“The trouble is that a praise worthy quest for precision can descend into a flattering of tidy minds at the cost of a realistic grasp of the complexity and interconnectedness that is the story of strategic history.” Colin Gray warns in the opening sentences of the chapter “Irregular Warfare and Terrorism” in his book Another Bloody Century of the dangers of oversimplifying the categories of warfare. To look at warfare as either regular or irregular without being absolutely clear on the definitions of each and the context in which the terms are used is fruitless. Regular forces have been known to use irregular type tactics just as irregular forces have used conventional warfare to reach their political goals. It is imperative then, that the U.S. military forces are trained to fight wars falling on a spectrum of warfare and educated to distinguish the type of war they face. In order to protect national security interests as outlined in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, the U.S. armed forces must rebalance and be capable of conducting operations across the spectrum of conflict in order to win against both a regular and irregular adversary, combating a wide scope of tactics and strategies ranging from terror tactics to full scale, multi-phased conflict against a peer or near peer by maximizing the capability of the force and nation.
When comparing and contrasting U. S. military operations and capabilities with regard to regular versus irregular warfare it is important to understand the definition of irregular and the spectrum of conflict. In recent history, the term “irregular warfare” has been used interchangeably with or alongside insurgency and counterinsurgency warfare. This usage and comparison is too narrow. ...
... middle of paper ...
... range of problems and conflict. Special operations units will also focus on defeating irregular threats such as Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations along with building partner capacity and capability. Special operations units will also focus on the prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (low end) and cyber defense. Finally, the force will be able to assist partner nations with disaster response.
The terms irregular and regular when describing the enemy are too narrow and must be considered within the context of a full spectrum of conflict. The current QDR recognizes this requirement and clearly outlines priorities for the force to balance capabilities in order to counter both types of enemy and their tactics and strategies. The priorities for the armed forces will continue to serve policy, be it a regular or irregular threat.
The historical perspective of the First Special Service dates back to March 1942. The United States forces were allied to the British forces. A British Combined Forces Sci...
The Special Forces have always been an elite unit that the American people, all military members, and the rest of the world could view as the best of the best. Building this reputation is just like in any other unit, there are support elements specifically designed to be able to assist the Special Forces to accomplish any mission, impeccably by land, sea, or air. Special Forces Groups contain two chemical detachments; the Chemical Decontamination Detachment and the Chemical Reconnaissance Detachment. The mission of the Special Operations Force Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (SOF CBRN) forces is to provide Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) reconnaissance and surveillance support for Special Operating Forces (SOF) in support of strategic, operational, and tactical objectives in all environments (Army, 2007).
There is a general discord among stakeholders on the definition of irregular warfare and where the term and concept fits within the joint and the individual services’ doctrine. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review report uses the term “irregular” only once in its one hundred and five pages and only in terms of a focus on building the joint force’s capability and capacity to deal with irregular warfare while maintaining a clear conventional and nuclear global superiority. Currently, the definition is ambiguous and results in conflict or duplication of efforts across Department of Defense stakeholders. For the purposes of this paper, the stakeholders discussed are the Army and the Marine Corps. Stakeholders must reach a consensus and clearly define irregular warfare in order to establish comprehensive irregular war policy and strategy.
The first is “rational military considerations alone have rarely shaped military policies and programs” (xiv). What this means is that a lot of military factors are not focused on the needs of the military, but on the American people. For instance, there have been several occasions in the past where the military need money but they are not granted the access to the funds that they need. In another instance, it has been shown that people regulate the military fearing that it will overpower the people. This can potentially inhibit the military from taking the necessary actions to protect its
The world’s history is majorly shaped by mega wars that happen both inside and outside the boundaries of individual nations. Almost every sovereign state in the world had to forcefully liberate itself from its colonizers and oppressors mainly through warfare. For instance, America had to fight a long and exhausting revolutionary war against the British before it could attain its independence in 1783, likewise is the fate of many other nations. It is important to understand the two distinct types of wars that exist and their implications. Guerrilla warfare and the conventional military warfare are two types of war that are very different in their execution and military approach. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the similarities and differences existing between the American war in Vietnam and the American Revolution (Vetter, 1997).
The military is tasked with the duty and responsibility of protecting the nation from external attacks and managing any attacks that may happen. Over the years, countries across the world have engaged in conflicts originating from differences in policies and invasion of privacy and unfair treatment of citizens in foreign countries. In...
