Special Warfare The Professional Bulletin of the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School PB 80–95–4 October 1995 Vol. 8, No. 4 From the Commandant Special Warfare As we consider today’s world political sit- uation, we survey a landscape whose contin- uing upheavals promise an unstable and uncertain future. In this issue of Special Warfare, our focus is on the future and the steps we should take to prepare for it in terms of doctrine, force structure and theo- ry. I fully expect this issue to engender com- ments and debate, and I encourage readers to use Special Warfare as a forum for expressing their views. Robert Pfaltzgraff points out that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have seen armed conflict on a scale unprecedent- ed since World War II. The numerous con- flicts, political fragmentations and possible shifting of personnel and resources into hostile alliances pose challenges for the unfamiliar combinations. United States security strategy. These As the world political situation is chang- instabilities may lead to a variety of mili- ing, so is the way that some thinkers per- tary actions, at all levels of the conflict spec- ceive warfare and military forces. Steven trum. Special-operations forces will have Metz’s review essay compares the thinking roles at each conflict level. of three prominent modern theorists to the In preparing for the future, we must strategic thinking of Karl von Clausewitz. ensure that our doctrine is up-to-date and Although none of the three modern theo- that our training and force structure will rists may be correct, the discussion and support the changing requirements. evaluation of their concepts are important Colonel Mark Boyatt wrote in the October to improve our understanding of the philos- 1994 issue of Special Warfare about possible ophy of warfare, and we must be willing to changes to doctrine and organization that change our way of thinking if necessary. might better enable SF to meet current and Changes to doctrine and force structure future mission demands. In this issue, have long-reaching effects and should be Colonel Glenn Harned continues the discus- made judiciously. But we should not allow sion with alternative recommendations. our reluctance to change to interfere with As Harned points out, our doctrine may the need to adapt to changes in our opera- already be sufficient to the task, with tional environment and in the nature of some relevant changes in the unit mis- warfare. As Sidney Shachnow says in his sion-essential task lists and in the article, “Of all our human resources, the reordering of our unit training priorities. most precious is the desire to improve.” Both Harned and retired Major General Sidney Shachnow discuss possible changes in force structure to meet the changing mission demands. But in making these changes, we face not only the problem of determining the best solutions but also Major General William F. Garrison the problem of overcoming reluctance to change when the solutions involve the PB 80–95–4 Contents October 1995 Special Warfare Vol. 8, No. 4 Commander & Commandant Major General William F. Garrison Features Editor 2 Sources of Instability: Implications for Special Jerry D. Steelman Operations Forces by Robert L. Pfaltzgraff Jr. Associate Editor Sylvia McCarley 10 Unconventional Operations: Back to the Future? Graphics & Design by Colonel Glenn M. Harned Bruce S. Barfield 15 As I Remember It: Notional ‘X’ Command Automation Clerk by Major General Sidney Shachnow, U.S. Army (ret.) Debra Thomas 18 Special Operations Aviation Support to Special Forces by Major Andy Milani 22 Review Essay — A Wake for Clausewitz: Toward a Philosophy of 21st-Century Warfare V E AS R I RT by Steven Metz T A E S LI B E T Special Warfare is an authorized, official quarterly of 29 ‘Instant Advisers’: Civil Affairs Team Assists the United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Haitian Ministries Center and School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Its mission is to promote the professional development of by Lieutenant Colonel Bill Maddox and Gerard Healy special-operations forces by providing a forum for the examination of established doctrine and new ideas. 