PB 80–96–4 December 1996 Vol. 9, No. 4
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Special Warfare The Professional Bulletin of the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School PB 80–96–4 December 1996 Vol. 9, No. 4 From the Commandant Special Warfare In 1994, retired Major General Sidney Shachnow wrote in Special Warfare: “If we are to profit in the future, we must contin- ue to focus on what is to be rather than on what has been.” Our current environment offers chal- lenges unknown 10 years ago, and there is every reason to believe that the face of con- flict will continue to change. Studies such as Force XXI and Army After Next are attempting to anticipate the future and to adapt our force structure and training for the missions we will encounter. Those studies are critically important, but it is also important that SOF soldiers examine current and future operations and been proven effective in exercises and in that they define ways by which we can real-world operations. improve our organization and mission per- Like doctrine, policy must also be updat- formance. In this issue of Special Warfare, ed to provide guidance in our evolving Major Ken Tovo looks at the current dual- operations. Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey mission focus of Special Forces and exam- Addicott examines the concept of human ines its appropriateness in recent SF oper- rights and its increasing importance in ations. He also attempts to estimate the U.S. military operations, particularly those validity of the dual focus in the future. employing Special Forces. He explains the Major Ed McHale suggests that regional human-rights policy recently implemented organizations might better suit our future by the Army SF Command. needs for a force capable of responding to General Henry Shelton’s article recounts contingencies worldwide. Although his recent examples of U.S. SOF successes and views will not be shared by all who read makes the point that these successes were them, his article presents a new point of the result of joint planning, training and view that can lead to productive discussion. operations. The role of Civil Affairs soldiers in recent If we are to continue to be effective, we and ongoing operations prompts Major Jef- must not permit ourselves to be content frey Gowen to suggest a new CA force with our present success. We must remem- structure and new command-and-control ber to analyze, to ponder, to experiment, to relationships. Major Timothy Howle debate, to learn and, as Sidney Shachnow argues that changes in the international said, “to focus on what is to be.” political environment and the prevalence of civilians in areas of military operations provide the rationale for adding civil-mili- tary operations to the Army’s list of battle- field operating systems. Major Robert Werthman points out the Major General William P. Tangney lack of mission-planning guidance in SOF aviation doctrine and explains a SOF avia- tion mission-planning process that has PB 80–96–4 Contents December 1996 Special Warfare Vol. 9, No. 4 Commander & Commandant Features Major General William P. Tangney 2 Special Forces Mission Focus for the Future Editor by Major Kenneth E. Tovo Jerry D. Steelman 12 Super SOCs and JSAFs: Building a Force for 2010 Associate Editor by Major Edward J. McHale Sylvia McCarley 20 Employment of CA Forces: Doctrine vs. Reality by Major Jeffrey B. Gowen, U.S. Army (ret.) Graphics & Design Bruce S. Barfield 24 Special Operations Aviation Mission Planning: Improving the Process by Major Robert W. Werthman 30 Special Forces and the Promotion of Human Rights by Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey F. Addicott V E AS R I RT T A E S LI B E T 38 Civil-Military Operations: A New Battlefield Special Warfare is an authorized, official quarterly of the Operating System? United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare by Major Timothy E. Howle Center and School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Its mission is to promote the professional development of special- operations forces by providing a forum for the examination 40 When SOF Were Needed, They Were There of established doctrine and new ideas. by General Henry H. Shelton Views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official Army position. This publication does not supersede any information presented in other official Army publications. Articles, photos, artwork and letters are invited and should be addressed to Editor, Special Warfare, USAJFKSWCS, Fort Bragg, NC 28307-5000. Telephone: DSN 239-5703, commercial (910) 432-5703, fax -3147. Special Warfare reserves the right to edit all material. Published works may be reprinted, except where copyrighted, provided credit is given to Special Warfare and the authors. Official distribution is limited to active and reserve special-operations units. Individuals desiring private subscriptions should forward their requests