< Back to Current Version

U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress

Changes from May 23, 2002 to August 15, 2003

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.


Order Code RS21048 Updated May 23, 2002August 15, 2003 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web U.S. Special Operations Forces in Operation Enduring Freedom: (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress Edward F. Bruner, Christopher Bolkcom, and Ronald O’Rourke for Congress Andrew Feickert Analyst in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Summary Special Operations Forces (SOF) are elite, specialized military units that can be inserted behind the lines to conduct a variety of operations, many of them clandestine. U.S. and allied SOF units have played a significant role in U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and other countries as part of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), the U.S. military campaign against terrorists. This short report provides background information and issues for Congress on U.S. SOF forces and their role in OEF. It will be updated as events warrant. Background Overview. Special Operations Forces (SOF) are elite military units that, in the words of DoD, are characterized by “combinations of specialized personnel, equipment, training and tactics that go beyond the routine capabilities of conventional military forces.” SOF units can be inserted behind the lines through land, sea, or air to conduct a variety of operations, many of them clandestine. SOF personnel are carefully selected and undergo highly demanding training. U.S. SOF units total roughly 45,000 active and reserve personnel in the Army, Navy, and Air Force, or about 2% of all U.S. active and reserve forces. The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) – a unified command – oversees the training, doctrine, and equipping of all U.S. SOF units. U.S. SOF Operations in OEF. U.S. SOF units have played a significant role in U.S. military counterterrorism operations Afghanistan and other countries. For the first several weeks of the war in Afghanistan, U.S. SOF units accounted for most of the U.S. military ground-forces presence in the country. At various points in the war, U.S. SOF units worked closely with leaders of local anti-Taliban/anti-al Qaeda forces, designated targets for U.S. bombers and strike aircraft armed with precision-guided munitions (PGMs), led or participated in joint U.S.-Afghan ground-attack operations against Taliban and al Qaeda forces (including some well-publicized horse-mounted cavalry charges), engaged in unilateral combat operations against Taliban and al Qaeda forces, interdicted Taliban and al Qaeda convoys, and searched caves and tunnels for Taliban and al Qaeda fighters, equipment, supplies, and intelligence. U.S. SOF forces were joined in many of Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress CRS-2 these operations by SOF forces from Britain and (particularly in later stages) other allied countries, such as Canada, Australia, and Germany. On April 25, 2002, the Washington Post reported that U.S. SOF forces were conducting clandestine operations in Pakistan to seek out and attack Taliban and al Qaeda fighters who fled there from Afghanistan. The combination of U.S. SOF forces on the ground and U.S. aircraft armed with PGMs flying overhead has been characterized by many observers as a creative and revolutionary form of warfare and given much of the credit for the rapid collapse of Taliban control over Afghanistan. DoD leaders and some other observers view the SOFaircraft combination, and the effective use of U.S. SOF forces in general, as a validation of proposals for carrying out a transformation of U.S. military forces.1 U.S. SOF forces are also being used as part of the U.S. counterterrorist effort in other countries, such as the Philippines. U.S. SOF activities in these other countries include training local forces in counterinsurgency techniques – a role that U.S. SOF forces have traditionally played in many countries over the years. Funding. USSOCOM is the only unified command in the Department of Defense (DoD) that is directly responsible for determining its own force structure and related material and funding requirements. The dedicated FY2002 budget for USSOCOM is $3.97 billion, or a bit more than 1% of the total FY2002 defense budget. This figure includes some additional funds for USSOCOM that were included in the Emergency Terrorism Response supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 107-38 of September 18, 2001). It does not, however, include additional FY2002 funds for USSOCOM that are requested as part of the FY2002 emergency supplemental appropriations bill that was submitted to Congress in March 2002. For FY2003, the Administration is requesting $5.26 billion for USSOCOM – a 32.5% increase over the FY2002 figure