32 SOFTAC: A Proposed Leader-Development Strategy for Views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official Army position. This Army SOF publication does not supersede any information presented by Lieutenant Colonel David E. McCracken in other official Army publications. Articles, photos, artwork and letters are invited and should be addressed to Editor, Special Warfare, 36 Civil Affairs at JRTC: Taking the War to the Enemy USAJFKSWCS, Fort Bragg, NC 28307-5000. Telephone: by Major William R. Bishop DSN 239-5703, commercial (910) 432-5703, fax -5341. Special Warfare reserves the right to edit all material. Published works may be reprinted, except where 38 Updating Doctrine: It’s Everyone’s Responsibility copyrighted, provided credit is given to Special Warfare by Captain Robert Kolpien 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 General, United States Army Departments Chief of Staff 40 Letters Official: 41 Enlisted Career Notes 43 Officer Career Notes Joel B. Hudson Acting Administrative Assistant to the 44 Foreign SOF Secretary of the Army 46 Update 00686 48 Book Reviews Headquarters, Department of the Army Sources of Instability: Implications for Special Operations Forces by Robert L. Pfaltzgraff Jr. he post-Cold War world contains nevertheless contains numerous examples numerous sources of instability that of conflicts between groups other than Tshape the roles and missions for states. We are confronted by a spectrum of which U.S. military capabilities, particu- conflict that includes regional powers as larly those of special-operations forces, or well as increasing numbers of nonstate SOF, must be configured in order to sup- actors. port American interests. In the planning In the Cold War era, superpower rela- processes within each of the services and tions shaped the interests of the U.S. in in broader public discussion, much empha- regions from Europe to east Asia and sis has been placed on the dramatic from the Caribbean to southwest Asia. changes in the global system of the 1990s. With the end of the Cold War, regions There are, however, important elements whose importance was once measured by of continuity between the Cold War era our interest in preventing Soviet domina- and the present period. They include the tion remain the object of U.S. policy large number of intrastate conflicts that because of their enduring geostrategic followed or coincided with the emergence significance to the U.S. of new states in Asia and Africa from the The disintegration of the Soviet Union early post-World War II period into the coincided with a regionalization of U.S. 1960s, and the growing numbers of terror- security policy framed by vital interests ist activities, especially during the 1980s. that transcend the Cold War superpower Meanwhile, it is widely recognized that we relationship, especially in southwest and are in the midst of a political fragmenta- northeast Asia. The rise of destabilizing tion that has already reshaped the map of regional powers, e.g., Iraq and North Europe and that has yet to run its course. Korea, and the potential for transregion- If intrastate conflict has not replaced al relationships among actors hostile to interstate wars, the emerging paradigm the West, especially in regional settings of vital geostrategic importance, pose new This article was originally presented at threats to U.S. security. The extent to a 1994 conference hosted by Tufts Univer- which geographically separate states sity’s Fletcher School of Law and Diploma- forge closer interregional links with each cy and USSOCOM. Papers from that con- other or become part of a broader anti- ference have been collected and published Western coalition remains to be seen. To by the Fletcher School and USSOCOM as the extent that geographically separated Roles and Missions of Special Operations states, such as Iran and North Korea, Forces in the Aftermath of the Cold War. develop alignments with each other, the 2 Special Warfare Photo by Kit Thompson security threat to the U.S. and its allies suggests that “Intercivilizational issues A U.S. tank crosses the will increase. are increasingly replacing intersuperpow- Kuwaiti desert during Oper- The growing importance of would-be er issues as the top items on the interna- ation Desert Storm. The regional hegemonic powers coincides with tional agenda. These issues include arms rise of destabilizing powers like Iraq in areas of strate- the emergence of other conflicts that did proliferation, human rights, and immigra- gic importance to the U.S. not surface as long as the Soviet Union tion. On these three issues, the West is on poses new security threats. existed as part of a bipolar global struc- one side and most of the other major civi- ture. In contrast to the Cold War era, lizations are on the other.” States linked which constituted Europe’s longest period ideologically by Islamic fundamentalism of peace in modern times, the collapse of and armed with weapons of mass destruc- the Soviet Union has been followed by a tion, or WMD, would have derived their fragmenting Europe and armed conflict on advanced technologies from outside a scale unprecedented since World War II. sources (including North Korea, China Simultaneously we confront the specter of and Russia) and from the West as well. a post-Soviet Russia that remains in pos- A closely related explanation of the session of thousands of nuclear warheads sources of conflict can be found in the and delivery systems.