U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF):
Background and Issues for Congress
Andrew Feickert
Specialist in Military Ground Forces
August 3, 2009July 16, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS21048
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
Summary
Special Operations Forces (SOF) play a significant role in U.S. military operations and the
Administration has given U.S. SOF greater responsibility for planning and conducting worldwide
counterterrorism operations. U.S. SOF’s growing need for enabling forces that are largely drawn
from conventional forces is a potential policy issue for congressional considerationThe 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) directs increases in
SOF force structure, particularly in terms of increasing enabling units and rotary and fixed-wing
SOF aviation assets and units. The USSOCOM Commander, Admiral Eric T. Olson, in
commenting on the current state of the forces under his command noted that SOF forces are
deployed to more than 75 countries and 86% of these forces are in the U.S. Central Command
area of responsibility. Admiral Olson also noted ongoing growth in SOF units and aviation assets
and the effectiveness of Section 1208 authority, which provides funds for SOF to train and equip
regular and irregular indigenous forces to conduct counterterrorism operations. USSOCOM’s
FY2011 budget request for $9.8 billion has been recommended by the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees for full funding, and both committees have also recommended additional
funding for unfunded requirements.
Afghan-related issues include the impact of new command relationships as well as rules of
engagement, which have limited SOF nighttime raids targeting insurgent leadership. These SOF
raids have been characterized as being highly successful, even though on some occasions they
have resulted in civilian casualties. U.S. SOF have been given the mission of training Afghan
Civil Order Police. A more controversial mission involves up to 23 Special Forces Operational
Detachments – Alphas (ODAs) training local militias in remote areas of Afghanistan to fill a
security void. Potential issues for congressional consideration include how command
relationships and rules of engagement are affecting special operations in Afghanistan and whether
training police and militias is the best use of U.S. SOF.
Congressional Research Service
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................1
Overview ..............................................................................................................................1
Command Structures and Components ..................................................................................1
Expanded USSOCOM Responsibilities .................................................................................1
Army Special Operations Forces ...........................................................................................2
Air Force Special Operations Forces .....................................................................................3
AFSOC InitiativesNaval Special Operations Forces ...........................................................................................3
Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) ............................................................3
No C-27s for AFSOC? ...4
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)...........................................................................4
Newly Established NATO Special Operations Headquarters ..........................3
Naval Special Operations Forces........................4
Current Organizational and Budgetary Issues ...........................................................................................4
Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) 5
2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report SOF-Related Directives ...........................5
2010 USSOCOM Posture Statement .....................................................................................5
FY2011 USSOCOM Budget Request .............................................................................4
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).......6
House Armed Services Committee Mark-Up: H.R. 5136, National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2011 ............................................................................................4
Current Issues6
Senate Armed Services Committee Mark-Up: H.R. 5136, National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2011 ............................................................................................7
Afghanistan-Related Issues ...............................................................................5
FY2010 USSOCOM Budget Request ..........................7
A Change of Command Relationship for U.S. SOF....................................................................................5
SOF Competition for Support Forces 7
U.S. SOF Direct Action Against Afghan Insurgents ...............................................................8
Training Afghan Police .........................................................................................................9
Training Village Security Forces ...........................................................................................69
Issues for Congress .....................................................................................................................6
SOF and Adequacy of Support Forces 10
Are Current Command Relationships and Rules of Engagement Having a Detrimental
Impact on Special Operations in Afghanistan?...................................................................................6 10
Are We Making the Best Use of SOF in Afghanistan? ......................................................... 10
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................7 11
Congressional Research Service
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
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 specialized
training. The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) oversees the training,
doctrine,
and equipping of all U.S. SOF units.
Command Structures and Components
In 1986 Congress, concerned about the status of SOF within overall U.S. defense planning,
passed measures (P.L. 99-661) to strengthen its position. These actions included the establishment
of USSOCOM as a new unified command. 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 and
Interdependent Capabilities (ASD/SOLIC&IC) provides immediate civilian oversight over many
USSOCOM activities.