above. This FY2003 requested figure does not include additional FY2003 funding requested for USSOCOM in the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) – a “second” part of the FY2003 defense budget request totaling roughly $20 billion that was not rolled into the totals shown for the “regular” part of the FY2003 defense budget request. Funds for USSOCOM requested in the DERF include, among other things, $60 million to convert two C-130H cargo planes into AC-130U gunships. Much of the increase in funding requested for USSOCOM for FY2003 is for increased counterterrorism activities. SOF Capabilities. Special operations forces and predecessor U.S. units have played a role in most U.S. conflicts. Congress noted in 1985 that SOF provide the United 1 For more on transformation of U.S. military forces, see CRS Report RS20787, Army Transformation and Modernization: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Edward F. Bruner; CRS Report RS20859, Air Force Transformation: Background and Issues for Congress, by Christopher Bolkcom; and CRS Report RS20851, Naval Transformation: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke. CRS-3 States an “immediate and primary capability to respond to terrorism.”2 Specific U.S. SOF capabilities include the following: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Direct Action. Short-duration, small-scale offensive actions such as raids, ambushes, hostage rescues, and “surgical strikes.” play a significant role in U.S. military operations. The Administration has given U.S. SOF forces greater responsibility for planning and directing worldwide counterterrorism operations. The Administration’s proposed FY2004 defense budget requests about $6.7 billion for SOF forces – an increase of about 34% over FY2003 – and proposes increasing the total number of SOF personnel. The expanded use of SOF in U.S. military operations raises several issues for Congress. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees, in their reports on the FY2004 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1588/S. 1050) included several provisions relating to U.S. SOF. This report will be updated as events warrant. Background Overview. Special Operations Forces (SOF) are small, elite military units with special training and equipment that can infiltrate into hostile territory through land, sea, or air to conduct a variety of operations, many of them classified. SOF personnel undergo rigorous selection and lengthy, specialized training. U.S. SOF units total roughly 47,000 active and reserve personnel in the Army, Navy, and Air Force, or about 2% of all U.S. active and reserve forces. The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) oversees the training, doctrine, and equipping of all U.S. SOF units. Operations in Iraq. SOF operations in Iraq are currently focusing on capturing or killing “high-value targets”- an alleged euphemism for senior former Hussein regime members - combating the growing insurgency threat, and a wide range of civil-military and psychological operations. According to press reports, Task Force 20, a unit consisting of about 750-1,5000 troops drawn from a variety of USSOCOM units are spearheading the hunt for former regime members.1 Task Force 20, which reportedly was previously involved in the search for weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, is believed to have conducted numerous raids in and around Baghdad and Tirkit. Other 1 Shadowy U.S. Task Force 20 Stalks Saddam in Iraq, Will Dunham, Reuters, August 7, 2003. Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress CRS-2 USSOCOM units in Iraq are involved in a wide variety of missions designed to defeat Iraqi insurgents, train a new Iraqi army and security forces, as well as traditional civilmilitary and psychological operations designed to bring stability to Iraq. Operations in Afghanistan and Other Countries. SOF continues to operate in Afghanistan where they are involved in counterinsurgency operations and continue their hunt for Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership. SOF are also deployed in the Philippines and Colombia where they are involved in training those country’s armed forces in counterrorism and counterinsurgency operations. SOF is also reportedly deployed with Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) Horn of Africa as part of the global war on terrorism. SOF and Defense Transformation. The Administration considers the enhancement of SOF capabilities to be a key element of its plan for transforming the U.S. military to meet future military challenges. DOD leaders and other officials view the highly effective use of SOF units in Iraq and Afghanistan as a validation of some of the Administration’s transformation proposals.2 Authority for Planning Operations. In January 2003, DOD gave USSOCOM greater responsibility for planning and directing worldwide