Unconventional Warfare in the Contemporary

Operational Environment: Transforming Special

Forces
A Monograph
by
Major Paul A. Ott
United States Army Special Forces

School of Advanced Military Studies

United States Army Command and General Staff College
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
AY 01-02

Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited

 SCHOOL OF ADVANCED MILITARY STUDIES

MONOGRAPH APPROVAL

Major Paul A. Ott

Title of Monograph: Unconventional Warfare in the Contemporary Operational

Environment: Transforming Special Forces

Approved by:

_________________________________________ Monograph Director

Joseph G.D. Babb, MA

_________________________________________ Director, School of

COL James K. Greer, MMAS Advanced Military Studies

_________________________________________ Director, Gradua te Degree

Philip J. Brookes, Ph.D. Program

ii
 Abstract
UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE IN THE CONTEMPORARY OPERATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT: TRANSFORMING SPECIAL FORCES by Major Paul A. Ott, U.S. Army
Special Forces, 63 pages.

The emphasis on special operations and specifically unconventional warfare (UW) has grown
significantly since the end of the Gulf War. The contemporary operational environment (COE) in
which the U.S. military operates today is dictating this emphasis. The COE is the complex global
environment that exists today. It encompasses the effects of globalism, changes in the global
power structure, the proliferation of technology and weapons of mass destruction, and the entire
spectrum of threats that exist—from traditional nation-state actors to emerging non-state actors.
The core purpose of Army Special Forces (SF) has been, and will continue to be UW. The ability
to operate in this dynamic, ambiguous environment through, with, and by indigenous and
surrogate forces often makes SF an ideal economy of force for operations in the COE.
This study looks at the SF organization to determine what changes are indicated from the
COE for it to continue to provide a viable, effective UW capability. The study first analyzes the
historical origins and evolution of the SF organization from World War II through the Gulf War.
The study then defines and analyzes the COE and recent SF operations since the end of the Gulf
War. From this analysis, the study identifies areas in which the SF organization needs to change
in response to the COE.
The study identified the direct and indirect impacts on the SF organizational structure. Direct
effects of the COE include personnel and training changes resulting from the increased emphasis
on human intelligence (HUMINT) and information technologies for SF to operate effectively in
the joint, multinational, and interagency environment. Indirect effects of the COE include
increases in command and control, combat support, and combat service support assets required to
conduct multiple, sustained special operations globally.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract................................................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................iv
ILLUSTRATIONS.................................................................................................................v
TABLES................................................................................................................................v
ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................................................vi
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
Structure of the Study..........................................................................................................1
Problem Statement ..........................................................................................................1
Methodology...................................................................................................................2
Background and Significance ..............................................................................................3
THE SPECIAL FORCES ORGANIZATION .........................................................................10
Historical Origins..............................................................................................................10
1950's—Organization and Activation of Special Forces.......................................................12
Evolution of the Organization............................................................................................14
Current Special Forces Organization ..................................................................................19
CONTEMPORARY OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT.......................................................23
Describing the COE ..........................................................................................................25
Characteristics...............................................................................................................25
Trends ..........................................................................................................................27
Recent Special Forces Operational Trends ..........................................................................31
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................39
Analysis ...........................................................................................................................39
C2, CS, CSS..................................................................................................................40
Personnel......................................................................................................................43
Recommendations.............................................................................................................47
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................51
Suggested Further Research...............................................................................................53
APPENDIX A – SPECIAL FORCES MISSIONS AND COLLATERAL ACTIVITIES ...........54
Special Forces Missions ....................................................................................................54
Special Forces Collateral Activities....................................................................................54
APPENDIX B – SPECIAL FORCES ORGANIZATION........................................................56
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................59
Primary Sources ...............................................................................................................59
Government Documents.................................................................................................59
Secondary Sources............................................................................................................61
Books ...........................................................................................................................61
Articles and Essays .......................................................................................................61
Theses and Monographs.................................................................................................62
Other............................................................................................................................63

iv
 ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page
1. Composition of a SFODB 45
2. Special Forces Group (1961) 56
3. Special Forces Group (1965) 56
4. Special Forces Group (1969) 57
5. Special Forces Group (1974) 57
6. Special Forces Group (1981) 58
7. Special Forces Group (1961) 58

TABLES

Table Page
1. Special Forces Mission Categories 8
2. Total SF Operational Detachments 40
3. Group Support Assets 41

v
 ABBREVIATIONS
AOB – advanced operating base
ARSOTF – army special operations task force
C2 – command and control
C4I – command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence
COE – contemporary operating environment
CS – combat support
CSS – combat service support
CST – coalition support team
CT – counterterrorism
DA – direct action
FID – foreign internal defense
FOB – forward operating base
HUMINT – human intelligence
JCO – joint commission observer
JSOTF – joint special operations task force
LCE – liaison coordination element
OOTW – operations other than war
OSS – Office of Strategic Services
PSYOP – psychological operations
SF – Special Forces
SFG – Special Forces Group
SFODA – Special Forces Operational Detachment A
SFODB – Special Forces Operational Detachment B
SOF – special operations forces
SR – special reconnaissance
USASFC – United States Army Special Forces Command
USASOC – United States Army Special Operations Command
USSOCOM – United States Special Operations Command
UW – unconventional warfare
WMD – weapons of mass destruction

vi
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
A rapidly changing world deals ruthlessly with organizations that do not change...This
reality means that USSOCOM must embrace and institutionalize the process of change in
a disciplined manner that allows us to move closer to our vision. During this journey,
only our core values are permanent and non-negotiable. Everything else--our
organization, force structure, platforms, equipment, and missions--must continuously
evolve to meet the needs of the nation and seize the opportunities brought about by
change...To be relevant in the future, we must continue our transformation, while
maintaining the readiness required to shape and respond to the world today. We need to
anticipate trends and future scenarios, conditioning ourselves to not be surprised by
surprise and the rapidity of change and the dynamics that follow. As new threats arise,
we must decide which of our current capabilities to retain or modify, which new ones to
develop, and which old ones to discard.1
General Peter J. Schoomaker
Commander, USSOCOM

The world is rapidly changing and the United States Army, to include Army Special

Operations Forces (SOF), is seeking ways to transform itself to meet the security challenges of

the future. The changing global environment in the past decade has resulted in an increase in

operations other than war (OOTW) and a corresponding increased demand for unconventional

operations. The global war on terrorism will increase the number and scope of these types of

operations even further. Army Special Forces must transform to meet these rising needs and the

changing nature of the contemporary operating environment (COE).

Structure of the Study

Problem Statement

Does the current Special Forces organization need to change to meet operational needs in the

contemporary operational environment? This study focuses on the requirement of the Army

1
Peter J. Schoomaker, General, Special Operations Forces: The Way Ahead, United States
Special Operations Command homepage, http://www.socom.mil/ , 1998; quoted in Ronald M. Johnson,
"Application of Aspects of Unconventional Warfare: Tools for Engaging the Current and Future Threat
Trends of the Post-Cold War Environment" (Masters thesis, United States Army Command and General
Staff College, 1999), 1.

1
Special Forces organization to adapt to emerging operational requirements in today's dynamic,

uncertain, full-spectrum environment in order to continue providing a competent unconventional

warfare (UW) capability for the military.

The organization of Army Special Forces has evolved over the years since its formation in the

early 1950's. During the late 1950s and the Vietnam era, the organization saw significant growth

and transformation. However, the organization of its basic tactical unit, the Special Forces

Operational Detachment Alpha (SFODA), is nearly unchanged. The current organization is

arguably based on an out-dated, World War II era UW paradigm and is a model designed for the

Cold War environment. Rapid advances in technology, changing capabilities of the conventional

Army, operational experience across the spectrum of conflict, and changes in the threat over the

past decade have redefined the operational requirements for SF. However, unconventional

warfare (UW) will continue to be the unique purview of SF for the foreseeable future. It is

imperative that Army SF community examines the organization as a whole to see where changes

are needed, then aggressively transform the force to meet these needs.

This study looks at the contemporary operational environment (COE) and suggests changes

needed in the Special Forces organization to continue providing a viable and effective UW

capability. Is the organization of Army Special Forces adequate to meet the requirements of a

new, dynamic, rapidly changing contemporary operational environment? Is the current structure

capable of conducting sustained special operations in multiple theaters of operation? Are new

military occupation specialties needed in SF to sustain the UW capability? Does Special Forces

need to consider allowing women within its ranks?

Methodology

This monograph provides a brief historical analysis of the organization of Special Forces

since its inception. This includes a review of Special Forces' origin in World War II with the

2
Office of Strategic Services (OSS). This section concludes with a detailed look at SF's current

organization and missions.

Next, the monograph analyzes the contemporary operational environment with the intent of

identifying specific SOF requirements. A review of the recently published material, including

Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) white papers, the 1999 Hart-Rudman Commission

Reports, and the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) provide the characteristics and trends

of the operational environment that our military forces are expected to operate in. Recent

operations, including those in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Afghan region are used to provide

specific, real-world details and show the recurring UW nature of SF operations since the Gulf

War.

This monograph is based on primary source material in the form of government documents

and secondary sources such as books, journal and periodical articles, and monographs.

Additionally, interviews with subject matter experts have been used whenever available to

supplement the research.

Background and Significance

Since the end of the Cold War, the environment in which we operate and the threats we face

have changed significantly. Consequently, the mission requirements for the United States'

military forces have changed. The world is no longer a bipolar operational environment with

clearly defined threats against which the United States can structure its military forces. As

evidenced by the number and type of operations since the Gulf War, the end of the Cold War has

brought anything but stability into the world. Historic ethnic conflicts, competition for scarce

resources, criminal organizations, religious extremism, and terrorism are but a few of the forces

that pose threats to stability now and into the foreseeable future. The recent Quadrennial Defense

Review states, "the global security environment involves a great deal of uncertainty about the

3
potential sources of military threats, the conduct of war in the future, and the form that threats and

attacks against the Nation will take."2

Future enemies of the United States may not adhere to the currently accepted conventions of

warfare. Non-state actors such as international terrorist organizations will not be constrained by

the laws of land warfare. They will not meet the United States on equal terms—rather, they will

look for weaknesses in the security system of the United States to exploit while avoiding its

proven lethal conventional military establishment.

The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon on 11 September

2001 translated what were once suppositions about the future asymmetric threat into stark

realities in the American homeland. The threat, for which the United States must prepare and

respond, is now much clearer. The need to affect homeland security by military actions overseas

is greater. In light of several thousand civilian and military casualties at home, there will be

fewer domestic constraints on U.S. military activities in support of national security.

International relationships transformed practically overnight in response to the terrorist attacks.

Countries such as Iran, Syria, Libya, China, and Sudan showed an interest in cooperating with the

U.S. in the wake of the terrorist attack, albeit limited given the tenuous relationships that they

have maintained in recent years. Operations against terrorism have taken on a new, global scope

that will challenge traditional command and control relationships, logistical support structures,

and inter-agency cooperability.

The full spectrum of challenges, including asymmetric threats such as terrorism, facing the

U.S. in this contemporary operational environment (COE) has been an impetus for change across

the entire force for the past decade. The U.S. Army had already embarked on a major effort to

transform itself into a capabilities-based objective force in order to respond to a wide spectrum of

potential threats. Trying to transform amidst a reduction in the size of the military, increasingly

2
Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Washington,
D.C.: Department of Defense, 2001), 3.

4
tighter budgets, and a dynamic and uncertain threat has proven to be a difficult challenge. These

dynamics are leaving some "legacy systems" and traditional capabilities struggling for relevance

in the future force structure. Transformation efforts have accelerated rapidly in the past two years

under Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki. The Army is not alone in its effort to prepare

for the future - the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Command are also

studying and adopting new ways to organize, equip, and prepare for future operational

requirements.

Over the past decade as the Army downsized, Special Forces were spared major cuts, but

struggled to fill its authorized force structure. This was due largely to the significant decrease in

the active duty Army from which Special Forces was able to recruit. The result was a reduction

in the number of SFODAs per company, and even those remaining have struggled to operate at

full strength. Sustaining special operations in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (the war

on terrorism) worldwide will require a return to six SFODAs per company and possibly even

further organizational growth and changes. The stimulus of September 11th has prompted

increased funding for SOF and provides the opportunity to study, debate, and make appropriate

organizational changes.

In the past, senior SF headquarters have studied changing the organizational structure several

times. Until recently, most of the reviews have focused on the organization of the SFODA. In

1982, a four-man SFODA was proposed; in 1986, 1st Special Operation Command (SOCOM)

reviewed the SFODA structure with regards to SF integration into Air-Land Battle doctrine; and

in 1991, 1st Special Forces Group proposed a new organization with "four six-man detachments

under a new layer of command called a troop" and three troops in a squadron. 3 More recently, the

United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) conducted significant research to

develop a proposed SF objective force structure, with a fielding date to match the Army's goal of

3
James J. Starshak, "A Special Forces Operational Detachment for the 21st Century" (Masters
thesis, United States Army Command and General Staff College, 1993), 15-16.