Armed with numerous studies, and intensive public hearings, Congress mandated far-reaching changes in DOD organization and responsibilities in the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. This landmark legislation significantly expanded the authority and responsibility of the chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Included in this expanded authority and responsibility was the requirement for the chairman to develop a doctrine for the joint employment of armed forces. As operations Urgent Fury, Just Cause, and Desert Storm have vividly demonstrated, the realities of armed conflict in today's world make the integration of individual service capabilities a matter of success or failure, life or death. Furthermore, the operation Desert One demonstrated the need for a strengthened Joint Warfare Doctrine and the consequent change in Joint Warfare Employment. It is plain to see the benefits of having the greatest navy integrated with the world's greatest army and air force. However, even in the wake of a relatively successful joint operation in the Middle East (Desert Storm), certain weaknesses are evident in the current joint employment tactics and/or capabilities. By analyzing past operations such as Urgent Fury and Desert Storm, we are able to see sufficient evidence that the Joint Warfare Concept can be disastrous in one instance and virtually flawless in another.
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
The U.S. is facing a future of irregular warfare conflict where victory comes through by controlling and influencing the population via the land domain.
Combatant Commanders (CCDRs) exercise command authority over assigned forces and given geographical area of responsibilities (AOR) in accordance with Unified Command Plan (UCP), and they are responsible to the President and SecDef for preparedness of their commands and performance of assigned missions. Today’s world is complex and it has been changing in many ways and with globalization these changes are faster and grooving in complexity. Globalization and constant competition for resources along with failed states and climate changes generate conditions for more intensive human migration and also make the contemporary environment more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. Each of the U.S Unified Geographical Combatant Commanders
I have organized this paper into five distinct sections; mission, task organization, capabilities, limitations, and finally the conclusion. After the reading and comprehension of this paper, you should have gained a basic understanding of the Special Forces (SF) Chemical Reconnaissance Detachments (CRD). The following paper is mixed with Unclassified (UCI) and For Official Use Only (FOUO) information. FOUO is annotated at the beginning of all For Official Use Only information, the rest of the paper is UCI. If you wish to share this information paper with others, please at a minimum; confirm identity of the person prior to providing (FM 380-5, 2000). For further handling instructions please refer to FM 380-5, or contact me, I will gladly answer all questions.
Special Forces (SF) understands from training and education that UW has three components: Underground, Auxiliary, and Guerrilla Force. The underground provides the necessary intelligence, command, and control that support a Guerrilla Force in the execution of several types of operations like subversion, sabotage, and psychological operations. The Auxiliary supports the Underground and the Guerrilla Force with logistics and information and serving as a source of recruits. The structure of a resistance movement is similar to the structure of a legitimate government, and it is for this reason that the activities in UW support other SO Core
Air Force Special Operations The United States of America is a powerful and well known force throughout the world. It has become a superpower of nations in just about three hundred years, being one of the newest nations in existence today. Its military reaches out into several countries in the globe and holds a presence as a peacekeeper and wielder of democracy. Of the US military’s five branches, the Air Force is the ruler of the skies, keeping control of the earth’s aerospace. Without the Air Force Special Operations, the military could not complete operations as effectively or efficiently as it potentially could.
The Technical Escort Unit (TEU) now provides the Department of Defense and other federal agencies to include the Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation with an immediate response capability for chemical and biological warfare material. Its mission is to provide a global response for escorting, packaging, detection, rendering-safe, disposing, sampling, analytics, and remediation missions. This does not only include chemical weapons for which it was originally created, but now incorporates biological weapons, state sponsored laboratories, small independent laboratories and small non-weaponized radioactive materials. Most recently, they have been task organized to assist Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) as a force multiplier; the objective of this is to give the Battle Field Commander instant on the ground intelligence regarding Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) hazards within their Area of Operations (AO). With this new mission with the BCT, the TEU is becoming an expeditionary force.
Thinking historically while conducting counterinsurgency in the 21st century poses questions regarding how to develop political and strategic plans. This bibliographic essay will examine the political and military aspect of fighting counterinsurgent warfare by 20th century theorists Galula’s, “Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice” and Trinquier’s, “Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice”. Strategy in fighting guerilla wars will be discussed by comparing conflicts in battles and ideologies from the past to current day. Moreover, ways to avoid the one size fits all war mentality when combating modern day insurgents will be recommended.