counterterrorism operations. Instead of being simply a supporting command that provides forces to other regional U.S. combatant commanders, USSOCOM will now be a supported command capable of planning and conducting operations in its own right.3 Funding. The Administration’s proposed FY2004 defense budget requests about $6.7 billion for SOF forces (an increase of about 34% over the FY2003 figure), and proposes increasing the total number of U.S. SOF personnel by 2,653. The budget increase would fund, among other things, the additional SOF personnel and improvements to the fleet of aircraft used to support SOF operations. Most of the additional personnel are to be used to improve USSOCOM’s ability to plan and direct counterterrorism operations. Some additional personnel will be authorized for civil affairs, psychological operations, and SOF aviation units and also for operational units. Navy officials reportedly will add the equivalent of two SEAL teams over the next five years to bolster their operational capability.4 SOF Capabilities. Specific U.S. SOF capabilities include the following: ! Direct Action. Short-duration, small-scale offensive actions such as raids, ambushes, hostage rescues, and “surgical strikes.” 2 For more on transformation of U.S. military forces, see CRS Report RS20787, Army Transformation and Modernization: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Edward F. Bruner; CRS Report RS20859, Air Force Transformation: Background and Issues for Congress, by Christopher Bolkcom; and CRS Report RS20851, Naval Transformation: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke. 3 Morris, Jefferson. SOCOM Changing From ‘Supporting’ To ‘Supported’ Command, Official Says. Aerospace Daily, April 2, 3003; Scarborough, Rowan. ‘Special Ops’ Gets OK TO Initiate Its Own Missions. Washington Times, January 8, 2003: 8; Scarborough, Rowan. Rumsfeld Bolsters Special Forces. Washington Times, January 6, 2003: 1. 4 Navy Confirms the Addition of 272 New SEAL Slots, Matthew Dolan, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, June 13, 2003. CRS-3 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Strategic (Special) Reconnaissance. Clandestine operations in hostile territory to gain significant information. Unconventional Warfare. Advising and supporting indigenous insurgent and resistance groups operating in the territory of a common enemy. (For example, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.) Foreign Internal Defense. Assisting host nation military capabilities to forestall or defeat insurgent activities. Civil Affairs. Promoting civil-military cooperation between U.S. military forces and the foreign governments and populations within their area of operations. Psychological Operations. Influencing the attitudes and behavior of relevant populations to assist in accomplishing security missions. Counterterrorism (CT). Operations conducted by Special Mission Units to resolve or preempt terrorist incidents abroad and activities to assist or work with other CT-designated agencies in the United States. Humanitarian Assistance. Providing various rudimentary services to foreign populations in adverse circumstances. Theater Search and Rescue. Finding and recovering downed pilots and air crews, sometimes in combat or clandestine situations. Counterterrorism (CT). Operations conducted to preempt terrorist incidents abroad and activities to assist or work with other CT-designated agencies in the United States. Such other activities as the President or Secretary of Defense specifypilots and air crews downed on land or sea outside the United States, sometimes in combat or clandestine situations. Such other activities as may be specified by the President or Secretary of Defense. Command Structures. Congress in 1986 expressed particular concern for the status of SOF within overall U.S. defense planning and consequently legislatedpassed measures to strengthen theirits position. These actions included the establishment of USSOCOM as a new unified command. The Commander in Chief of USSOCOM, or CINCSOC, is a four-star General or Admiral who may be from any service. USSOCOM is headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, FL. CINCSOC USSOCOM is headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, FL. The Commander of USSOCOM, is a four-star officer who may be from any service. Commander, USSOCOM reports directly to the Secretary of Defense, although an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC) provides immediate civilian oversight over many of USSOCOM activities. Although CINCSOCCommander, USSOCOM may command SOF operations anywhere – when specifically directed by the Secretary of Defense – it is more normal for CINCSOC him to organize and provide SOF to fight under the command of a regional CINC. combatant commander. U.S. military operations in and around Afghanistan are conducted by the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM). CINCCENT Commander, USCENTCOM, whose primary headquarters coincidentally is also at MacDill AFB, has a permanent SOF subordinate command. This command, known as SOCCENT, would plan for, coordinate use of, and command all SOF forces provided to CINCCENT by CINCSOC. Most SOF units have trained with SOF units from other services. 