5
2010. 4 In September 2001, USASOC conducted the Special Forces Transformation Wargame to

assess the proposed Objective Force Special Forces operational concepts, capabilities, and

organizations. 5 Additionally, the United States Army Special Forces Command (USASFC) is

developing an interim SF Group structure to bridge the gap between the existing force and the

objective force. On 14 November 2001, the USASFC Commander was briefed on an interim

design that would increase the size of the Special Forces Operational Detachment Bravo

(SFODB), make authorized positions at battalion and group to replace the "padded" positions that

consume SFODA personnel strength, and reorganize special support functions at the group level. 6

The Army recognizes the current and future operational environment requires a force with

more SOF-like capabilities. "The Army as a whole is becoming more like Special Forces as its

deployment capabilities grow and its maneuver units handle a range of missions that expands into

roles that previously were considered unconventional for them."7 Joint Vision 2020 states that

the future challenges will require "a Total Force composed of well-educated, motivated, and

competent people" that are capable of adapting to the ambiguous environment of the future.8

The extensive utilization of SOF in the 1990s shows that SOF UW skills are relevant and will

be used in the future across the operational spectrum in a variety of operations. The issues at

hand for SOF are enabling the force to conduct the number and scope of operations that will be

required in the COE and adapting the force in order to sustain its UW capability in a changing

world. This may require radical changes in the way SOF are resourced, structured, and operates.

4
United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), Objective Force Concept and
Wargame Results – Initial Report (DRAFT) (Fort Bragg, N.C.: USASOC, 2001), 3.
5
Ibid., 2.
6
"Padded" positions are headquarters staff, training, administrative, and liaison slots that are not
authorized positions in the table of organization and equipment (TOE). Typically, these positions are filled
with personnel taken from SFODAs. United States Army Special Forces Command, Interim Special
Forces Transformation: USASFC(A) CG Decision Brief (Fort Bragg, N.C.: USASFC(A), 14 November
2001).
7
Dennis Steele, "Unconventional Warfare: The Front Line of the Future," Army 51, no. 7 (July
2001): 30.
8
Henry H. Shelton, Joint Vision 2020 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2000), 7.

6
SOF may truly need to be "PH.Ds with rucksacks" in order to conduct unconventional warfare in

the future.9

The core purpose for the creation of Army Special Forces in the early 1950s was to conduct

Unconventional Warfare (UW). Special Forces traces its core mission and organization to the

UW organizations of World War II. The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Jedburgh Teams and

Operational Groups, and Detachment 101 worked in the European and China-India-Burma

theaters organizing partisans and guerrillas to conduct military operations in the enemy rear areas.

When the Cold War began, the United States realized the enormous potential of Special Forces

units trained to conduct UW in fighting the spread of communism worldwide.

The initial post-World War II UW focus was on organizing partisans and guerilla forces

behind enemy lines in Europe. This requirement spread to include other regions of the world as

the United States realized the potential for UW in areas such as Southeast Asia. The definition of

UW has evolved over the years to include a broad range of activities conducted in hostile or

denied territory using indigenous personnel. Joint Pub 1-02 defines UW as:

A broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations, normally of long duration,

predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized, trained,
equipped, supported, and directed in varying degrees by an external source. It includes
guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive, low visibility, covert, or clandestine operations,
as well as the indirect activities of subversion, sabotage, intelligence activities, and evasion
and escape. 10

The United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) is working to re-define

UW to better describe its employment in the COE. The USASOC Integrated Concept Team

(ICT) developing the Objective Force Special Forces concepts categorized all Special Forces

missions under the umbrella term Unconventional Operations. From this, the missions are

9
Alvin and Heidi Toffler, War and Anti-War: Survival at the Dawn of the 21st Century (Boston,
Mass.: Little, Brown and Company, 1993), 92-97. In their book, the Toffler's describe niche warfare as
smaller wars that have replaced large-scale conventional wars characteristic of the industrial age. This
form of warfare is in response to the distribution of threats caused by a single global superpower and the
effects of the information age. Unconventional warfare (UW) skills of Special Forces are ideally suited for
conducting this type of warfare.
10
Department of the Defense, Joint Pub 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and

7
divided into three sub-categories: Unconventional Warfare, Foreign Internal Defense, and U.S.

Unilateral Missions. Table 1 shows how USASOC categorizes current SF missions within this

evolving doctrinal framework.

Unconventional Operations
Unconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense US Unilateral
Through, with or by indigenous, Through, with or by indigenous, Missions
surrogates, or coalition partners surrogates, or coalition partners
Guerrilla Warfare Personnel Security Assistance Humanitarian Direct Action
Recovery Assistance Counter-Terrorism
Subversion Sabotage Non-Combatant Humanitarian Sabotage
Coalition Support Evacuation Demining Personnel Recovery
Operations Operations
Direct Action Special Counter-Narcotics Anti-Terrorism Special
Reconnaissance Reconnaissance
Counter- Training Assistance Counter- Non-Combatant
Terrorism Terrorism Evacuation Operations
Other missions as required Other missions as Counter Other missions as
required Insurgency required
Opns

Table 1: Special Forces Mission Categories 11

By law, the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is the only military

organization authorized to conduct UW.12 Within USSOCOM, the Army's Special Forces is the

primary force for this mission. In his book US Special Operations Forces in Action, Thomas K.

Adams states that "the military organization most capable of conducting UW, and the only

organization with a record of success in UW, is U.S. Army Special Forces."13 Although the

environment has changed and missions have evolved, the core capability that SF provides the

military remains unchanged—UW. The raison d'être for Army Special Forces is "its ability to

operate through, with, or by surrogates, indigenous populations and indigenous organizations."14

This capability is as important today as ever.

Associated Terms (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), 451.

11
USASOC, 4.
12
US Code, Title 10, Section 167 .
13
Thomas K. Adams, US Special Operations Forces in Action (London: Frank Cass Publishers,
1998), 302.
14
Mark D. Boyatt, Colonel (Retired), "Special Forces: Our Core Purpose," Special Warfare 14,
no. 1 (Winter 2001): 8.

8
 As the Army transforms itself from the legacy force to the objective force, it is imperative

that Special Forces transform as well. The transformation of the Army was well on its way, but

September 11th increased the pace, breadth, depth, and support for change. The requirement for

Special Forces' unique capabilities is clearly a part of future military strategies across the

spectrum of conflict, as stated in the recent QDR and evidenced by the operations in Afghanistan.

Forward deployed, capable, theater engagement forces will be required to achieve the defense

policy goals specified in the QDR.15 Army Special Forces has, and will continue to provide the

efficient, economy of force capability to support this strategy. The 1997 National Military

Strategy states the need for a UW capability that will certainly continue to grow in the future:

The range of challenges to our security demands an ability to influence certain events with
forces that are smaller and less visible than conventional formations, offering the NCA
[National Command Authorities] options that do not entail a major military commitment.
Special Operations Forces provide this capability and offer unique skills, tactics, and systems
for the execution of unconventional, potentially high-payoff missions.16

15
Rumsfeld, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 11. The four defense policy goals are:
Assuring allies and friends; dissuading future military competition; deterring threats and coercion against
U.S. interests, and; if deterrence fails, decisively defeating any adversary.
16
General John Shalikashvili, National Military Strategy: Shape, Respond, Prepare Now—A
Military Strategy for a New Era , online: http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/nms/; reprinted by the United States Army
Command and General Staff College, National Military Strategy (Fort Leavenworth, Kans.: United States
Army Command and General Staff College, 2000), 16.

9
 CHAPTER 2

THE SPECIAL FORCES ORGANIZATION

"When the hour of crisis comes, remember that forty selected men can shake the
world."17
Yasotay
Mongolian Warlord

Historical Origins

Officially, Special Forces traces its lineage to elite special purpose units including Rogers'

Rangers from the French and Indian Wars and the First Special Service Force, a combined

American and Canadian unit organized primarily to conduct direct action operations in the cold,

mountainous, snow-covered regions of the European Theater of Operation. 18 However, Special

Forces finds its true operational roots in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in WWII.

President Roosevelt initially established the Office of the Coordinator of Information (COI)

under the direction of Colonel William J. Donovan in July 1941. The organization was based on

Donovan's recommendation to create "a single agency to centralize the intelligence gathered by

several uncoordinated offices in Washington, combining the functions of psychological warfare

and special operations on the British model."19 The COI was divided into two primary sections:

Research and Analysis (R&A) and the Foreign Information Service (FIS).20

In June 1942, President Roosevelt redesignated the COI as the OSS with an emphasis on

conducting UW behind enemy lines in Europe, similar to the British Special Operations

Executive (SOE) model. Donovan organized the OSS into intelligence, special operations, and

training sections.21 Over the course of the war, the OSS organized three distinct special

17
Quoted most recently in Robin Neillands, In the Combat Zone: Special Forces since 1945
(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1997), 1.
18
Thomas K. Adams, US Special Operations Forces in Action (London: Frank Cass Publishers,
1998), 63.
19
Alfred H. Paddock, Jr., US Army Special Warfare (Washington, D.C.: National Defense
University Press, 1982), 5.
20
Ibid., 6.
21
Ibid., 25.

10
operations elements that operated in the European and China-India-Burma Theaters of

Operations; these were the OSS Jedburgh Teams, Operational Groups, and Detachment 101. 22

Detachment 101 was activated on 14 April 1942 to conduct operations in Burma under the

command of General Joseph Stilwell. These elements recruited, organized, equipped, and trained

Burmese fighters from the Kachin tribe to conduct operations against Japanese forces.23 Perhaps

more than any of the other OSS elements, Detachment 101 developed a firm appreciation for the

complexities of establishing credibility, winning trust and confidence, and organizing guerrillas

into effective fighting units. The experiences and lessons learned by Detachment 101 became

fundamental to later UW doctrine.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff authorized the formation of the OSS Operational Groups

(OGs) beginning 23 December 1942 for specific operations in Europe. These units, consisting of

thirty enlisted soldiers and four officers, are the truest forerunners of today's Special Forces

Operational Detachments Alpha (SFODA). "The OGs were parachuted or sea infiltrated behind

German lines in Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, Norway, and France. [They] were able to conduct

raids and operations without extensive partisan support, although every attempt was made to

coordinate with the resistance movements."24 After the defeat of Germany, many of these OG

personnel were re-trained and infiltrated behind Japanese lines to train Chinese guerrillas.25

Probably the most renowned OSS elements were the Jedburgh Teams.26

In early 1944, the OSS began creating the first of 96 three-man Jedburgh teams to provide
special operations support for the Allied invasions of France. A typical three-man team
consisted of a French officer, an American or British officer and an enlisted radio operator.
They were trained in close combat, infiltration and exfiltration techniques, small unit tactics,
light weapons, demolitions and a host of other skills necessary for survival behind German
lines. The Jedburgh teams were launched into Northern France at and shortly after the

22
Aaron Bank, From OSS to Green Berets (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), 145-153.
23
United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), Directorate of History and
Museums, Army Special Operations Forces in World War II (Fort Bragg, N.C.: USASOC), 7.
24
Ibid., 3.
25
Ibid., 3.
26
Jedburgh teams took their name from the area of Scotland where the Scots conducted guerrilla
warfare against the English during the twelfth century. Leroy Thompson, The Illustrated History of the
U.S. Army Special Forces (Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, 1988), 2.

11
 Normandy invasion (Operation Overlord) from various airfields in England and into Southern
France just before and after the landings in conjunction with Operation Dragoon. 27

The Jedburgh Teams worked with the French resistance to conduct sabotage and direct action

operations against German rear elements and made a significant contribution to the Allied

invasion efforts.28

The OSS during WWII established the model for UW forces and future special operations.

OSS emphasized the need for indirect military skills such as language ability, cultural orientation,

and regional expertise as well as direct combat skills such as marksmanship, hand-to-hand

combat, clandestine communications, and demolitions. The economy of using small teams,

specially organized, trained, and equipped to operate behind enemy lines with indigenous

personnel was clearly established. Organizationally, the OSS set a precedence for strategic level

special operations and intelligence collection in support of national objectives.

1950's—Organization and Activation of Special Forces

With the end of World War II, all of the OSS elements were disbanded and the military's

capability to conduct UW disintegrated. However, the idea of conducting UW was not

completely lost. In late 1946, the Army Ground Forces (AGF) conducted a study into the

efficacy of organizing an unconventional warfare group with a combination of the OSS and

Ranger capabilities.29 The 1947 National Security Act established the Central Intelligence

Agency (CIA) and effectively took the requirement to maintain a UW capability out of the hands

of the military. Later, "in mid-1948, [the National Security Council] expanded the CIA charter,

which already charged the CIA with the conduct of covert [psychological warfare], to include the

conduct of UW in support of resistance/guerrilla movements."30 Consequently, the military did

27
Ibid., 2.
28
Bank, 43-74.
29
Paddock, 70.
30
Bank, 161.

12
not wholeheartedly pursue a UW capability until the Cold War against the Soviet Union and

events in Korea again triggered the need in the early 1950s.

When the North Koreans attacked south on 22 June 1950, the special operations capability

within the Far East Command (FECOM) was negligible. This communist-backed invasion,

combined with the threat of war in Europe with the Soviet Union, set in action the initiative

within the Army to create the Office of the Chief of Psychological Warfare (OCPW) under the

direction of Brigadier General Robert McClure. Officially established on 15 January 1951, the

OCPW was concerned primarily with psychological and unconventional warfare. This special

staff began the development of the current Army Special Forces organization. 31

Colonel Aaron Bank and Lieutenant Colonel Russell Volckmann developed the concept,

organization, and mission for Special Forces based upon their personal UW experiences in

WWII. As Colonel Bank stated, "the OSS heritage would be utilized as background for all our

concepts of operations, organization, plans, studies, briefings, and training outlines...its mission

would be strictly within the spectrum of UW."32 They designed the Special Forces organization

around its most basic operational element—the A-team, later known as the Special Forces

Operational Detachment Alpha (SFODA). The initial concept was to have a 15-man A-team,

which could be combined to be the equivalent of the OSS Operational Group or divided into

smaller teams equivalent of the OSS Jedburgh Teams. Ultimately the A-team was reduced to

twelve men—two officers and ten enlisted men commanded by a captain. They also developed

the initial concept for the Special Forces company and battalion. On 19 June 1952, the 10th

Special Forces Group (SFG) was activated under the command of Colonel Bank. 33

Many of the members of the original 10th SFG were Lodge Bill personnel—foreign nationals

that enlisted in the United States Army with the incentive of receiving U.S. citizenship for their

31
Paddock, 83-89.
32
Bank, 166.
33
Ibid.

13
service.34 Recruitment of these personnel into Special Forces underscores the emphasis placed on

language skills, regional expertise, and cultural awareness necessary for effective UW operations.