USSOCOM has about 5457,000 Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve personnel from all four
Services and Department of Defense (DOD) civilians assigned to its headquarters, its four
components, and one sub-unified command.1 USSOCOM’s components are the U.S. Army
Special Operations Command (USASOC); the Naval Special Warfare Command
(NAVSPECWARCOM); the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC); and the Marine
Corps Special Operations Command (MARSOC). The Joint Special Operations Command
(JSOC) is a USSOCOM sub-unified command.
Expanded USSOCOM Responsibilities
In addition to its Title 10 authorities and responsibilities, USSOCOM has been given additional
responsibilities. In the 2004 Unified Command Plan, USSOCOM was given the responsibility for
synchronizing DOD plans against global terrorist networks and, as directed, conducting global
operations.2 In this regard, USSOCOM “receives, reviews, coordinates and prioritizes all DOD
plans that support the global campaign against terror, and then makes recommendations to the
Joint Staff regarding force and resource allocations to meet global requirements.”3 In October
1
Information in this section is from “Fact Book: United States Special Operations Command,” USSOCOM Public
Affairs, February 2009, p. 7. DOD defines a sub-unified command as a command established by commanders of
unified commands, when so authorized through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to conduct operations on a
continuing basis in accordance with the criteria set forth for unified commands. A subordinate unified command may
be established on an area or functional basis. Commanders of subordinate unified commands have functions and
responsibilities similar to those of the commanders of unified commands and exercise operational control of assigned
commands and forces within the assigned joint operations area.
2
“Fact Book: United States Special Operations Command,” USSOCOM Public Affairs, February 20092010, p. 6.
3
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
1
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
2008, USSOCOM was designated as the DOD proponent for Security Force Assistance (SFA). 4 In
this role, USSOCOM will perform a synchronizing function in global training and assistance
planning similar to the previously described role of planning against terrorist networks. In
addition, USSOCOM is now DOD’s lead for countering threat financing, working with the U.S.
Treasury and Justice Departments on means to identify and disrupt terrorist financing efforts.
Army Special Operations Forces
U.S. Army SOF (ARSOF) includes approximately 30,000 soldiers from the Active Army,
National Guard, and Army Reserve who are organized into Special Forces, Ranger, and special
operations aviation units, along with 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
(SF) Groups (Airborne), consisting of about 1,400 soldiers each, are stationed at Fort Bragg and
at Fort Lewis, WA, Fort Campbell, KY, and Fort Carson, CO. The 7th Special Forces Group
(Airborne) currently stationed at Ft. Bragg will be moving to Eglin Air Force Base, FL by
September 2011 as mandated by the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment Act5.Act.5 Special Forces
soldiers—also known as the Green Berets—are trained in various skills, including foreign
languages, that allow teams to operate independently throughout the world. In December 2005, a
the 528th Sustainment Brigade (Special Operations) (Airborne) was activated at Ft. Bragg, NC, to provide
provide combat service support and medical support to Army special operations forces.6
In FY2008, the Army began to increase the total number of Army Special Forces battalions from
15 to 20, with one battalion being allocated to each active Special Forces Group. In August 2008,
the Army stood up the first of these new battalions—the 4th Battalion, 5th Special Forces Groups
(Airborne)—at Fort Campbell, KY.7 The Army expects that the last of these new Special Forces
battalions will be operational by FY2013.8 Two Army National Guard SFSpecial Forces groups are
headquartered in
Utah and Alabama. An elite airborne light infantry unit specializing in direct
action operations8,
operations9, the 75th Ranger Regiment, is headquartered at Fort Benning, GA, and consists
of three battalions.
Army special operations aviation units, including the 160th Special Operations
Aviation Regiment
(Airborne), headquartered 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.
Some of the most frequently deployed SOF assets are civil affairs (CA) units, which provide
experts in every area of civil government to help administer civilian affairs in operational
theaters. The 95th Civil Affairs Brigade (Airborne) is the only active CA unit, and plans call for weather.
4
Information in this section is from testimony given by Admiral Eric T. Olson, Commander, U.S. SOCOM, to the
House Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee on the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request for the U.S. Special Operations Command, June 4, 2009.
5
Henry Cuningham, “Delays in 7th Group Move Could be Costly,” Fayetteville (NC) Observer, November 7, 2008.