2 Current authorities and definitions for SOF are found in Title 10, United States Code, Section 167. The statement of SOF importance to counter-terrorism was made in P.L. 99-145; 99 Stat.760. CRS-4 MacDill AFB, has a permanent SOF subordinate command known as SOCCENT. Army Special Operations Forces.35 U.S. Army SOF (ARSOF) include 26,000 soldiers from the Active Army, National Guard, and Army Reserve who are organized into Special Forces units, Rangers units, special operations aviation units, civil affairs units, psychological operations units, and special operations support units. ARSOF Headquarters and other resources, such as the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, are located at Fort Bragg, NC. Five active Special Forces Groups (Airborne) are stationed at Fort Bragg and at Fort Lewis, WA, Fort Campbell, KY, and Fort Carson, CO. Special Forces soldiers – also known as the Green Berets – are trained in various skills, including foreign languages, that allow teams to operate independently in designated regions of the world. Two Army National Guard SF groups are headquartered in Utah and Alabama. An elite light infantry, airborne combat force, the 75th Ranger Regiment, is at Fort Benning, GA. Army special operations aviation units feature pilots trained to fly the most sophisticated Army rotary-wing aircraft in the toughest environments, day or night. The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) is stationed at Fort Campbell, KY. The regiment’s aircraft include MH47-E, MH60-L, and MH-6M helicopters 5 Information in this section was taken from Brown, Bryan (Doug). U.S. Army Special Operations: Focusing on People – Humans are More Important than Hardware.” Army, October 2001: 157-162. CRS-4 in Utah and Alabama. An elite light airborne infantry unit, the 75th Ranger Regiment, is headquartered at Fort Benning, GA and consists of three battalions specializing in direct action operations. Army special operations aviation units, including the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) at Fort Campbell, KY, feature pilots trained to fly the most sophisticated Army rotary-wing aircraft in the harshest environments, day or night and in adverse weather. The most frequently deployed SOF assets are civil affairs (CA) units, which provide experts in every area of civil government to help insure that the administration of civilian affairs in the theater poses a minimum hindrance to U.S. military objectives. The 96th administer civilian affairs in the theater. The 96th Civil Affairs Battalion (Airborne) is the only active CA unit; all other CA units reside in four Army Reserve Civil Affairs Commands located in Pensacola, FL, Mountain View, CA, Riverdale, MD, and Bronx, NY. Psychological operations units provide communicationsdisseminate information to large foreign audiences through mass media. Soldiers must have technical and language skills paired with knowledge of regional cultures. The 4th Psychological The 4th Psychological Operations Group (Airborne) is stationed at Fort Bragg, and two Army Reserve groups are located in Cleveland, OH, and at Moffett Federal Airfield, CA. Finally, Fort Bragg is also home to specialized supporting units and Special Mission Units that support a variety of ARSOF and joint missions. Notable among these is the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, often called Delta Force, which reportedly is based at Fort Bragg and trained specifically for counterterrorism missions, including hostage-rescue and snatch-and-grab operations Fort Bragg. Air Force Special Operations Forces.46 The Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) includes about 10,000 active and reserve personnel, of which about 22% are stationed overseas. AFSOC is headquartered at Hurlburt Field, FL, which is also the home of most of AFSOC’s active units, including the 16th Special Operations Wing, the 720th Special Tactics Group, the 18th Flight Test Squadron, and the U.S. Air Force Special Operations School. The 352nd Special Operations Group is at RAF Mildenhall, England, and the 353rd Special Operations Group, is at Kadena Air Base, Japan. 3 Information about current Army SOF was taken from an article by Lieutenant General Bryan (Doug) Brown, “U.S. Army Special Operations: Focusing on People – Humans are More Important than Hardware,” Army, October 2001, pp. 157-162. 