The focus for 10th Group was on Eastern Europe, with its potential to raise large guerrilla

formations behind Soviet lines. In 1953, 10th SFG was split in order to create the nucleus of the

77th SFG at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and the remainder of 10th Group was moved to Bad

Tolz, Germany.

Evolution of the Organization

This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origins—war by guerrillas,
subversives, insurgents, assassins; war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration,
instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of
engaging him...It requires in those situations where we must encounter it...a whole new
kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different
kind of military training.35
John F. Kennedy
May 25, 1961

Elected in 1952, President Eisenhower was no fan of small wars and his nuclear deterrence

strategy focused on the threat of massive retaliation to keep China, the Soviet Union, and their

communist allies at bay. 36 The United States was concerned about the domino effect of spreading

communism in Southeast Asia, but remained focused on a Europe first strategy. Reluctantly,

Eisenhower provided France and later Republic of South Vietnam with financial and indirect

military support. The commitment of Special Forces in Southeast Asia gradually increased

34
"In 1950, the American Congress approved a bill sponsored by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge,
authorizing the enlistment of foreign aliens into the U.S. Army and providing for the granting of permanent
resident status in the United States to enlistees who honorably completed five years of military service."
An Eisenhower administration concept called the Volunteer Freedom Corps, envisioned using young men
that had fled Eastern Europe as U.S. military forces to fight communism. In this concept, the aliens would
be eligible for American citizenship after a period of service. H.W. Brands, Jr., "A Cold War Foreign
Legion? The Eisenhower Administration and the Volunteer Freedom Corps," Military Affairs 52, no. 1
(January 1988): 7. Congress of the United States, United States Code Congressional Service, 81st
Congress—Second Session, Chapter 443—Public Law 597, Army—Enlistment of Aliens (St. Paul, Minn.:
West Publishing Co., 1950), 319. Bank, 168.
35
John F. Kennedy, May 25, 1961; quoted in Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., The Army and Vietnam
(Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), 29-30; quoted in Susan L. Marquis,
Unconventional Warfare: Rebuilding U.S. Special Operations Forces (Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution Press, 1997), 13.
36
Adams, 63.

14
throughout the late 1950s and the early 1960s. Already in the late 1950s, missions existed such

as the White Star Program in Laos, where specially organized small teams were sent in as Field

Training Teams (FTTs) to organize and train indigenous personnel, the Meo and Kha tribesman,

to conduct anticommunist operations. 37 By 1960, U.S. SF advisors were also operating with

various elements of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. 38

President John F. Kennedy's keen interest in Special Forces and UW spurred a rapid growth

in the use of indigenous forces to fight communist-based insurgencies. He recognized Special

Forces as a means to engage in these small wars without a major commitment of U.S. ground

forces. Special Forces fit nicely into the "flexible response" strategy developed by President

Kennedy and his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara.39 The skills for which Special Forces

were formed were not used for their original purpose—to organize and train guerrillas; rather, SF

were used in a multitude of applications that required the same skills as UW. The defining

mission for SF during this era became counter-insurgency, conducted similar to today’s doctrinal

mission of Foreign Internal Defense (FID).

Organizationally, Special Forces experienced rapid growth and transformation during the

1960s. Three Special Forces Groups were formed by 1960—the 10th, 77th (later changed to the

7th), and 1st. By mid-1964, four additional groups were formed—the 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 8th

Groups. The 10th Group focused on Europe, 1st Group on Southeast Asia, 3rd Group on Africa,

5th Group on Vietnam, 6th Group on the Middle East, and 8th Group on Latin America.40

Special Action Forces (SAFs) were created in the early 1960s to give the Special Forces

Group a broader capability of military assistance missions. Each SAF consisted of "a 1,500-man

Special Forces Group backed up by a civil affairs group, a [PSYOP] battalion, an engineer

37
A Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha (SFODA) is a twelve-man element organized
so that it can operate in two, nearly identical six-man teams (referred to as split-teams).
38
Thompson, 45-54.
39
Adams, 63-69.
40
Thompson, 42-43.

15
 detachment, a medical detachment, an intelligence detachment, an MP [military police]

detachment, and an ASA (Army Security Agency—electronic intelligence) unit."41 Eventually,

four SAFs were created, but never fully manned or implemented: one around the 1st SFG for the

Far East; the 8th SFG for Latin America; the 3rd SFG for Africa; and the 6th SFG for the Middle

East.42

The structure of the SFG changed significantly from 1960 to the early 1970s. In 1961, the

SFG consisted of a headquarters and headquarters company and four SF companies. (See

Appendix B – The Special Forces Organization, for a diagram of the SFG organizational

structures.) The SF company was commanded by a lieutenant colonel, and consisted of an

administrative detachment, one SF operational detachment C (SFODC), three SF operational

detachments B (SFODB), and 12 SF operational detachments A (SFODA). The SFODB

consisted of 23 personnel commanded by a major and a staff similar to today's battalion staff

structure (with a captain as the XO and lieutenants as the S1, S2, S3, and S4).43 The June 1965

version of FM 31-21, Special Forces Operations, shows that the SFG added a signal company

and an aviation company. Additionally, captains now manned the SFODB staff positions.44

Doctrinally, SF's primary mission remained UW, but its organization was changing to reflect its

utilization for counter-insurgency (COIN) operations.45

The greatest changes in the SFG structure occurred in the late 1960s, as evidenced by the

1969 version of FM 31-21, Special Forces Operations – U.S. Army Doctrine. This manual

illustrates the first doctrinal SFG structure similar to today's structure. The lieutenant colonel

position moved from the company command level to the battalion command. The SFG consisted

41
Ibid., 42.
42
Thompson, 42. Adams, 100-101. Charles M. Simpson III, Inside the Green Berets: The First
Thirty Years (Novato, Calif.: Presidio Press, 1983), 69-70.
43
Department of the Army, Field Manual 31-21, Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces
Operations (Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army, September 1961), 18-25.
44
Department of the Army, Field Manual 31-21, Special Forces Operations (Washington, D.C.:
Headquarters, Department of the Army, June 1965), 19.
45
Ibid., 17.

16
of a headquarters and headquarters company, three SF battalions, and a support battalion. The SF

battalion consisted of a headquarters and headquarters detachment and three SF companies. Each

SF company now consisted of a company headquarters (SFODB) and five SFODAs. The

SFODA size increased to 14 personnel (the only time it varied from 12 personnel). Along with

structural change came the first significant doctrinal shift in SF's missions. UW was no longer

the sole purpose for SF. The 1969 SF doctrinal manual listed the following missions:

Unconventional Warfare, Stability Operations, and Direct Action. Additionally, this doctrine

specified varying structures for the SF company and SFODA, depending on a direct action or UW

mission. 46

The primary participation of SF in South Vietnam in the early 1960s was through the CIA

sponsored and funded Civilian Irregular Defense Group (CIDG) program. "The basic concept of

the program was to deny Viet Cong access to the rural population of Vietnam."47 The SFODAs

operated in the Central Highlands with the local tribes to organize their village defense structure.

The use of the SF-trained militia forces eventually evolved to operations in conjunction with

offensive combat missions with conventional forces from the Government of Vietnam.

As the conflict's emphasis shifted to conventional operations in the mid-1960s, SF's role

evolved from its original function to more direct action and special reconnaissance missions. In

early 1964, President Johnson approved a plan for covert operations (Operations Plan 34A) that

authorized the formation of a Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force (JUWTF) that became

known as MACV-SOG (Military Advisory Command Vietnam – Studies and Observation

Group). Although the missions included a variety of unconventional tasks, "the bulk of SOG

efforts were directed toward reconnaissance and strike missions in support of MACV's

conventional forces...chiefly in Laos and Cambodia."48

46
Department of the Army, Field Manual 31-21, Special Forces Operations – U.S. Army Doctrine
(Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1969), 1-2 to 2-16.
47
Adams, 83.
48
Adams, 123.

17
 The 1974 version of FM 31-21, Special Forces Operations – U.S. Army Doctrine, reflects the

organizational and mission changes that evolved from the Vietnam era. It lists two missions for

SF: Unconventional Warfare and Internal Defense and Development (IDAD). The size of the

SFODB was significantly reduced (to five personnel), a sixth SFODA was given to each

company, and the SFODA returned to its previous 12-man size.

Following Vietnam, the Army experienced a rapid drawdown in forces and a significant

decrease in budget. From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, the Army re-focused itself on fighting

the Soviet Union on the plains of Central Europe. The Army's operational doctrine made

significant changes during this period, resulting in the 1986 FM 100-5 Operations and Air-Land

Battle doctrine. As part of this doctrinal shift, SF missions evolved to focus less on UW and

more on their part of Air-Land Battle doctrine – primarily special reconnaissance and direct

action missions to assist in shaping the deep battle. The application of UW skills was primarily

through FID and support to COIN in countries such as El Salvador. In addition, during the post-

Vietnam era, the need for special military units to combat terrorism resulted in its addition as one

of SF's primary missions.

The 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act and subsequent Nunn-Cohen Amendment were

instrumental in the evolution of SOF. Lessons learned from Desert One, the aborted mission to

rescue U.S. hostages from the American Embassy in Iran (1980), and Operation Urgent Fury, the

U.S. invasion of Grenada (1983), resulted in military and congressional initiatives to build a more

effective joint special operations capability. In 1986, Senators William Cohen and Sam Nunn

cosponsored legislature that resulted in a dramatic reorganization of SOF. The Cohen-Nunn

Amendment created the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and the Office

of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict

18
(OASD[SOLIC]).49 Although not directly a result of the Cohen-Nunn Amendment, on 9 April

1987 Special Forces became an official branch of the Army."50

The Gulf War was a watershed event in the evolution of Special Forces. Operations in

Southwest Asia truly mark the end of the Cold War era and the beginning of a new era of special

operations. Operation Desert Storm was fought as a coalition, but primarily in a conventional

manner. Special Forces played a crucial new role as coalition support teams (CSTs) to the

Islamic coalition forces from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Oman, Morocco, Bahrain, the United

Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar.51 The 5th Special Forces Group and elements of the 3rd

Special Forces Group provided training for these units as well as liaison with the United States

Central Command (CENTCOM). SF also conducted some special reconnaissance missions

across the border with limited success. The use of Special Forces as CSTs demonstrated yet

another application of their flexible skills and marked a transition point for SF to begin returning

to its traditional mission of UW.

Current Special Forces Organization

The most recent doctrine for Army Special Forces, FM 3-05.20 Special Forces Operations,

states that SF is organized, trained, and equipped for seven principal missions: unconventional

warfare (UW), foreign internal defense (FID), direct action (DA), special reconnaissance (SR),

combatting terrorism (CBT), counterproliferation (CP), and information operations (IO). In

addition to the primary missions, SF doctrine lists several collateral activities in which they may

participate, including coalition support, combat search and rescue (CSAR), counterdrug (CD),

49
Susan L. Marquis, Unconventional Warfare: Rebuilding U.S. Special Operations Forces
(Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1997), 69-147.
50
Lawrence P. Crocker, Army Officer's Guide – 45th Edition (Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books,
1990), 506. Authorized by the Secretary of the Army on 9 April 1987 and made official by General Order
number 35 on 19 June 1987
51
United States Department of Defense, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, Final Report to
Congress (Washington, D.C.: USDOD, 1992); cited in Thomas K. Adams, US Special Operations Forces
in Action: The Challenge of Unconventional Warfare (London: Frank Cass Publishers, 1998), 238.

19
humanitarian demining (HD), foreign humanitarian assistance (HA), security assistance (SA), and

special activities.52

There are currently five active-duty and two National Guard Special Forces Groups (SFGs).

The active duty groups are the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 10th and the National Guard groups are the

19th and 20th. The active duty groups are regionally oriented along similar lines with the

geographic unified commands. 1st SFG operates in the Pacific Command (PACOM) area of

responsibility (AOR), 5th SFG in the Central Command (CENTCOM) AOR, 7th SFG in the

Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) AOR, and 10th SFG in the European Command (EUCOM)

AOR. 3rd SFG operates across regional commands, primarily in the EUCOM and CENTCOM

AORs. However, the recent QDR calls for changes in regional alignment of SOF to account for

new regional emphasis in the defense strategy.53

The SFG is a flexible, multipurpose organization designed to support special operations

activities in any environment across the spectrum of conflict. The SFG is commanded by a

colonel and is similar in organizational structure to a conventional brigade or regimental

organization. The SFG has a headquarters and headquarters company (HHC), group support

company (GSC), and three SF battalions (See Appendix B – Special Forces Organization). The

GSC provides the intelligence, signal, and combat service support (CSS) to the SFG. 54 When

augmented, the SFG can operate as a Joint Special Operations Task Force (JSOTF) headquarters.