6
“Fact Book: United States Special Operations Command,” USSOCOM Public Affairs, February 20092010, p. 1011.
7
Sean D. Naylor, “Special Forces Expands,” Army Times, August 11, 2008.
8
Association of the United States Army, “U.S. Army Special Operations Forces: Integral to the Army and the Joint
Force,” Torchbearer National Security Report, March 2010, p. 3.
9
Direct action operations are short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions conducted as a special
operation in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments and which employ, as well as employing specialized military capabilities to
to seize, destroy, capture, exploit, recover, or damage designated targets. Direct action differs from conventional offensive
offensive actions in the level of physical and political risk, operational techniques, and the degree of discriminate and
precise use
of force to achieve specific objectives.
Congressional Research Service
2
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
the brigade to expand from one to four battalions by 2009.9 All other CA units reside in the
Some of the most frequently deployed SOF assets are civil affairs (CA) units, which provide
experts in every area of civil government to help administer civilian affairs in operational
theaters. The 95th Civil Affairs Brigade (Airborne) is the only active CA unit; all other CA units
reside in the Reserves and are affiliated with conventional Army units. Psychological operations units
units disseminate information to large foreign audiences through mass media. The active duty 4th
Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) Group (Airborne) is stationed at Fort Bragg, and two Army
Reserve PSYOPS groups work with conventional Army units. USSOCOM has recently decided
to replace the term “psychological operations” and instead adopt the term “Military Information
Support Operations,” or MISO, instead.10
Air Force Special Operations Forces
The Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) includes about 13,000 active and reserve
personnel. AFSOC is headquartered at Hurlburt Field, FL, along with the 720th Special Tactics
Group, the 1st Special Operations Wing (SOW) and the U.S. Air Force Special Operations School
and Training Center. 1011 The 27th SOW is located at Cannon Air Force Base (AFB), NM. The 352nd
Special Operations Group is at RAF Mildenhall, England, and the 353rd Special Operations
Group, is at Kadena Air Base, Japan. Reserve AFSOC components include the 193rd SOW, Air
National Guard, stationed at Harrisburg, PA, 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.
AFSOC Initiatives
AFSOC officials expect to have the first CV-22 tilt rotor squadron operational in 2009. 11 This
first AFSOC Osprey squadron will have six aircraft and nine crews. The Osprey will eventually
replace AFSOC’s MH-53 Pave Low helicopters, which were officially retired in 2008.
Reportedly, the Air Force is requesting funding to accelerate the purchase of CV-22s to eight
aircraft per year starting in FY2010, which will enable AFSOC to have their full complement of
50 CV-22s by 2015.12 AFSOC is also accelerating efforts to replace the aging AC-130U gunship
fleet with a lighter version—perhaps a modified version of the C-27B Spartan Joint Cargo
Aircraft (JCA).13 AFSOC is said to be working to increase the number of MQ-1 Predator and
MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) it uses to support special operations missions by
about two-thirds.14
No C-27s for AFSOC?15
AFSOC had been slated to receive 16 C-27 Spartans that were to be converted into a lighter
version of the AC-130U gunship, but DOD removed Army funding for 40 C-27s from its FY2010
budget. AFSOC had planned on getting two of the Army’s C-27s in FY2011 and pay the Army
9
Kevin Maurer, “Newly Formed 95th Civil Affairs Brigade Activates,” Fayetteville Times, August 18, 2006.
Information in this section is taken from “Fact Book: United States Special Operations Command,” USSOCOM
Public Affairs, February 2009, p. 27.
11
Nathan Hodge, “AFSOC to Stand Up First Osprey Unit in 2009,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, May 28, 2008, p. 10.
10
12
Marina Malenic, “Bell-Boeing Sees V-22 Program Growth, Potential Line Expansion,” Defense Daily, March 16,
2009.
13
John Reed, “AFSOC Quickly Working to Field Next-Generation Light Gunship,” InsideDefense.com, June 27, 2008.
14
John Reed, “AFSOC Working to Increase Drone Fleet by Two-Thirds in POM-10 Build,” InsideDefense.com, July
18, 2008.