4 For additional information on Air Force SOF units, see Wall, Robert. Conflict Could Test Special Ops Improvements. Aviation Week & Space Technology, October 1, 2001: 30. CRS-5 Reserve AFSOC components include the 193rd Special Operations Wing, Air National Guard stationed at Harrisburg, PA, the 280th Combat Communications Squadron, Air National Guard stationed at Dothan, AL., and the 919th Special Operations Wing, Air Force Reserve stationed at Duke Field, FL. AFSOC units are trained for direct action, unconventional warfare, special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense, and counter terrorism operations. AFSOC's Core Tasks are grouped into four mission areas: Forward Presence and Engagement, Information Operations, Precision Employment/Strike, and Special Operations Forces Mobility. AFSOC personnel deploy with specially trained and equipped forces from each service. The U.S. Special Operations School provides special operations-related education to personnel from all branches of DoD, other government agencies, and allied nations. AFSOC’s three active-duty flying units are composed of more than 100 fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, many of them specialized variants of the basic C-130 cargo airplane, that are organized in composite wings and groups. These aircraft include: ! ! ! ! ! MC-130E Combat Talon I and MC-130H Combat Talon II aircraft, which infiltrate, resupply, and exfiltrate U.S. and allied SOF units during day and night and in adverse weather. MC-130P Combat Shadow aircraft, which fly clandestine (lowvisibility), low-level, single- or multi-aircraft missions, primarily at night, penetrating politically sensitive or hostile territory to refuel other aircraft. MC-130Ps can also deliver SOF and equipment by airdrop. AC-130H Spectre and AC-130U Spooky gunship aircraft, which conduct close air support, interdiction and force protection operations. EC-130 Commando Solo aircraft, which conduct psychological operations and civil affairs broadcasts in radio, TV, and military communications bands. Secondary missions include information warfare, electronic attack, and some intelligence gathering. MH-53J/M Pave Low helicopters, which conduct low-level, long-range, undetected penetration into denied areas, at day or night, and in adverse weather, for infiltration, exfiltration, and resupply of SOF. The V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, a Marine Corps priority, is also being developed for AFSOC. If procured, SOF CV-22s will conduct long-range vertical takeoff and landing infiltration, exfiltration and resupply missions. The Osprey may provide increased speed and range, low-altitude adverse-weather penetration, a state-of-the-art electronic warfare suite, and maneuverability to perform missions that would normally require fixed wing and rotor wing aircraft. Naval Special Operations Forces.5 The naval special warfare command is located in Coronado, CA, and includes about 4,950 active and almost 1,200 reserve 5 Sources for information in this section: Waterborne Commandos. Armed Forces Journal International, January 2000: 31-33 (an interview with Rear Admiral Eric T. Olson, Commander, U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command); Gourley, Scott R. Setting The Seal On Maritime Special Operations Forces. Jane’s Navy International, June 1999: 18-21, 23. See also, Worthington, George. Whither Naval Special Warfare? U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, January 1996: 6163; Nolan, Mary I. Warriors Who Come From the Sea. Sea Power, February 1995: 38-40; Waller, Douglas C. Hell Week. Newsweek, January 10, 1994: 28-33. CRS-6 personnel. Navy special warfare forces are organized into SEAL teams (SEAL stands for Sea, Air and Land), Special Boat Units (SBUs), and SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) teams based on both coasts. The 4,950 active personnel include about 2,500 SEAL commandos and SEAL-qualified medical corpsmen, about 500 combatant craft crewmen, about 1,500 fleet support technicians, and about 200 SDV personnel. SEAL teams are maritime multipurpose combat forces trained and equipped to perform various SOF missions. SEAL commandos are considered the best-trained combat swimmers in the world, and can be deployed covertly from submarines or from sea-based aircraft. Although Afghanistan is a landlocked country hundreds of miles from shore, SEALs appear to have formed a significant portion of the total U.S. SOF presence in Afghanistan. The Navy testified in March 2002 that a Navy SEAL – an admiral – participated in the 800-man cavalry charge backed by four Navy F-14 strike-fighters that defeated Taliban/al Qaeda forces at the city of Mazar-e-Sharif. The Marine Corps has no dedicated SOF units, but Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs), which contain roughly 2,000 Marines, can receive training in specific special operations prior to deploying, in which case they are certified as special-operationscapable (SOC) for the duration of their deployment and