The SF battalion of a SFG consists of a battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment

(also known as the SFODC), a Battalion Support Company (BSC), and three SF companies. The

SF battalion plans, conducts, and supports special operations activities and is responsible for

isolating, deploying, controlling, sustaining, recovering, and reconstituting SFODBs and

52
Department of the Army, Field Manual 3-05.20, Special Forces Operations (Washington, D.C.:
Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2001), 2-1. See Appendix A for explanation of Special Forces
missions and collateral activities.
53
Rumsfeld, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 27.
54
Field Manual 3-05.20, Special Forces Operations, 3-1 to 3-10. See Appendix B – Special
Forces Organization.

20
SFODAs. When augmented, the SFODC can function as the headquarters for an Army Special

Operations Task Force (ARSOTF).55

The SF company consists of a Company Headquarters (SFODB) and six SFODAs. Its

primary purpose is command and control (C2) and may serve as an advanced operational base

(AOB), a special operations command and control element (SOCCE), an isolation facility

(ISOFAC), or conduct SF operations within a designated area of operations. 56

The SFODB is a ten-man element commanded by a major. Doctrinally, it consists of a

commander, executive officer (XO), operations warrant officer, sergeant major, operations

sergeant, assistant operations sergeant, supply sergeant, medical sergeant, and two

communications sergeants. Many of the SFODB functions require augmentation from one of the

SFODAs or external assets in order to adequately conduct its mission for a sustained duration. 57

The SFODA is the most basic organizational element in SF. Designed specifically to conduct

UW, it has changed very little since 1952. The SFODA consists of twelve men commanded by a

captain, which include: detachment commander, assistant detachment commander (SF warrant

officer), operations sergeant, assistant operations sergeant, two weapons sergeants, two engineer

sergeants, two medical sergeants, and two communications sergeants. The SFODA is designed to

operate in two six-man teams of nearly equal composition. By table of organization and

equipment (TOE), each SF battalion has one SFODA trained in underwater operations (UWO)

and one SFODA trained in military free-fall parachuting (MFFP). All SFODAs typically

specialize in some particular method of infiltration or type of operation, such as Special Forces

Advanced Urban Combat (SFAUC), advanced special operations (ASO), military

mountaineering, maritime operations, or vehicle operations.58

55
Ibid., 3-17.
56
Ibid., 3-25 to 3-26.
57
Field Manual 3-05.20, Special Forces Operations, 3-26.
58
Ibid., 3-29.

21
 Since the end of the Gulf War, Special Operations Forces have conducted extensive

deployments outside the continental United States (OCONUS). They have proven to be the force

of choice in many instances to deal with the post-Cold War security environment. In the Joint

Force Quarterly article "Special Operations Forces in Peacetime," John Collins reported that

Army Special Forces spent 53,555 man-weeks in 129 countries OCONUS in Fiscal Year 1998

alone.59 Recent major operational commitments for SF involving application of UW skills

include Northern Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, counterdrug operations in Columbia, and

Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. A more thorough analysis of the decade since the

Gulf War and the major U.S. military operations will show how the environment has changed and

the nature of Special Forces operations has evolved because of it.

59
John M. Collins, "Special Operations Forces in Peacetime," Joint Forces Quarterly, no. 21
(Spring 1999): 61.

22
 CHAPTER 3

CONTEMPORARY OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

Released from the grip of a bi-polar power structure, nations, transnational actors, and non-
nation state entities are free to challenge and redefine the global distribution of power, the
concept of sovereignty, and the nature of warfare. Information technology, transportation
technology, the acceleration of the global economic community and the rise of networked
society all impact the [current global] trends.60
TRADOC White Paper:
Capturing the Operational Environment
February 2000

The decade since the end of the Gulf War has been called a "strategic pause."61 During this

time, the United States has faced no peer competitor as it did with the Soviet Union before the fall

of the Berlin Wall. Although operationally busy with peacekeeping operations, humanitarian

assistance, and other stability and support operations, no significant threat challenged the United

States' national security or vital interests.62 Consequently, the Army focused on downsizing and

transforming to prepare for an uncertain future threat. The terrorist attack on 11 September 2001

was an alarming wake-up call to the U.S. about the threats we face now and in the future. That

attack effectively ended the strategic pause.

The contemporary operational environment (COE) refers to the complex global environment

the United States faces today. It is more than just the forces that pose a direct security threat to

the United States. The COE is a global system of systems, comprising of numerous variables that

interact to create intertwined national, political, economic, social, spiritual, cultural, and military

interests, challenges, and threats. It is the environment that resulted from rapid advances in

60
Combined Arms Center Threat Support Directorate, White Paper: Capturing the Operational
Environment (Fort Leavenworth, Kans.: United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, 2000).
61
Robert H. Scales, Jr. Future Warfare Anthology (Carlisle Barracks, Pa.: United States Army
War College, 2000), 148.
62
Department of the Army, Field Manual 3-0, Operations (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 2001), 1-15 to 1-16. " Stability operations promote and protect US national interests by
influencing the threat, political, and information dimensions of the operational environment through a
combination of peacetime developmental, cooperative activities and coercive actions in response to crisis.
Support operations employ Army forces to assist civil authorities, foreign or domestic, as they prepare for
or respond to crisis relieve suffering."

23
technology, the shift in power created by the collapse of the Soviet Union, traditional cultural,

religious, and ethnic rivalries, economic interdependence, and the complex dynamics of a single

global super-power.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the COE in order to derive requirements for the

future Special Forces organizational structure. To this end, this chapter first analyzes recent

literature describing the COE. To chart the operational realities of the changing environment, this

chapter also describes and analyzes major Special Forces operations since the end of the Gulf

War. This shows that SF missions have evolved over the past decade to meet evolving

operational requirements.

The description of characteristics and trends of the COE come primarily from three sources:

The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century Phase I Report – New World

Coming: American Security in the 21st Century (1999); the United States Army Training and

Doctrine Command (TRADOC) White Paper: Capturing the Operational Environment (2000);

and the United States Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report (2001).63

These three documents provide perspective of the COE from the Clinton administration (1999),

the Army (2000), and the Bush administration (2001). The recent Quadrennial Defense Review

(QDR) is used as the framework for discussion in this paper. Comparison of the three documents

shows there are no significant changes in the United States' view of the national security

environment from 1999 to 2001. The difference for the 2001 QDR is the predictions of the

previous two documents (i.e. potential attack within the U.S. homeland) had already come to

fruition.

The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) recently published the draft

version of its new opposing force (OPFOR) doctrine. In it, TRADOC has developed a

63
Rumsfeld, Quadrennial Defense Review Report. Gary Hart and Warren B. Rudman, New World
Coming: American Security in the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: The United States Commission on
National Security/21st Century, 1999). Combined Arms Center Threat Support Directorate, White Paper:
Capturing the Operational Environment (Fort Leavenworth, Kans.: United States Army Training and

24
contemporary OPFOR based on a generic nation-state and incorporates the multitude of

contemporary threats and other actors that the U.S. military will face in today's complex world

environment. This emerging doctrine calls the complex world environment the contemporary

operating environment (COE). The recent draft FM 7-100, OPFOR: Opposing Force Doctrinal

Framework and Strategy divides the elements influencing the COE into nation-state and non-

nation actors.64 Nation-states include "core states, transition states, rogue states, and failed or

failing states."65 Non-nation actors "include rogue actors, third-party actors, the media, and

multinational corporations. Examples [of rogue actors] include insurgents, guerrillas,

mercenaries, and transnational or subnational political movements. [Third-party actors include]

refugees and other civilians on the battlefield, including international humanitarian relief

agencies."66

Describing the COE

Characteristics

In The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas L. Friedman calls today's complex international

system "globalization."67 It is the foremost characteristic describing the COE. Competition

between the United States and the Soviet Union defined the Cold War system. The collapse of

the Soviet Union and the breaking down of the international barriers imposed by the Cold War

system is re-shaping the world. The Cold War system characterized by "the division of countries

into enduring and ideologically defined geopolitical blocs, has become more fluid and

Doctrine Command, 2000).

64
Department of the Army, Field Manual 7-100, OPFOR: Opposing Force Doctrinal Framework
and Strategy (Draft) (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), vi-vii.
65
Ibid., vi.
66
Ibid., vii.
67
Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (New York: Random House, 2000), 7.

25
unpredictable."68 This change has opened travel, communication, and commerce between

countries that were rivals in the previous system. 69 Friedman defines globalization as

the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to a degree never

witnessed before—in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to
reach around the world farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before, and in a way that
is enabling the world to reach into individuals, corporations, and nation-states farther, faster,
deeper, and cheaper than ever before.70

Globalization is shaped by rapid advances in technology such as the internet, cellular phones,

satellite communications, and fiber optics that allow rapid communication and have exponentially

increased the rate of change, innovation, and commerce. These technologies allow information to

flow to the farthest reaches of the world instantaneously. Companies are able to manage business

ventures and investments effectively from remote places. The media is capable of near real-time

reporting of critical events as they occur even in the most remote places such as Kandahar,

Afghanistan. The military is capable of precision strikes with here-to-fore unheard of sensor-to-

shooter integration.

Another important characteristic of the COE is urbanization. An increasing percentage of the

world's population lives in urban areas. "The UN [United Nations] projects that by 2025, sixty

percent of the world's population (5 billion people) will live in urban areas."71 The likelihood of

future military operations in urban areas is very high. Future threats will likely seek the sanctuary

of urban areas to mitigate the U.S. technological advantage and increase the threat of collateral

damage from strikes, even if precision munitions are used.

A critical aspect of the COE is the global balance of power. The United States is the

unrivaled, sole super-power in the world and has the ability to alter the balance of power in any

region diplomatically, economically, or militarily. Because of globalization, the interests of the

68
Rumsfeld, 3.
69
Friedman, 1-16.
70
Ibid., 9.
71
Paul K. Van Riper, "A Concept for Future Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain," Marine
Corps Gazette 81, no. 4 (October 1987), A-1; quoted in Lester Grau and Jacob Kipp, "Urban Combat:
Confronting the Specter," Military Review LXXXIX, no. 3 (July-August 1999), 10-11.

26
United States are broad and multi-faceted. A complex balance of power exists between the U.S.

and other nation-states, the global marketplace, and non-state actors.72 "The United States will

continue to be the hegemon and will be globally engaged (politically, technologically,

economically and militarily). [Although] nation-states are still [the] dominant actors…some

power is shifting to non-traditional actors. Political, economic, cultural, religious, and

environmental actors [are challenging] existing power structures without regard for tradition."73

Trends

The recent Quadrennial Defense Review divides the trends that effect the global security

environment into two major categories: key geopolitical trends and key military-technical trends.

These ten trends show threats and opportunities that will shape the U.S. strategy now and into the

future.

The key geopolitical trends are:

• Diminishing protection afforded by geographic distance.

• Regional security developments.
• Increasing challenges and threats emanating from territories of weak and failing
states.
• Diffusion of power and military capabilities to non-state actors.
• Developing and sustaining regional security arrangements.
• Increasing diversity in the sources and unpredictability of the locations of conflict.

The key military-technical trends are:

• Rapid advancement of military technologies.

• Increasing proliferation of CBRNE [chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
enhanced high explosive] weapons and ballistic missiles.
• Emergence of new arenas of military competition.
• Increasing potential for miscalculation and surprise.74

The recent terrorist event proved that the United States is no longer immune to threats within

its borders. The geographic protection it once enjoyed (or at least perceived) no longer exists.

72
Friedman, 13.
73
Combined Arms Center Threat Support Directorate, 6.
74
Rumsfeld, 3-7.

27
Economic globalization has increased travel and trade, consequently making America more

vulnerable to infiltration and attack by asymmetric means. In addition, the threat of ballistic

missile attack from rogue states and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) attacks from non-state

actors hostile to the U.S. continues to rise. Many of the hostile entities seek to acquire CBRNE

weapons and use them against the U.S. 75

Recent operations in Afghanistan highlight the diverse sources and locations of conflict the

U.S. will face in the future. Afghanistan presented the U.S. a variety of operational challenges.

Its physical location made it difficult to reach by carrier-based aircraft and the limited airfields in

friendly or allied countries. Its rugged, mountainous terrain, caves, harsh climates, and urban

areas posed challenging conditions for U.S. soldiers to operate. Initially, the Taliban operated in

urban areas, using the threat of collateral damage for protection. Later, after coalition bombing

efforts took their toll, they abandoned their efforts and fled to the rugged mountainous regions

where they could melt into the tribal population. Al Qaeda forces hid amongst the labyrinth of

natural and man-made tunnels along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Conditions in Afghanistan

do not provide a prescription to model future military capabilities; rather, Afghanistan provides a

good example of the complex environments that U.S. forces could face in the future.

Although the U.S. does not expect a peer competitor in the near future, there is a significant

potential for regional powers to threaten critical U.S. interests. Areas of particular concern in the

QDR are the Middle East and Asia.76 These regions are fraught with instability from religious

differences, traditional ethnic rivalries, and critical resources such as water and oil. Much of this

region is fragmented along tribal, ethnic, and religious lines. The 1999 Hart-Rudman

Commission report predicted that fossil fuel will remain the primary energy source in the

75
Rumsfeld, 4. Hart and Rudman, 4. Combined Arms Center Threat Support Directorate, 7-15.
76
Rumsfeld, 4.

28
foreseeable future, and oil from the Middle East and Central Asia are critical resources that will

remain of strategic importance.77

The fight against terrorism will take military operations into traditional areas of U.S. national

interest, but also into areas previously of little concern and likelihood of action. The ability of

terrorist organizations to train, sustain, plan, and operate in remote and unstable regions poses a

clear threat now. Until 11 September 2001, the deplorable conditions in Afghanistan under the

rule of the Taliban regime were not of significant enough interest for the U.S. to conduct military

operations in that region. The effects of globalization – technology, freedom of travel, and

satellite communications – provide international terrorist organizations the means to operate

effectively from remote regions, while financing, training, recruiting, supporting, and conducting

operations from a variety of locations around the globe.

