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).