and What I've Added

      What’s Missing from The U.S. Dept. of State’s Mission Statement, and What I’ve Added

      May 22, 2013, 51 Comments
    • 3D Printers For SOF Units

      3D Printers For SOF Units

      May 22, 2013, 20 Comments
    • A Team Effort - Part 2

      A Team Effort – Part 2

      May 21, 2013, 12 Comments
    • Is Pakistan Heading Towards a Cliff?

      Is Pakistan Heading Towards a Cliff?

      May 20, 2013, 20 Comments
    • And The Hits Just Keep On Comin'

      And The Hits Just Keep On Comin

      May 20, 2013, 22 Comments
    • A Team Effort - Part 1

      A Team Effort – Part 1

      May 19, 2013, 27 Comments
  • Most Commented

    • Not Mirandizing Terrorists? Slippery slope...

      Not Mirandizing Terrorists? Slippery slope...

      April 25, 2013, 544 Comments
    • Hoodlums Howling Allahu Akbar Hack British Soldier to Death on Busy Street in London

      Hoodlums Howling Allahu Akbar Hack British Soldier to Death on Busy Street in London

      May 22, 2013, 466 Comments
    • Extortion 17 Heroes

      Extortion 17 Heroes

      May 9, 2013, 371 Comments
    • What’s Been 'Camouflaged' About Camouflaged Uniforms?

      What's Been 'Camouflaged' About Camouflaged Uniforms?

      May 14, 2013, 271 Comments
    • Benghazi: Book Delves Into the Details Nobody's Talking About

      UT Report: Benghazi Book Uncovers the Details Nobody's Talking About

      May 7, 2013, 245 Comments
    • Attention Whores and Conspiracy Theorists (But I Repeat Myself)

      Attention Whores and Conspiracy Theorists (But I Repeat Myself)

      April 27, 2013, 242 Comments
    • State Department at Fault Over Benghazi Response

      State Department at Fault Over Benghazi Response

      May 2, 2013, 229 Comments
    • DSC_4902

      Why Does PETA Want to Kill Our Special Operators?

      April 29, 2013, 188 Comments
    • SOFREP on Newsmax TV Discussing Benghazi

      SOFREP on Newsmax TV Discussing Benghazi

      May 8, 2013, 157 Comments
    • red dawn

      Battlefield America: Literary Reflux in 500 Words or Less

      April 30, 2013, 137 Comments
  • Topics by Category

    • SOF News

    • Op-Ed

    • MARSOC

    • NSWC

    • USASOC

    • Coalition SOF

    • SOF History

    • Special Operations

    • Black Ops & Intel

    • Admin

    • No Shit There I Was

  • SOFREP TV

    • U.S. Army Rangers Episode 4: Life in Ranger Battalion (Part 1)

      U.S. Army Rangers Episode 4: Life in Ranger Battalion (Part 1)

      May 20, 2013, 16 Comments
    • US Army Rangers Episode 3: Ranger Indoctrination (RIP)

      U.S. Army Rangers Episode 3: Ranger Indoctrination (RIP)

      May 15, 2013, 24 Comments
    • U.S. Army Rangers Episode 2: Ranger Indoctrination (RIP)

      U.S. Army Rangers Episode 2: Ranger Indoctrination (RIP)

      May 13, 2013, 43 Comments
    • Honoring the Fallen

      Heroes of U.S. Special Operations: Honoring the Fallen

      December 9, 2012, 4 Comments
    • The Unifying Issue

      Heroes of U.S. Special Operations: The Unifying Issue

      December 8, 2012, 3 Comments
    • Veterans Day

      Heroes of U.S. Special Operations: Veterans Day

      December 7, 2012, 2 Comments
    • Inside the Team Room Episode 26: Passing the Gut Check

      Inside the Team Room Episode 26: Passing the Gut Check

      November 19, 2012, 7 Comments
    • Inside the Team Room Episode 25: SEALs vs. Gangsters

      Inside the Team Room Episode 25: SEALs vs. Gangsters

      November 18, 2012, 16 Comments
    • Inside the Team Room Episode 24: Leaving the Teams

      Inside the Team Room Episode 24: Leaving the Teams

      November 17, 2012, 4 Comments
  • SOFREP Radio

    • And The Hits Just Keep On Comin'

      And The Hits Just Keep On Comin

      May 20, 2013, 22 Comments
    • Navy SEAL Mike Ritland And Dog Rico Tour New York

      Navy SEAL Mike Ritland And Dog Rico Tour New York

      May 10, 2013, 19 Comments
    • Mark Donald - SEAL Medic And Author Of Book Battle Ready

      Mark Donald – SEAL Medic And Author Of Book Battle Ready

      April 28, 2013, 10 Comments
SOFREP Network SOFREP Network SOFREP Navy SEALs The Loadout Room Hot Extract The Arms Guide SOFREP Radio SOFREP TV SOFREP Team Room
Listen to SOFREP Radio #1 on iTunes
  • Contact
  • About
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Commenting
  • Advertisers

© Copyright 2013 SOFREP Inc. All Rights Reserved.