The United States faces a significant threat to its national interests and security from regions

with weak, failing, and failed states.78 Many states are unable to provide the political, economic,

and social infrastructure needed in the rapidly changing world. Such states willingly or

unwillingly provide sanctuary and support for international terrorist and crime organizations.

These states provide organizations such as Al Qaeda, a radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorist

organization, the ability to gain and project asymmetric power globally. Such states are also a

greenhouse for traditional religious and ethnic conflicts to grow, with consequences spilling

across borders and around the world. As a world leader and the sole superpower, the U.S. faces a

changing threat and definition of national interests, which may include a moral obligation to

intervene and provide support to unstable situations globally.

The core elements of the nature of conflict have not changed in the COE – it is still brutal,

bloody, and ugly. However, the mode of conflict is changing in response to the environment.

Martin van Crevald, a historian at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, provides an interesting

77
Hart and Rudman, 5.
78
Rumsfeld, 5.

29
analysis of contemporary war in his 1991 book The Transformation of War.79 In it, he looks at

the nature of conflicts since 1945 and finds that nuclear power has been of little consequence and

conventional warfare insignificant, relative to the number of conflicts since World War II. What

was significant during this period (1945 – 1990) were low intensity conflicts.

Since 1945 there have been perhaps 160 armed conflicts around the world, more if we
include struggles like that of the French against Corsican separatists and the Spanish against
the Basques. Of those, perhaps three quarters have been of the so-called 'low-intensity'
variety (the term itself first appeared during the 1980s, but it aptly describes many previous
wars as well). The principle characteristics of low-intensity conflict (LIC) are as follows:
First, they tend to unfold in 'less developed' parts of the world; the small-scale armed
conflicts which do take place in 'developed' countries are usually known under a variety of
other names, such as 'terrorism,' 'police work,' or—in the case of Northern Ireland–'troubles.'
Second, very rarely do they involve regular armies on both sides, though often it is a question
of regulars on one side fighting guerrillas, terrorists, and even civilians, including women and
children, on the other. Third, most LICs do not rely primarily on the high-technology
collective weapons that are the pride and joy of any modern armed force. Excluded from
them are the aircraft and the tanks, the missiles and the heavy artillery, as well as many other
devices so complicated as to be known only by their acronyms.80

Not only have LICs been more prevalent, they have been bloodier, claiming millions more lives

than the conventional conflicts, and the results of many have been conclusive. 81 Ten years later,

van Crevald's analysis may have proven to be fairly accurate. The number of LICs has increased

while the occurrence and likelihood of conventional war has decreased. The Gulf War probably

decreased the likelihood of conventional war by demonstrating to the world the United State's

overwhelming conventional warfare capability. 82 In this respect, the U.S. has dictated the mode

of future conflict in the near term by forcing the rest of the world (at least potential adversaries) to

seek asymmetric means to confront the mighty U.S. military.

79
Martin van Crevald, The Transformation of War (New York: The Free Press, 1991).
80
Ibid., 20.
81
Ibid., 20-21.
82
The Gulf War reduced the likelihood of conventional war more than if it did not happen. Had
the Gulf War not happened, the U.S. would have remained wedded to the doctrine and capabilities of the
Cold War, where the U.S. was designed to fight the Soviet system. During the Gulf War, the world saw the
awesome demonstration of U.S. military capability, technology, and might, thus the potential of
conventional confrontation has been deterred. Major Rob Forte, lecture discussion at the School of
Advanced Military Studies, 4 January 2002. The U.S. has a very robust asymmetric warfare capability as
well. Whether the U.S. has the political will to fully employ this capability remains unanswered.

30
 Future adversaries of the United States (in the near to mid-term) will likely use asymmetric

methods to accomplish their objectives. Asymmetric warfare is the most daunting trend in the

COE because it seeks advantage in unexpected areas using unexpected means.83 Knowing that

the U.S. has maintained a technologically superior force, adversaries will continue to seek ways

to attack U.S. vulnerabilities and mitigate its strengths. In Kosovo, Serbian ground forces

negated the effects of Allied reconnaissance and precision bombing by dispersing forces and

using decoys where real ground weapon systems had previously been. Al Qaeda terrorists flew

U.S. commercial Boeing 767 aircraft into the World Trade Center towers using suicide pilots that

had lived and trained in the United States. These terrorists effectively leveraged western

democratic freedoms and its open society, including immigration laws and educational

opportunities in conjunction with security vulnerabilities in the airline industry to create mass

effects significantly disproportionate to the resources invested. Computer technology is

providing future adversaries another means of asymmetry, enabling communications and

allowing network organizations to operate in the seams of traditional hierarchical organizations.84

This is the environment the U.S. must adapt its military forces, including SOF, to work in.

Recent Special Forces Operational Trends

Since the symbolic fall of the Berlin Wall, SOF have had to perform a variety of missions
that fall under the category of 'Operations Other Than War.' At one time, these operations
were considered extraordinary, but in the 1990s, operations other than war had become the
norm. For example, in its first 40 years, the UN conducted only 13 such operations, but in
the years from 1988 to 1994, the number of peace operations more than doubled. Although
peace operations were not new to the 1990s, what was unprecedented were the numbers,
pace, scope, and complexity of recent operations…SOF have participated in these types of
operations, often as the lead military organization. Such capabilities as cultural and language

83
The following definition of asymmetric warfare was collectively developed during the School of
Advanced Military Studies Asymmetric Warfare Elective (January 2002): Asymmetric warfare is the
deliberate application of power using different, disproportionate and adaptive ways and means that is
oriented by a continuous assessment of the opponent's vulnerabilities and not easily countered without a
significant reorganization or redistribution of means in order to accomplish a specific aim.
84
John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, eds., Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime,
and Militancy (Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand, 2001); online at http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/
MR1382/.

31
 familiarity, warrior-diplomat skills, and maturity and professionalism made SOF an ideal
force for these operations.85

From the end of the Gulf War, beginning with Operation Provide Comfort in Northern Iraq

up to the time of this writing, Special Forces missions have shown a trend of migration back to its

UW roots. The post-Cold War environment has provided numerous opportunities and challenges

for unconventional warfare skills to be applied around the globe. These operations typically start

as distinctly humanitarian assistance, foreign internal defense, or peacekeeping operations, but the

complexity and evolutionary nature of these operations made SF the appropriate enabling force

for the situation. Later operations, such as the ongoing missions in Bosnia and Kosovo and the

operations in the Afghanistan region are even more unconventional in nature. In fact, the recent

operations with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan may be the closest thing to doctrinal UW

conducted since SF officially formed in 1952.

Almost immediately following the ground war against Iraq in 1991, elements of the 10th

Special Forces Group were deployed to conduct foreign humanitarian assistance operations

(FHAO) in Northern Iraq. The Kurdish population in that region had risen in rebellion against the

Iraqi government, fueled by nationalism, coalition rhetoric, and results of the ground war.

Following the cease-fire, Iraqi forces viciously subdued the uprising, causing the Kurds to flee

into the mountains of Northern Iraq along the Turkish and Iranian borders. 1st Battalion, 10th

Special Forces Group was already familiar with the Northern Iraq region from the combat search

and rescue (CSAR) missions it had conducted in support of the Gulf War. They were quickly

inserted into the region as the lead element of a combined task force with the mission of

stabilizing the dire humanitarian emergency situation by establishing refugee camps and

managing the initial life-saving logistics effort in a protected zone vicinity Zakho, Iraq. Although

85
United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) History and Research Office, United
States Special Operations Command – History (MacDill Air Force Base, Fla.: USSOCOM, 1998), 56-57.

32
the purpose of the mission was humanitarian assistance, the nature of the operation was clearly

unconventional warfare.86

We treated this like a UW operation. We used all of our skills and techniques associated with
UW to accomplish the mission. We assessed, made contact with [unknown indigenous
personnel] and built rapport. We organized an indigenous populace into a hierarchical
organization that could very easily become a military unit. We identified key leaders and
skilled personnel...We also identified other skilled men in the populace who could be trained
to operate radios, become medics, etc.87

The mission was volatile and dangerous dealing with armed factions within the Kurdish

population in a semi-permissive environment.88 Interviews with SFODA commanders who

served in Operation Provide Comfort indicate that there were no operational shortcomings due to

the SFODA structure, although mission-specific augmentation was required (linguists, female

doctors/nurses).89

Special Forces were involved in three phases of the military operations in Somalia that

spanned from August 1992 to March 1994. These operations included UNOSOM (United

Nations Operations Somalia) I, a humanitarian assistance mission, UNITAF (United Task Force),

a broader humanitarian assistance mission that included limited military action, and UNOSOM

II, that involved active combat and nation building. 90 During UNOSOM I (Operation Provide

Relief), elements of 2nd Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group supported relief flights coming out

of Kenya with an "airborne reaction force" as well as conducting area assessments on the ground

in Somalia. After deploying into Somalia in December 1992 to support UNITAF (Operation

Restore Hope), SF soldiers continued operating in remote areas, making contact with the

86
Jeff Goble, Provide Comfort Experience, personal email, 23 January 2002. William H. Shaw,
Operation Provide Comfort – Northern Iraq Experience, personal email, 4 February 2002.
87
Goble, 23 January 2002.
88
Adams, 244-248.
89
Goble, 23 January 2002; Shaw, 4 February 2002.
90
Kenneth Allard, Somalia Operations: Lessons Learned (Washington, D.C.: National Defense
University Press, 1995), 13-14; United Nations Department of Public Information, Somalia – UNOSOM I
(United Nations, 1997). The first two operations in Somalia are also known as UNOSOM I. UNITAF is
also known as Operation Restore Hope.

33
indigenous population and leaders, gathering intelligence in support of force protection measures,

and conducting further area assessments in support of humanitarian relief operations.91

In September 1994, elements of 3rd Special Forces Group were inserted into the Haitian

countryside as part of U.S. conventional and United Nations peacekeeping operations to restore

democratic rule and stability to Haiti (Operation Uphold Democracy and United Nations Mission

in Haiti [UNMIH]). Initially the operation was planned as a forced entry operation to remove the

ruling junta from power and return the democratically elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide to rule the

country. The last-minute change of heart by the ruling junta allowed a peaceful entry of forces

and rapidly changed the context of the operation. The SF missions were assistance to the local

government, disarmament of the Forces Armee de Haiti (FAd'H), and coalition support. The

SFODAs operated in remote areas of the countryside, conducting a multitude of tasks varying

from civil-military operations (repairing facilities and infrastructure) to nation-building. These

teams essentially moved into areas devoid of effective governmental infrastructure and facilitated

the stabilization of power and rebuilding of essential governmental functions. Although not

specifically trained "to midwife village politics in a Third World nation," the nature of these

missions were ideally suited for SF's skills – language abilities, regional expertise, inter-personal

communications, and the ability to operate effectively and independently in austere

environments. 92

Another ongoing SF mission that developed in the 1990s was support to the African Crisis

Response Initiative (ACRI). As a result of horrific atrocities and genocide in Rwanda in 1994

and similar unrest in other African countries, the U.S. State Department and Department of

Defense worked together to develop a plan to train African peacekeeping troops. Battalion-sized

91
USSOCOM, United States Special Operations Command – History, 43-45.
92
Ibid., 276. Steve Meddaugh, Commander, C Company, 2d Battalion, 3d Special Forces Group
in Haiti from 15 July 1995 to 29 October 1995., interview by author, 23 January 2002, tape recording,
Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kans.

34
units from several African nations have been trained by U.S. SOF, with a large proportion of the

task resting on SF. 93

The largest ongoing SF missions until September 2001 were those missions in support of

peace enforcement and peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. On the ground in Bosnia, the SF

missions and task organization have gone through several evolutions since they began in late

1995 as part of Operation Joint Endeavor. Operation Joint Endeavor was the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization (NATO) operation to implement the provisions of the Dayton Peace Accords

and the accompanying Military Technical Agreement. During Joint Endeaver, SF's primary

mission was to support the coordination of foreign military forces with the NATO operation.

These liaison coordination elements (LCEs) operated much like the coalition support teams

(CSTs) during Operation Desert Storm, facilitating communications, command and control,

liaison, as well as coordinating close air support, fires, and medical evacuation as necessary. The

SF missions scaled down over time as the NATO operation transitioned to Operation Joint Guard

(December 1996) and later to Operation Joint Forge (June 1998).

A new intelligence-focused mission known as joint commission observers (JCOs) emerged

during Operation Joint Guard. SFODAs established semi-permanent outposts where they could

establish and maintain contact with the local factions in order to provide ground truth information

to the chain of command. 94 Both the LCE and JCO missions emphasize the UW characteristics of

SF that make them ideally suited for these missions – language skills, interpersonal

communications, regional expertise, and the maturity to operate independently in a potentially

hostile environment. The JCO mission shows a distinct evolution in the application of these

capabilities to support human intelligence (HUMINT) requirements in the COE.