to: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. By Order of the Secretary of the Army: Dennis J. Reimer Departments General, United States Army Chief of Staff 43 1996 Index Official: 44 Letters 46 Enlisted Career Notes Joel B. Hudson 47 Officer Career Notes Administrative Assistant to the 48 Foreign SOF Secretary of the Army 50 Update 02723 Headquarters, Department of the Army 52 Book Reviews Special Forces Mission Focus for the Future by Major Kenneth E. Tovo n the unstable post Cold-War of readiness, the basis for SF bility of SF employment in a major environment, the U.S. national- employment and training must be conflict with the Soviet Union. SF Isecurity strategy is committed to sound doctrine that focuses on high- detachments focused on special remaining engaged in world affairs payoff missions. reconnaissance, or SR; on direct and to enlarging the community of Special Forces doctrine focuses on action, or DA; and, to a lesser extent, democratic nations.1 U.S. Special both direct operations and indirect on unconventional warfare, or UW. Forces are particularly suited to this operations. Direct operations are To support the national strategy of strategy — but that suitability has conducted in a unilateral or joint containment of communism and to placed tremendous demands on the manner and are characterized by enhance the capability of pro-U.S. force. tight command and control, a heavy nations to defeat communist insur- The number of missions conduct- influence of technology, and rapid gencies, SF conducted foreign internal ed by SF units more than quadru- execution. The executor must have defense, or FID, throughout the Third pled from 1991 to 1994,2 and the finely developed skills appropriate World. Special Forces doctrine, as force is beginning to show signs of to any environment. reflected in FM 100-25, Doctrine for wear from the increased tempo. Indirect operations are conducted Army Special Operations Forces, and From 1993 to 1995, retention rates in a multinational manner and are FM 31-20, Doctrine for Special Forces for initial and mid-term SF NCOs characterized by a relatively loose Operations, acknowledges other dropped 21.2 percent and 11.1 per- command-and-control structure and threats besides those posed by the cent, indicating that the force may by imprecise or unquantifiable Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the five be over-stressed.3 effects. They require persistence basic SF missions remain unchanged It is imperative that Special rather than precision. The executor from their Cold War roots.5 Forces be employed only on missions must have technical skills, but he that require their unique skills and succeeds through influence. Dual focus that provide a significant return. If The division of SF missions into When Special Forces were we are to maintain a realistic level indirect and direct operations is not a formed in 1952, their sole orienta- doctrinal distinction, although Army tion was UW; in fact, organizers This article examines the current Field Manual 31-20, Doctrine for Spe- consciously fought against the SF mission focus and suggests possi- cial Forces Operations, states that incorporation of direct-action mis- ble modifications. It has been adapt- commanders can “Apply … military sions into SF.6 FM 31-21, Guerrilla ed from the author’s thesis in the power through indirect means or Warfare, 1955, does not mention Command and General Staff Opera- through the direct application of com- Special Forces. However, by 1958, tions Course. Views expressed are bat power in a specific, usually surgi- the doctrine had been rewritten. those of the author and do not neces- cal, economy of force operation.”4 FM 31-21, Guerilla [sic] Warfare sarily reflect the official policy of the During the Cold War, the U.S. and Special Forces, included the Department of the Army — Editor placed a great priority on the possi- 2 Special Warfare organization and role of Special employed, special forces units sup- cial Warfare Center upon his return Forces and identified SF missions: plement the U.S. military assistance from Vietnam in 1967. He explained a. The primary mission of special groups and army missions.10 that direct-action training was forces units is to develop, organize, Although SF doctrine had expand- incorporated into the basic SF train- equip, train, support, and control ed, it remained focused on the indi- ing course in 1968 to reflect the real- guerilla forces in support of con- rect application of force. ity of ongoing unilateral operations ventional operations. Key events in 1964 seem to mark in Southeast Asia.13 All that b. Secondary missions of special the point at which SF began to con- remained was to revise Special forces units are to: duct direct operations. In October Forces doctrine to match reality.14 (1) Engage in psychological war- 1964, Project DELTA, composed of In 1969, FM 31-21, Special Forces fare, intelligence, evasion and Special Forces and South Viet- Operations, U.S.