15
Sam LaGrone, “AFSOC Plan for C-27s Takes Nosedive,” Air Force Times, May 4, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
3
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
back in FY2015. While this arrangement between AFSOC and the Army has been described as
being “outside the normal budgeting process” it is viewed by some as indicative of how badly
AFSOC wants the C-27 to help replace capabilities resident in its current aging AC-130U fleet.
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) in its June 17, 2009, summary of H.R. 2647, the
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act, has expressed concern that the JCA program, that
originally provide for 78 C-27Js for the Army and Air Force, has been reduced by DOD to only
38 aircraft for the Air Force. The HASC has asked the Army and Air Force for a report to identify
new C-27J force structure and this report might be expected to include AFSOC requirements for
the C-27J.
Naval Special Operations Forces16
The Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC) is located in Coronado, CA. NSWC is organized
around 10 SEAL Teams, two SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) Teams, and three Special Boat
Teams. SEAL Teams consist of six SEAL platoons each, consisting of two officers and 16
enlisted personnel. The major operational components of NSWC include Naval Special Warfare
Groups One, Three, and Eleven stationed in Coronado, CA, and Naval Special Warfare Groups
Two and Four and the Naval Special Warfare Development Group in Little Creek, VA. These
components deploy SEAL Teams, SEAL Delivery Vehicle Teams, and Special Boat Teams
worldwide to meet the training, exercise, contingency and wartime requirements of theater
commanders. NSWC has approximately 5,400 total active-duty personnel—including 2,450
SEALs and 600 Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewmen (SWCC)—as well as a 1,200-person
reserve component of approximately 325 SEALs, 125 SWCC and 775 support personnel. SEALs
are considered the best-trained combat swimmers in the world, and can be deployed covertly
from submarines or from sea and land-based aircraft.
Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) 17
On November 1, 2005, DOD announced the creation of the Marine Special Operations Command
(MARSOC) as a component of USSOCOM. MARSOC consists of four subordinate units—the 1st
and 2nd Marine Special Operations Battalions, the Marine Special Operations Advisory Group,
and the Marine Special Operations Support Group. MARSOC Headquarters, the 2nd Marine
Special Operations Battalion, the Marine Special Operations School, and the Marine Special
Operations Support Group are stationed at Camp Lejeune, NC. The 1st Marine Special Operations
Battalion is stationed at Camp Pendleton, CA. MARSOC forces have been deployed world-wide
to conduct a full range of special operations activities.
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)
According to DOD, the JSOC is “a joint headquarters designed to study special operations
requirements and techniques; ensure interoperability and equipment standardization; plan and
16
Information in this section is from “Fact Book: United States Special Operations Command,” USSOCOM Public
Affairs, February 2009, p. 18 and the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command Website, http://www.navsoc.navy.mil,
accessed March 19, 2009.
1717
Information in this section is from “Fact Book: United States Special Operations Command,” USSOCOM Public
Affairs, February 2009, p. 34.
Congressional Research Service
4
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
conduct joint special operations exercises and training; and develop joint special operations
tactics.”18 While not officially acknowledged by DOD or USSOCOM, JSOC, which is
headquartered at Pope Air Force Base, NC, is widely believed to command and control what are
described as the military’s special missions units—the Army’s Delta Force, the Navy’s SEAL
Team Six—as well as the 75th Ranger Regiment, the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment
and the Air Force’s 24th Special Tactics Squadron. 19 JSOC’s primary mission is believed to be
identifying and destroying terrorists and terror cells worldwide.
Current Issues
FY2010 USSOCOM Budget Request
USSOCOM’s FY2010 Budget Request is $8.647 billion—with $5.9 billion in the baseline budget
and $2.7 billion in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget.20 Among other things,
this request is intended to support FY2010 USSOCOM growth of 2,349 military and civilian
personnel allocated as follows:
•
U.S. Army Special Operations Command: 1,048 personnel;
•
Air Force Special Operations Command: 791 personnel;
•
Naval Special Warfare Command: 157 personnel;
•
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 163 personnel;
•
Joint Special Operations Command: 62 personnel;
•
Theater Special Operations Commands: 139 personnel; and
•
Headquarters, U.S. Special Operations Command: a net reduction of 11
personnel.