The ongoing Special Forces missions in Kosovo as part of Operation Joint Guardian are very

similar to those in Bosnia. In Kosovo, Special Forces are also conducting LCE and JCO

93
USSOCOM, United States Special Operations Command – History, 60.
94
Ibid., 53-56.

35
missions. The nature of the environment in Kosovo is somewhat different than in Bosnia, though.

In Bosnia, the missions were dealing with separation of warring factions. However, in Kosovo,

the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) is an insurgency, which provides different challenges and

opportunities, such as demobilization.

Recent Special Forces operations in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom

provide a classic example of unconventional warfare in a contemporary setting. In response to

the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, the United States deployed to the Afghanistan region

and began operations to destroy the Al Qaeda terrorist network operating there and to remove the

illegitimate Taliban government of Afghanistan that provided sanctuary and support to Al Qaeda.

The U.S. inserted SFODAs into Afghanistan to linkup with Taliban opposition forces

(collectively referred to as the Northern Alliance) beginning in October 2001. These SFODAs

advised and assisted the opposition forces as well as coordinated U.S. air attacks against Taliban

and eventually Al Qaeda forces. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld heaped praise on

the SF soldiers' initiative and flexibility in accomplishing their mission, using photos of SF

soldiers riding on horses with opposition forces as an example of their ability to adapt to the

austere and ambiguous environment. The rapid advance of the Northern Alliance against the

Taliban shows the tremendous asymmetry created by a small element capable of synergistically

linking low-tech opposition ground forces with overwhelming U.S. air power technology (i.e.

precision guided munitions).

A significant trend in SF operations in the past decade is the joint, multinational, and

interagency (J/MN/IA) nature of all of these operations. SF is part of the inherently multi-service

SOF community will always work in a joint context. Although SF can operate unilaterally, the

capability and skills most often used is their ability to work with personnel and military forces

from foreign countries. The ability to network SOF capabilities with other government agencies

has also proven critical in developing operational synergy and desired effects in situations that do

not clearly fall in one department's purview. The most recent operations against terrorism show

36
an even greater interagency effort, with Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) personnel working

directly with SF personnel in some cases. Operation Anaconda, the operation in eastern

Afghanistan to capture or kill a pocket of regrouping Al Qaeda, showed the close integration of

SF with conventional, joint, and multinational forces.95

Recent operations have shown the value of SF in supporting intelligence collection efforts.

The ability to build rapport and operate amongst the indigenous population has enabled SF to

provide important human intelligence to support force protection, SOF intelligence requirements,

and joint force intelligence requirements. Language skills and regional expertise continue to be

critical skills for SF soldiers to conduct these missions.

Operations in the past decade have continued to place a high demand on SF medical expertise

to support operations. SF medics have always been in high demand, but the nature of recent

operations has increased their significance even further. During Operation Provide Comfort,

male SF medics were not sufficient to meet the operational requirements within cultural

constraints. Female doctors and nurses were required to augment SFODAs to care and treat the

indigenous female population.

Analysis of the COE, recent operations, and the nature of ongoing operations provide the

foundation for identifying potential changes required in the Special Forces organization. The

COE is influencing the nature of U.S. military activity and operations. Recent operations show

the U.S. is turning to SOF at an increasing rate, largely due to their UW capability. The number

of sustained special operations missions is increasing, and will likely continue to increase in

support of the global fight against terrorism. Another special operations contingent deployed in

mid-January 2002 to the Philippines to assist the Philippine government in counter-insurgency

95
Vernon Loeb and Bradley Graham, "Seven U.S. Soldiers Die in Battle," Washington Post, 5
March 2002. Online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38477-2002Mar4.html. " Senior
Pentagon officials said between 800 and 900 American troops, leading a 2,000-man allied force that
included Afghans and troops from at least six other Western countries, were attacking al Qaeda fighters in
pockets across the region…[including] troops from the Army's 101st Airborne and 10th Mountain
divisions…[and] several hundred special operations soldiers from Australia, Canada, Denmark, France,

37
operations against the Islamic terrorist organization, Abu Sayyaf. Other mission to fight the war

on terrorism in places like Yemen, Somalia, and the former Soviet Republic of Georgia are

developing as this paper is written. These will add to the ongoing special operations mission in

Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Columbia, which are all employing sizable SF

elements (company or larger).

Germany, Norway and other countries."

38
 CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Special Forces are able to achieve US objectives by working through, with, and by
indigenous and surrogate forces. This results in an economy of force well beyond the
resources invested. Special Forces' ability to teach, train, advise, and organize friendly
military, paramilitary, and other indigenous or surrogate forces and persuade and apply
these forces to US objectives is Special Forces' core Objective Force capability [emphasis in
the original]. This is why Special Forces are called Warrior-Diplomats.96

The COE is influencing change in the SF organization directly and indirectly. The direct

influences are from the increased demand for HUMINT and increased availability and use of

information technologies. The increase in the number and scope of special operations in military

operations in the COE is indirectly influencing the organization. This chapter discusses changes

in the SF structure in the following categories: personnel, command and control (C2), combat

support (CS), and combat service support (CSS). This chapter also recommends three potential

courses of action (COAs) for implementing changes in the SF organization.

Analysis

A review of the Vietnam era changes shows that the operational environment during that

period had a similar effect on the SF organizational structure. The operational environment

during the Vietnam era was similar to today in that there was a surge in the use of SF and their

UW skills. During Vietnam, as now, SF was not used for UW in the traditional sense of the

mission—organizing guerrillas or partisans behind enemy lines. However, the nature of the

operations each require SF's ability to teach, train, advise, and organize indigenous personnel.

The result of this increased emphasis on SF during the 1960s was rapid growth and change in the

organizational structure. (See Appendix B – Special Forces Organization for diagrams of the

SFG structures.) From 1961 to 1965, a signal company and aviation company were added, and

96
USASOC, Objective Force Concept and Wargame Results – Initial Report (DRAFT) , 3-4.

39
by 1969 the SFG had an entire support battalion. During the same timeframe, the command and

control structures grew to include battalion level organizations. The number of SFODAs actually

reduced from forty-eight in 1961 and 1965 to forty-five in 1969, but later increased to fifty-four

in 1974 and remains until now (see Table 2 – Total SF Operational Detachments). It is

reasonable to deduce that the number and scope of operations thus had a significant impact on the

C2, CS, and CSS assets in the SFG.

Battalion Company C-Team B-Team A-Team

1961 0 4 4 12 48
1965 0 4 4 12 48
1969 3 9 3 9 45
1974 3 9 3 9 54
1981 3 9 3 9 54
1990 3 9 3 9 54
2001 3 9 3 9 54

Table 2: Total SF Operational Detachments97

With the war on terrorism the operations tempo (OPTEMPO) for special mission units

(SMUs) with specific counter-terrorism (CT) capabilities has increased significantly. However,

their size limits the number of operations that they can physically handle. With this, the SF

community as a whole will likely increase the number of CT missions it conducts. Due to the

classified nature of SMU organization and operations, this analysis and recommendations does

not discuss specific details or requirements for these types of operations. However, it is clear that

the additional missions for regular SF units for CT will increase their OPTEMPO and many of the

recommendations listed herein will support that increased requirement.

C2, CS, CSS

The number and scope of special operations being conducted today in the COE is having a

similar affect on the current SF support organization as it did in Vietnam (see Table 3 – Group

Support Assets). The increase in number of special operations is probably having the single

97
FM 31-21, 1961, 19-20. FM 31-21, 1965, 19-32. FM 31-21, 1969, 2-2 to 2-25. FM 31-21, 1974,

40
greatest impact on the SF organizational structure. The size and number of sustained special

operations missions has increased throughout the 1990s and has dramatically increased to support

Operation Enduring Freedom. The operational tempo (OPTEMPO) is demanding an increase in

C2, CS, and CSS assets. Unlike Vietnam, which was conducted in a single theater of operation,

the global war on terrorism will be conducted in multiple theaters, requiring potentially greater

supporting assets.

Group Support Assets Battalion Support Assets Company Support Assets

1961 Admin Detachment
1965 Signal Company Admin Detachment
Aviation Company
1969 Support Battalion
- HQ and Service Company
- Medical Platoon
- Admin. Services Plt.
- Support & Maint. Plt.
- Aviation Platoon
- Signal Company
1974 Service Company
- Medical Platoon
- Logistics Platoon
- Admin Services Platoon
- Aviation Platoon
Signal Company
1981 Service Company
- Medical Platoon
- Logistics Platoon
- Admin Services Platoon
- Aviation Platoon
Signal Company
Combat Intelligence Company
1990 Support Company Support Company
- Military Intelligence Det. - Military Intelligence Det.
- Service Detachment - Service Detachment
- Signal Detachment - Signal Detachment
- Aviation Platoon
Chemical Detachment
2001 Support Company Support Company
- Military Intelligence Det. - Service Detachment
- Service Detachment - Signal Detachment
- Medical Section
- Signal Detachment
- Personnel Section
Chemical Detachment

Table 3: Group Support Assets98

2-1 to 2-16. FM 31-21, 1981, 3-2 to 3-9. FM 31-21, 1990, 4-1 to 4-16. FM 31-21, 2001,3-1 to 3-28.
98
Ibid. The Chemical Detachments are USASFC assets attached to the SFG.

41
 The SOF support structure above SFG level is not designed to support multiple sustained

operations. Within the Army SOF organization, the 528th Special Operations Support Battalion

and the 112th Signal Battalion are only designed and equipped to support two joint special

operations task forces (JSOTFs) simultaneously. 99 The SFGs are not manned and equipped to

function as a JSOTF without this external augmentation for SOF-specific signal and support

capabilities.

It is questionable how long the current force structure can cycle forces through the number of

missions that are ongoing without breaking the force. The scope of many missions in the COE

requires a SFODB or larger element, and these require augmentation from battalion and group for

signal and intelligence assets. The deployment of SF units must account for a traditional system

to refit, train, and prepare for future operations as well as the myriad of smaller peacetime SF

missions that support regional theater engagement plans. Shortcomings in the current C2, CS,

and CSS structure prohibit multiple sustained special operations on the scale required for the near

future without a significant detrimental affect on the organization. 100 In order to continue, or

increase, these sustained special operations in the COE, the C2, CS, and CSS structures will have

to grow to support the operational detachments. Increases in these assets are required at the

company, battalion, and group levels to be deployable and operate effectively in a joint,

multinational, and interagency environment without significant augmentation.

99
"The mission of the ARSOF Signal Battalion (A) is to provide operational and tactical
communications support to JSOTF commanders in support of geographical CINCs’ deliberate plans and
crisis action operations in up to two theaters simultaneously." Additionally, there is a Joint
Communications Support Element (JCSE) at MacDill Air Force Base (AFB), Florida with the primary
mission is of providing communications support for two simultaneously deployed JTFs and two JSOTFs.
Department of the Army, FM 3-05.10.1, Army Special Operations Forces Command, Control,
Communications, and Computers (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, June 2000), 3-1 to 3-2.
100
During Operation Joint Endeavor, December 1995 to December 1996, 10th SFG rotated
battalions to Bosnia. This essentially consumed the entire group. One battalion was preparing for Bosnia,
one battalion conducting the mission, and one battalion refitting from their rotation. With other missions
and requirements continuing during this period, the sustained operations in Bosnia had a detrimental impact
on 10th SFG's ability to train and prepare for other missions. Sustained special operations in Haiti, Bosnia,
and Kuwait show the difficulty of one SFG maintaining the mission. In each of these missions, other
groups (with other regional orientation) eventually took over some/all the missions requirements.

42
Personnel

Increased emphasis on HUMINT and information technologies will affect personnel, training,

and organizational structure. Technology has certainly not rendered human intelligence

(HUMINT) obsolete. Recent operations show the need for HUMINT to fill intelligence

collection gaps that electronic sensors cannot fill. SF can provide critical HUMINT to support

the information superiority required for full spectrum dominance envisioned in Joint Vision

2020. 101 In a peacetime environment, as the number of forward-based conventional forces

decreases, SF will play an increasing role in theater engagement strategies. It is evident that the

U.S. may need to respond to threats anywhere in the world. SF can provide the military an

economy of force with the appropriate skills to engage the remote regions of the world and

develop relationships that will support future operational intelligence needs.

The SF force structure needs to increase its HUMINT capability at all levels, from Group

down to the SFODA. This will support requirements for force protection as well as SOF and

joint intelligence requirements. Additional intelligence personnel, specially trained in HUMINT,

are needed at the SFODA and SFODB levels to accommodate this requirement. SF is

considering allowing females in its force structure to accommodate this requirement. 102 In many

regions of the world, male-female interaction is publicly limited or forbidden, creating a segment

of population that is inaccessible to the average, male SF soldier. Although female operators will

create some unique challenges, it is imperative that SF address these challenges in order to

provide the HUMINT required. Regional expertise and language skills will continue to be an

imperative to enable SF to integrate and operate with indigenous personnel. These skills also

enable SF to provide HUMINT. SF needs to seek new and innovative ways to train its operators

and develop or acquire this regional expertise. SF also needs to consider alternative methods to

recruit personnel with unique expertise and language skills in a particular region of the world.

101
Shelton, 6-10.
102
USASOC, Objective Force Concept and Wargame Results – Initial Report (DRAFT), 11.

43
 The increasing use and dependence on information technologies throughout the military is

another area that is dictating change within the SF force structure. Personnel at every level, from

SFODA to Group, are needed to operate the myriad of computers and electronic devices used to

facilitate command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and

reconnaissance (C4ISR). At a minimum, this requires enhancing the training for the SF

communications sergeant. SF needs to consider adding new military occupation specialties

(MOSs) to fulfill these emerging requirements.