are referred to as MEU(SOC)s. In late 2001, the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk deployed to the Northern Arabian Sea with only a partial complement of fixed-wing aircraft, where it reportedly was used as a launch and recovery platform for helicopter-borne SOF units. Issues for Congress Potential issues for Congress regarding U.S. SOF include the following: Funding, Equipment, and Organization. Have U.S. SOF units been funded adequately in recent years? Is the Administration proposing the right amount of funding for USSOCOM in FY2003? Is the size and organization of U.S. special forces appropriate in light of the campaign against terrorism and other 21st-Century security challenges? Should U.S. SOF units be expanded so as to make up a greater share of U.S. ground forces, and if so, how difficult might this be, given the very high standards of selection and training for U.S. SOF personnel? SOF and Defense Transformation. What does the experience with U.S. SOF in Afghanistan reveal concerning possible directions for transforming U.S. defense forces, particularly ground forces? To what extent are the lessons of the war in Afghanistan concerning U.S. SOF applicable to the current war on terrorism in other countries, or to other potential conflicts in the future? SOF Operational Tempo. With significant numbers of U.S. SOF personnel currently deployed to Afghanistan, the Philippines, and other countries, some observers are concerned that U.S. SOF forces are being stretched too thin, and that the current stress on the U.S. SOF force would be exacerbated if the United States were to deploy SOF forces as part of an additional military operation in Iraq or some other country. What is the current operational tempo of U.S. SOF forces? What might be the potential impact on the readiness and retention of U.S. SOF forces of maintaining current levels of SOF activity over the longer run? How easily could U.S. SOF forces take on a significant additional activity in Iraq or some other country? Reserve AFSOC components include the 193rd Special Operations Wing, Air National Guard stationed at Harrisburg, PA, the 280th Combat Communications Squadron, Air National Guard stationed at Dothan, AL., and the 919th Special Operations Wing, Air Force Reserve stationed at Duke Field, FL. AFSOC’s three active-duty flying units are composed of more than 100 fixed and rotary-wing aircraft. The V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, a Marine Corps priority, is also being developed for AFSOC. If procured, SOF CV-22s will conduct long-range vertical takeoff and landing infiltration, exfiltration and resupply missions. Naval Special Operations Forces. The Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC) is located in Coronado, CA, and includes about 4,950 active and almost 1,200 reserve personnel. Navy special warfare forces are organized into SEAL teams (SEAL stands for Sea, Air and Land), Special Boat Units (SBUs), and SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) teams based on both coasts. SEALs are considered the best-trained combat swimmers in the world, and can be deployed covertly from submarines or from sea-based aircraft. Although Afghanistan is a landlocked country hundreds of miles from shore, SEALs formed a significant portion of the total U.S. SOF presence in Afghanistan.7 6 For additional information on Air Force SOF units, see Wall, Robert. Conflict Could Test Special Ops Improvements. Aviation Week & Space Technology, October 1, 2001: 30. 7 Sources for information in this section: Waterborne Commandos. Armed Forces Journal (continued...) CRS-5 Until recently, the Marine Corps had no SOF units. In December 2002, the Marine Corps announced that it had created an 86-man SOF unit called the Marine Corps SOCOM Detachment. The unit was formed as a 2-year pilot project and will be based at Camp Pendleton, CA. It was scheduled to begin training in June 2003, to join USSOCOM in October 2003, and to be ready for deployment (with SEAL teams) in April 2004. If the unit is deemed successful, it may be expanded or duplicated.8 In addition, Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs), which contain roughly 2,100 Marines, for many years have received training in specific special operations prior to deploying, in which case they are certified as special-operations-capable (SOC) for the duration of their deployment and are referred to as MEU(SOC)s. Issues for Congress Potential issues for Congress include the following: ! Congressional restriction on the use of SOF. According to press reports9 a classified Senate report accompanying S. 1025, Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2004, would require DOD to first obtain a presidential finding or directive before deploying SOF forces on some clandestine missions to countries where the U.S. role is not publically acknowledged. The House