The SFODB is not robust enough to conduct sustained, 24-hour operations without

augmentation from SFODAs and external sources. The primary missions for a SFODB to man

and operate are the Special Operations Command and Control Element (SOCCE), Isolation

Facility (ISOFAC), and Advanced Operations Base (AOB). Each of these missions requires the

SFODB to run 24-hour operations often with similar staff functions of a conventional battalion

tactical operations center (TOC). The problem is the SFODB only has ten personnel assigned to

it under the current table of organization and equipment (see Figure 2 – Composition of a

SFODB). To perform these missions effectively requires eighteen to twenty-one personnel,

including special skills augmentation. This allows enough personnel to support two 12-hour

shifts to man the critical staff function (intelligence, operations, communications, fires, and

administrative/logistics), allow for a shift officer in charge (OIC), and give the Commander and

Sergeant Major freedom to supervise the operation without being tied down in a staff role. To

add to the personnel shortcoming, most SF Groups do not fill the company executive officer

position. 103 This is not due to a shortage of officers, but an officer career development system

that fears conventional perceptions that company executive officers are lieutenants, not captains.

103
Typically, the XO positions are not filled. The active duty SF Groups currently fill the
company XO position in the companies designated as a CIF (CINC inextremist force). These include one
company per SFG (C/1/1st, B/2/3d, A/1/5th, C/3/7th, and C/1/10th). Besides these, in the past year, there
have been only five other XO positions filled at any one time, leaving the remaining 35 position empty.
CPT Frederick Prins, email message, subject: RFI on Company XO Fill Rates (Fort Bragg, N.C.: USASOC
DCSPER, 30 January 2002).

44
 Figure 1: Composition of a SFODB104

The SFODB needs to be increased in size to fourteen to eighteen personnel. 105 The additional

personnel should be communications, intelligence, and computer specialists. The executive

officer position needs to be filled by a captain that has already served as a detachment

commander, so that he has the experience necessary to support operations effectively at that level.

The executive officer position should also be re-named to operations officer to diminish the

stigma associated with a captain as a company executive officer. Operations officer would more

accurately describe the role of the officer when the SFODB is performing its operational mission.

The twelve-man SFODA has proven to be an effective and flexible force structure as the

basic operational element. Since 1952, its doctrinal structure only changed once during the

Vietnam War, and it quickly returned to the twelve-man structure in the mid-1970s. Increasing

the size may be required to provide the additional intelligence and computer technology

specialists required to operate effectively across the spectrum of conflict in the COE. However,

104
Department of the Army, Field Manual 3-05.20, Special Forces Operations, 3-26.
105
The SFODB is typically augmented with SF personnel taken from a SFODA and low-density
military occupation specialties (i.e. communications maintenance technicians, mechanics, and counter­
intelligence specialists). Increasing the SFODB size would alleviate the need to augment it with SF

45
the needed changes may be made through changes in MOS training. This study did not find

significant impetus to change the SFODA structure.

As the SF organization transforms over the next several years, it needs to be careful to

identify positions at the company, battalion, and group levels that can be filled with non-18-series

personnel. Even within the SFODB there may be some positions (i.e. routine administrative

duties) that don't require SF skills. It is imperative that SF soldiers are not encumbered with these

duties. It would be easier to fill these positions with non-SF personnel that do not require the

extensive time and resources to recruit and train. Non-SF staffing may alleviate some of the SF

recruiting burden as the emphasis on special operations continues. The ARSOF truths spell out

the personnel focus that must be maintained:

Humans are more important than hardware. People— not equipment—make the critical
difference. The right people, highly trained and working as a team, will accomplish the
mission with the equipment available. Yet the best equipment in the world cannot
compensate for a lack of the right people.
Quality is better than quantity. A small number of people, carefully selected, well-trained,
and well-led are preferable to larger numbers of troops, some of whom may not be fully
capable.
ARSOF cannot be mass-produced. It takes years to train operational units to the level of
proficiency needed to accomplish difficult and specialized ARSOF missions. Integration of
mature, competent individuals into fully capable units requires intense training, both in the
ARSOF schools and units. Hastening this process only degrades the ultimate capability.
Competent ARSOF cannot be created after emergencies arise. Creation of competent,
fully mission-capable units takes time. Employment of fully capable ARSOF elements on
short notice requires highly trained and constantly available ARSOF units in peacetime.106

Before recommending courses of action (COAs) for SF to deal with the COE, it is important

to review the primary issues this study has identified. The first issue is a matter of quality of SF

operators—the need for SF soldiers (operators) with the right skills to conduct UW effectively in

the COE. The second issue is a matter of quantity of SF operators—having a sufficient number

of SF soldiers to conduct the number of operations that are required. The last issue is the ability

personnel.
106
Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-25, Doctrine for Army Special Operations Forces
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1999), 1-12.

46
of the SF organization to command and control, support, and integrate with the joint and

interagency community the number of sustained special operations that will be required in the

near future.

Issues that are not a result of the COE must also be considered in order to recommend viable

COAs. The Army continues to be an all-volunteer force, and SF soldiers are volunteers within

that force. The size of the conventional Army from which SF recruits these volunteers has

reduced dramatically since 1991, yet the active duty SF organization has not reduced in size at all.

This alone makes it a challenge to recruit the number of qualified personnel to fill the SF ranks.

In addition to this, SF organization has become a mature branch since being officially formed in

1987. With this, opportunities for promotion and growth within the branch have stabilized. That

by itself would be considered a good thing, except it limits promotion as an incentive for

remaining on active duty. A reflection of the maturity of the organization is the large number of

enlisted and warrant officers eligible for retirement in 2003. These conditions could potentially

compound the recruiting problem, just to sustain the force structure SF currently has.

Recommendations

In the following section, this paper will recommend three potential COAs for SF to

implement organizational changes. A tiered approach is used to address the primary issues listed

above sequentially (quality of SF operators, quantity of SF operators, and C2/CS/CSS). A tiered

approach will allow SF to deal with the issues in a logical sequence, focusing on the essential

changes first, then increasing size and scope as time and resources become available. Regardless

of the COA that is adopted, there are some essential requirements common to any COA that must

be adopted. 107

107
The recommendations identified from this study of the COE are consistent with the concepts
being developed by USASFC and USASOC for the interim and objective force SFG design. The nature of
the changes proposed for the objective force SFG are similar to those proposed in this paper. The objective
force concept proposes an elevated rank structure at all levels. USASOC, Objective Force Concept and
Wargame Results – Initial Report (DRAFT).

47
 In order to change the SF organization to deal with the requirements of the COE, there are

some basic changes that must be implemented that are essential to all. The first requirement is for

SF to modify its MOS-specific training to account for the changing skills required in the COE.

The skills specifically identified in this study include primarily HUMINT and information

technology skills. In other words, no matter what SF chooses to do, it must adapt its skill-sets to

the current and future environments to ensure it is capable of effectively conducting UW. This

deals with the first issue – quality of SF.

The second basic requirement is for SF to man its operational detachments fully, especially

the SFODAs. To do this, the "padded" positions at battalion and group that absorb SFODA

personnel strength must be eliminated or become authorized positions on the table of organization

and equipment (TOE). Staff positions at all levels within the SFG need to be scrutinized to

identify positions that do not require 18-series personnel to fill. It is critical that SF operators are

doing jobs that require SF operators! A selection process should be instituted to allow non-SF

personnel to work in SF organizations, yet maintain the high standard required in any SOF unit.

For example, an infantry non-commissioned officer (NCO), that has served in the Ranger

Regiment (another SOF unit) could serve as the S-3 Air NCO at battalion and group. He would

have many (if not all) the requisite skills required to do this job. Yet, there wouldn't be the large

recruiting and training requirement. This is just one example of many positions that can be

adequately filled with non-SF personnel. Beyond this, SF units should be authorized to man its

operational units at 110-115 percent strength. Increased manning authorizations will allow

operational units to send operators to required career-development schools, language training, and

special skills training without sacrificing operational ability.

The first course of action would change nothing organizationally beyond the requirements

listed above that are common to all. However, this may require changes in the way SF operates.

Without organizational growth in both operational units and C2/CS/CSS assets, SF may have to

narrow the focus of its missions (i.e. say no to some of the tasks it has been doing over the past

48
decade) and let the conventional Army pick up some of these SOF-like operations. Another

change that may be required is a closer working relationship with conventional forces. As

operational SF units are finite in number, they may need to be augmented with select

conventional forces to conduct certain missions. For example, conventional forces may provide

MOS-specific skills required to train foreign forces, with the SF capabilities being used

economically to provide language and cultural expertise required to work effectively. This deals

indirectly with the issue of quantity of SF operators, but does not effectively address the issue of

C2/CS/CSS.

The second course of action is to increase the size of the SFODB and add an operational

specialists detachment at the battalion and group levels. 108 A larger SFODB as discussed earlier

in this chapter will allow it to conduct its operational missions without internal augmentation (i.e.

from SFODAs) and minimal external augmentation, tailored specifically for the mission. 109 The

biggest change in this COA would be adding the operational specialists detachments. These

detachments would be a place within the SFG structure where highly specialized regional experts

could be pooled, then task organized with SFODAs and SFODBs as missions required. This

would be an ideal position for mature SF NCOs and warrant officers (WOs) that have developed

extensive regional, country, and language experience.110 Non-SF regional and language experts

may also be recruited into the SF organization to serve in these detachments. This would also be

the ideal location for females and additional doctor and nurses (including females). The

additional doctors and nurses should be pooled together in the detachment at group level.

The last COA would increase the C2, CS, and CSS capability of the SF battalion and group.

As with the other COAs, it would incorporate the requirements common to all. Ideally, it would

108
The objective force concept (draft) has a similar detachment called the Special Augmentation
Detachment. USASOC, Objective Force Concept and Wargame Results – Initial Report (DRAFT), 7.
109
The objective force concept (draft) increases the SFODB to nineteen personnel. USASOC,
Objective Force Concept and Wargame Results – Initial Report (DRAFT), 6.
110
In areas of operations such as the Middle East and Southeast Asia, language skills are
particularly difficult to develop (i.e. languages such as Arabic, Persian Farsi, and Chinese).

49
incorporate the recommendations in the second COA, but could be implemented independent of

those changes. The primary requirement is to equip the battalion and group signal and military

intelligence detachments with the C4I assets required to operate as an ARSOTF (at battalion

level) and JSOTF (at group level). The secondary requirement is to equip the support

detachments with the resources to operate these headquarters. The specific details for these C2,

CS, and CSS changes are beyond the scope of this monograph. However, it is clear the SF

organization is limited in its ability to support the multiple sustained operations that will be

required in the COE.

No matter what changes are implemented in the SF organization, detailed analysis will need

to be conducted. Much of this is underway already at USASFC and USASOC. The findings and

recommendations in this study are consistent and supportive of the initial work being produced by

these organizations. The urgency for developing and implementing these recommended changes

has never been greater.

50
 CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The global environment in which the U.S. military operates has changed dramatically over

the past decade. U.S. conventional superiority has driven current and future adversaries to seek

unconventional and asymmetric means to achieve their objectives. To meet this unconventional

threat adequately, the U.S. will have to fight fire with fire. That is, they will need to employ

unconventional forces. The increased rate of employment of U.S. unconventional forces over the

past decade reflects the impact of the changing operational environment. Army Special Forces is

the right tool for the job in many cases and will play an even greater role in future military

strategies.

In the wake of initial operations against global terrorism, it is clear that the trend of increased

U.S. participation in unconventional warfare will continue into the near future. In the 2002 State

of the Union address, President Bush made it clear to the United States and the world that this

war will not be short or easy; but he also made it clear that the United States would not falter—it

would commit the resources required to defeat the terrorist threat.111

Analysis of the COE shows that there are some direct effects of the COE on the SF

organization. These direct influences demand qualitative changes in the SF organization. The SF

force structure needs to evolve to meet rising HUMINT and technology requirements. This will

require adjustments in existing 18-series MOS training and skills as well as additional positions

to accommodate specific HUMINT and technological requirements. The threats of the future will

continue to work to defeat the U.S. conventional military (and technological superiority). Special

Force's ability to operate through, with, and by surrogate and indigenous forces will make it a

111
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address (Washington, D.C.: 29 January 2002); full text
online at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/696171.asp (30 January 2002).

51
vital HUMINT resource to support information superiority and full spectrum dominance.112 SF

organizations at all level will be required to interface with command, control, communications,

computers, and intelligence (C4I) systems that will enable the timely transmission of this

information.

Analysis of the COE shows that the changes in the SF structure are needed in order to

conduct the number and scope of unconventional operations required in the future. This is the

indirect effect of the COE on the SF structure through increased operations. The first step

towards this requirement is to structure the SF company, battalion, and group to be deployable

and operational without significant external augmentation. This does not mean increasing the

number of SF groups—it means enabling the existing operational elements with the support

structure required to conduct multiple sustained operations. This means an increase in the

logistical and communications structures at all levels, but primarily at battalion and group. It is

imperative to structure these organizations to keep the number of operators used to augment

higher headquarters to a minimum.

Although the full impact of the changes wrought by 11 September 2001 will not be fully

apparent for some time to come, it is likely that emphasis on Special Forces' UW capability will

increase dramatically. As this paper is being written, requirements to conduct Operation

Enduring Freedom in the Afghan region and throughout the world are still being battle-tested and

adapted. The United States has embarked on a global war against terrorism that may require

multiple, sustained special operations in several theaters of operation. In the wake of this crisis,

the emphasis on Special Forces and their unique skills has risen dramatically. U.S. Army Special

Forces are much better postured for the challenges of the future than its predecessors following

WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. The requirement to adapt to the surrounding

environment will require ongoing, innovative efforts by the entire special operations community.

112
Shelton, 6-10.

52
 Suggested Further Research

In the process of researching and writing this monograph, some related topics surfaced that

warrant further research. These topics will add to the body of research regarding the SF force

structure and its ability to conduct UW in the future:

Alternative recruiting methods for SF.

SF/SOF involvement in homeland defense and the effects on the organization.

Lessons learned from SF organizational change during the Vietnam era.

SF operations in Northern Iraq.

53
APPENDIX A – SPECIAL FORCES MISSIONS AND COLLATERAL
ACTIVITIES

Special Forces Missions 113

Unconventional Warfare. UW is a broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations,

predominantly conducted through, with, or by indigenous or surrogate forces organized, trained,
equipped, supported, and directed in varying degrees by an external source. UW includes, but is
not limited to, guerrilla warfare, subversion, sabotage, intelligence activities, and unconventional
assisted recovery (UAR).

Foreign Internal Defense. The participation by civilian and military agencies of a government in
any of the actions or programs taken by another government to free and protect its society from
subversion, lawlessness, and insurgency.

Direct Action. DA operations are normally short-duration operations involving a precision attack
to seize, destroy, or inflict damage on a target, or to destroy, capture, or recover designated
personnel or material. These operations include sniper operations, direct assault, raids, terminal
guidance for precision-guided munitions, sabotage, and personnel recovery.

Special Reconnaissance. SR is the SF reconnaissance mission, normally in support of strategic or

operational objectives. SF are used when conventional or tactical collection assets are unable to
collect information of strategic or operational significance.

Combatting Terrorism. CBT are the offensive and defensive measures taken by civilian and
military agencies to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorism. This includes offensive counter­
terrorism (CT) measures and defensive anti-terrorism (AT) measures. SF may support other
government agencies (i.e. Department of State, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of
Justice, and Department of Transportation).

Counterproliferation. CP is a specialized mission assigned to designated SOF and usually

pertains to counterproliferation of weapons of mass destruction (CPWMD). These elements are
specially designated, task organized, trained, and equipped for this mission.

Information Operations. SF may support IO through many of their missions and collateral
activities. They may be offensive or defensive in nature.

Special Forces Collateral Activities 114

Coalition Support. Any actions taken by Special Forces Liaison Elements (SFLEs) to improve
the interaction and interoperability of coalition partners and U.S. military forces. SFLEs provide
critical C4I links, advise and assist their foreign counterparts, provide training, provide situational
awareness, assist in fire support planning, and enable overall coordination.

113
FM 3-05.20, Special Forces Operations, 2-1 to 2-82.
114
Ibid ., 2-83 to 2-95.

54
Combat Search and Rescue. CSAR includes the process of reporting, locating, identifying,
recovering, and repatriating isolated personnel to friendly control.

Counterdrug Activities. CD activities are measures taken to detect, monitor, and counter the
production, trafficking, and use of illegal drugs. They include training host nation CD forces and
supporting regional CD campaign plans overseas.

Humanitarian Demining Activities. HDO is the assistance provided to a host nation to remove
mines and unexploded ordinance, including training and awareness programs.

Foreign Humanitarian Assistance. U.S. military support to promote human welfare; reduce pain,
suffering, and hardship; and to prevent loss of life or destruction of property from the aftermath
of natural or man-made disasters.

Security Assistance. The provision of defense equipment and training to eligible countries and
international organizations to further U.S. national security objectives. SF primarily support SA
activities by providing mobile training teams (MTTs).

Special Activities. Any activities specially directed by the President with congressional
oversight.

55
 APPENDIX B – SPECIAL FORCES ORGANIZATION

Figure 2: Special Forces Group (1961)115

Figure 3: Special Forces Group (1965)116

115
FM 31-21, Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations, 1961, 19-21.
116
FM 31-21, Special Forces Operations, 1965, 19-23.

56
 Figure 4: Special Forces Group (1969)117

Figure 5: Special Forces Group (1974)118

117
FM 31-21, Special Forces Operations – U.S. Army Doctrine, 1969, 2-2.
118
FM 31-21, Special Forces Operations – U.S. Army Doctrine, 1974, 2-1.

57
 Figure 6: Special Forces Group (1981)119

Figure 7: Special Forces Group (1990/2001) 120

119
FM 31-22, Command, Control, and Support of Special Forces Operations, 1981, 3-2.
120
FM 31-20, Doctrine for Special Forces Operations, 1990, 4-2 to 4-12. FM 3-05.20, Special
Forces Operations, 2001, 3-1 to 3-25.

58
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Government Documents

Clinton, William J. A National Security Strategy for a New Century. Washington D.C.: The
White House, 1999.

Congress of the United States, United States Code Congressional Service, 81st Congress—
Second Session, Chapter 443—Public Law 597, Army—Enlistment of Aliens (St. Paul,
Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1950).

Department of the Army. Field Manual 3-0, Operations, Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 2001.

------. FM 3-05.10.1, Army Special Operations Forces Command, Control, Communications, and
Computers. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2000.

------. Field Manual 3-05.20. Special Forces Operations. Fort Bragg, N.C.: USJFKSWC, March
2001.

------. Field Manual 7-100, OPFOR: Opposing Force Doctrinal Framework and Strategy
(Draft). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2001.

------. Field Manual 31-21, Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations. Washington,
D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1961.

------. Field Manual 31-21, Special Forces Operations – U.S. Army Doctrine. Washington, D.C.:
Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1969.

------. Field Manual 31-21, Special Forces Operations. Washington, D.C.: Headquarters,
Department of the Army, 1965.

------. Field Manual 31-22, Command, Control, and Support of Special Forces Operations.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981.

------. Field Manual 100-25, Doctrine for Army Special Operations Forces. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1999.

------. TRADOC Pam 525-5 (DRAFT). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, July 2000.

------. Training Circular TC 31-29, Special Forces Operational Techniques. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1988.

Department of Defense. National Military Strategy of the United States. Washington, D.C.:
Department of Defense, 1997.

59
Hart, Gary and Rudman, Warren B. New World Coming: American Security in the 21st Century
– Major Themes and Implications. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission on National
Security, 1999. Online at: http://www.nssg.gov/Reports/NWC.pdf.

Hart, Gary and Rudman, Warren B. New World Coming: American Security in the 21st Century
– Supporting Research and Analysis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission on National
Security, 1999. Online at: http://www.nssg.gov/NWR_A.pdf.

Joint Chiefs of Staff. Concept for Future Joint Operations. Fort Monroe, Va.: Joint Warfighting
Center, 1997.

Rumsfeld, Donald H. Quadrennial Defense Review Report. Washington, D.C.: Department of

Defense, 2001.

Shelton, Henry H. Joint Vision 2020. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2000.

Shinseki, Eric. United States Army White Paper: Concepts for the Objective Force. Washington,
D.C.: Department of the Army, 2001. Online at:
http://www2.army.mil/features/WhitePaper/ObjectiveForceWhitePaper.pdf.

Title 10, United States Code, Armed Forces, 1988.

TRADOC DCSINT, CAC Threat Support Directorate. White Paper: Capturing the Operational
Environment. Fort Leavenworth, Kans.: Combined Arms Center, 2000.

------. The Future Operational Environment, 4 May 2001.

U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (SWCS). Army After Next
ARSOF Wargame—4: Integrated Analysis Report. Fort Bragg, N.C.: SWCS, 2000.

U.S. Army Special Operations Command. Objective Force Concepts and Wargame Results –
Initial Report (DRAFT). Fort Bragg, N.C.: USASOC, 2001.

U.S. Army Special Operations Command. Strategic Planning Guidance: Achieving USASOC
Objectives for the 1st Decade of a New Millenium. Fort Bragg, N.C.: USASOC, 2001.

U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Directorate of History and Museums. Army Special
Operations Forces in World War II. Fort Bragg, N.C.: USASOC.

U.S. Special Operations Command. SOF Futures Wargame: Special Operations 2025. MacDill
Air Force Base, Fla.: USSOCOM, 2000.

U.S. Special Operations Command History and Research Office. United States Special
Operations Command – History. MacDill Air Force Base, Fla.: USSOCOM, 1998.

60
 Secondary Sources

Books

Allard, Kenneth. Somalia Operations: Lessons Learned. Washington, D.C.: National Defense
University Press, 1995.

Arquilla, John and Ronfeldt, David, eds. Network and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime,
and Militancy. Santa Monica, Calif: Rand, 2001. Internet site: http://www.rand.org/
publications/MR/MR1382/.

Asprey, Robert B. War in the Shadows: The Guerrilla in History. New York: William Morrow
and Company, 1994.

Bank, Aaron. From OSS to Green Berets. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986.

Crocker, Lawrence P. Army Officer's Guide – 45th Edition. Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books,
1990.

Friedman, Thomas L. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books, 2000.

Kaldor, Mary. New & Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press, 1999.

Kaplan, Robert D. The Coming Anarchy. New York, N.Y.: Random House, 2000.

Malcolm, Ben S. White Tigers: My Secret War in North Korea. Washington, D.C.: Brassey's,
1996.

Paddock, Alfred H. Jr. U.S. Army Special Warfare. Washington, D.C.: National Defense
University Press, 1982.

Peters, Ralph. Fighting for the Future: Will America Triumph? Mechanicsburg, Pa.: Stackpole
Books, 1999.

Thompson, Leroy. The Illustrated History of the U.S. Army Special Forces. Secaucus, N.J.:
Citadel Press, 1988.

Toffler, Alvin & Toffler, Heidi. War and Anti-War: Survival at the Dawn of the 21st Century.
Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown and Company, 1993.

van Crevald, Martin L. The Transformation of War. New York: The Free Press, 1991.

Articles and Essays

Boyatt, Mark D. "Special Forces: Our Core Purpose." Special Warfare, 14/1 (Winter, 2001): 8-9.

Boykin, William G. "From the Commandant." Special Warfare, 14/1 (Winter, 2001): i.

61
Brands, H.W., Jr. "A Cold War Foreign Legion? The Eisenhower Administration and the
Volunteer Freedom Corps." Military Affairs 52, no. 1 (January 1988): 7.

Collins, John M. "Special Operations Forces in Peacetime." Joint Force Quarterly, no. 21
(Spring 1999): 56-61.

Forte, Rob. Lecture discussion. Fort Leavenworth, Kans.: School of Advanced Military Studies,
4 January 2002.

Grau, Lester and Kipp, Jacob. "Urban Combat: Confronting the Specter." Military Review
LXXXIX, no. 3 (July-August 1999): 10-11.

Grdovic, Mark, Morrison, Scott A. Revision of the TO&E. Found in Special Forces Branch
Conference CD, April 2001.

Halstead, Brian D. "Unconventional Warfare: Questions, Concerns and Proposals." Special

Warfare, 14/1 (Winter, 2001): 28-31.

Kershner, Michael R. "Army Special Forces' Training Focuses On Unconventional Warfare."

Army, 51/7 (July, 2001): 20-26.

------. "Unconventional Warfare: The Most Misunderstood Form of Military Operations."

Special Warfare, 14/1 (Winter, 2001): 2-7.

Metzgar, Greg E. "Unconventional Warfare: Definitions from 1950 to the Present." Special
Warfare, 14/1 (Winter, 2001): 18-23.

Steele, Dennis. "Special Forces Initiates Its First Transformation Steps." Army, 51/7 (July,
2001): 38.

------. "Unconventional Warfare: The Front Line of the Future." Army, 51/7 (July, 2001): 28-32.

United Nations Department of Public Information. Somalia – UNOSOM I. United Nations,

1997. Available online: http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm.

Van Riper, Paul K. "A Concept for Future Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain." Marine
Corps Gazette 81, no. 4 (October 1987), A-1.

Theses and Monographs

Kelley, Robert E. "U.S. Army Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Doctrine: Engine of
Change or Relic of the Past?" Newport, R.I.: Naval War College, 2000.

Maxwell, David S. "Special Forces Missions: A Return to the Roots for a Vision of the Future."
Fort Leavenworth, Kans.: United States Army Command and General Staff College,
1995.

62
Metzgar, Greg E. " Unconventional Warfare: A Mission Metamorphosis for the 21st Century?"
Master of Arts Thesis, School of Advanced Airpower Studies, Maxwell Air Force Base,
Ala., 2000.

Starshak, James J. "A Special Forces Operational Detachment for the 21st Century." Master of
Arts Thesis, United States Army Command and General Staff College, 1993.

Tertychny, Gerard P. "Setting Europe Ablaze: The Origins of United States Army Special
Forces." Master of Arts thesis, California State University Dominguez Hills, 1997.

Tovo, Kenneth E. Special Forces' Mission Focus for the Future. Fort Leavenworth, Kans.:
United States Army Command and General Staff College, 1995.

Other

Bush, George W. State of the Union Address. Washington, D.C., 29 January 2002; full text
online at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/696171.asp, 30 January 2002.

Goble, Jeff. Provide Comfort Experience. Personal email, 23 January 2002.

Meddaugh, Steve, Commander, C Company, 2d Battalion, 3d Special Forces Group in Haiti from
15 July 1995 to 29 October 1995. Interview by author, 23 January 2002, Fort
Leavenworth, Kans. Tape recording. Command and General Staff College, Fort
Leavenworth, Kans.

Shaw, William H. Operation Provide Comfort – Northern Iraq Experience. Personal email, 4
February 2002.

63