version, H.R. 2417, does not contain similar provisions. Many critics of this measure believe that such a requirement would have a detrimental impact on the war on terrorism and limit SOF’s ability to kill or capture terrorists. Congress may wish to consider the impact of this proposed restriction on current and future SOF operations. ! Role of SOF in war on terrorism. What is the proper overall role of SOF forces in the global war on terrorism? What are the potential operational, legal, and diplomatic advantages and disadvantages of having USSOCOM exercise direct control over major portions of the military effort in the overall U.S. war on terrorism? SOF size and funding. Are SOF units adequately sized and funded? How many additional SOF personnel, and how much additional funding, are needed to support USSOCOM’s expanded role in the global war on terrorism? Given the very high standards of selection and training for ! 7 (...continued) International, January 2000: 31-33 (an interview with Rear Admiral Eric T. Olson, Commander, U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command); Gourley, Scott R. Setting The Seal On Maritime Special Operations Forces. Jane’s Navy International, June 1999: 18-21, 23. See also, Worthington, George. Whither Naval Special Warfare? U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, January 1996: 6163; Nolan, Mary I. Warriors Who Come From the Sea. Sea Power, February 1995: 38-40; Waller, Douglas C. Hell Week. Newsweek, January 10, 1994: 28-33. 8 Steele, Jeanette. Marines Plan Special-Ops Unit. San Diego Union-Tribune. December 19, 2002; Lowe, Christian. Marine Corps To Activate Special Operations Force. MarineCorpsTimes.com, December 17, 2002. 9 Sources for information in this section: Congress to Restrict the use of Special Ops, Bill Gertz, Washington Times, August 13, 2003 and Covert-Action Curbs Fought by Pentagon, Bill Gertz, Washington Times, August 14, 2003. CRS-6 ! ! SOF personnel, how difficult will it be to increase the size of USSOCOM? SOF and defense transformation. What does recent experience with SOF in Afghanistan and elsewhere reveal concerning possible directions for transforming conventional U.S. military forces, particularly land forces? SOF operational tempo. With significant numbers of SOF personnel currently deployed overseas, some observers are concerned that SOF forces are being stretched too thin. How does the use of significant numbers of SOF forces in Iraq affect USSOCOM’s ability to meet demands for SOF in Afghanistan and elsewhere? Legislative Activity FY2004 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1588/S. 1050). In its report (H.Rept. 108-106 of May 16, 2003) on H.R. 1588, the House Armed Services Committee recommended funding increases for several SOF-related programs (see, for example, pages 50, 122, 123, 191-192, 233, 241, and 249). The committee lauded U.S. SOF, expressed support for increased spending on SOF, noted its own recommended SOF funding increases, supported increasing the number of SOF personnel, concurred with SOF leaders that such increases must not compromise SOF personnel standards, supported DOD’s decision to designate USSOCOM as a supported command in some cases, expressed concern that the existing language of 10 U.S.C. 167 relating to this issue may be too restrictive to permit the timely execution of some missions to be performed by SOF, and directed DOD to review the issue and report by February 1, 2004 on whether any changes are needed (pages 355-356). In its report (S.Rept. 108-46 of May 13, 2003) on S. 1050, the Senate Armed Services Committee recommended funding increases for several SOF-related programs (see, for example, pages 3, 38, 115, 116-118, and 237-239). The committee noted problems that have occurred in a program to acquire a miniature submarine to be used by SOF forces called the Advanced SEAL delivery system (ASDS). The committee recommended a reduction in advanced procurement funding for the program and directed DOD to review the program’s acquisition strategy, particularly with regard to maximizing the benefits of competition (pages 115-116). The committee included a provision (Section 341) regarding reimbursement of pay and allowances of certain reserve SOF personnel who are called to active duty (page 292). The committee supported DOD’s decisions to expand USSOCOM’s role in the war on terrorism, to make USSOCOM a supported command in some cases, and to request increased funding for SOF. The committee stated that it needed more information on how DOD’s decisions on these matters would affect USSOCOM’s nine existing statutory missions and that it was concerned that these decisions be implemented within the parameters of existing international law, with full executive and legislative oversight. The committee included a provision (Section 923) directing DOD to report on these issues within 180 days (pages 353-354).