In its markup of the FY2010 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647), the House Armed
Services Committee (HASC) authorized $ 9 billion, an increase of $308 million in order
to fully support USSOCOM’s counterterrorism mission as well as, among other things,
providing assistance to foreign forces supporting USSOCOM’s counterterror efforts, a
NATO Special Operations Coordination Center, and the Irregular Warfare Support
Program.21
18
USSOCOM website http://www.socom.mil/components/components.htm, accessed March 19, 2008.
Jennifer D. Kibbe, “The Rise of the Shadow Warriors,” Foreign Affairs, Volume 83, Number 2, March/April 2004
and Sean D. Naylor, “JSOC to Become Three-Star Command,” Army Times, February 13, 2006.
20
Information in this section is from the United States Special Operations Command FY2010 Budget Highlights, May
21, 2009.
21
House Armed Services Committee, Summary of H.R. 2647, the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act, June
17, 2009, pp. 27-28.
19
Congressional Research Service
5
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
SOF Competition for Support Forces22
There is growing concern by some that when large numbers of conventional forces depart Iraq,
that SOF staying behind may not have adequate logistical and transportation support, as U.S.
conventional support units that provide significant support for SOF, will not be replaced. This
support includes fuel, maintenance, helicopter and ground transportation, as well as facility and
food support services. Support from conventional units—sometimes referred to as “enablers”—
such as engineers, military police, intelligence, signal, and medical units is also in high demand
from SOF units. One concern is that when conventional forces do begin their anticipated largescale departure this year, that remote SOF units that rely on nearby conventional force support,
may have to pull out of their operational areas and consolidate near remaining logistical support
units, which could adversely impact SOF missions. A similar dependence by SOF in Afghanistan
on conventional units is also of concern. In the case of Afghanistan, where there are no immediate
plans for force reductions, SOF forces rely on conventional helicopter units for over one half of
their helicopter support. Because of anticipated increased demand for support as the U.S.
increases conventional force levels in Afghanistan, there is concern that support forces will have a
difficult time meeting growing demands, and that SOF operations may suffer. One proposed
solution would be the establishment of additional SOF support units within USSOCOM, but
USSOCOM leadership is said to favor the development of more conventional force support units
that could, in turn, be used to support SOF units and operations.
Issues for Congress
SOF and Adequacy of Support Forces
SOF’s access to support forces and enablers also raises a number of issues for potential
consideration. While USSOCOM does have organic support forces for its components, the
demands of operating in almost 60 countries has likely strained the modest capabilities of these
support forces. In Iraq, the possibility that SOF operations may have to be modified because there
may not be enough support forces or enablers to sustain them after the majority of U.S.
conventional forces depart is particularly troubling. The short-term solution appears to be to
retain support forces and enablers in Iraq to insure adequate support for SOF and increase support
forces and enablers in Afghanistan so that SOF operations are not degraded by the anticipated
introduction of additional U.S. conventional ground forces in Afghanistan. These solutions, while
potentially solving the SOF support problem, would likely create problems for the Army because
they might be unable to reset these forces to support future deployments of Army combat
formations. Longer term solutions could include establishing organic, higher echelon support
forces in USSOCOM, but USSOCOM would prefer that the Services increase their support forces
so that USSOCOM forces could obtain their in-theater support from these units.
22
Information in this section is from Testimony Before the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on
Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, “Special Operations Forces: Challenges and Opportunities,”
Roger D. Carstens, Center for a New American Security, March 3, 2009; Lolita C. Baldor, “Iraqi Pullout Raises
Concerns for Elite Forces,” Army Times, March 7, 2009; Sean D. Naylor, “A Duel for the Enablers of U.S. Wars,”
Defense News, March 16, 2009, p. 33.
Congressional Research Service
6
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
While all Services provide a degree of support to their deployed USSOCOM components, a
significant amount of in-theater support to U.S. SOF comes from the Army. In 2009, the total
Army (Active and Reserve) plans to have 85 multi-functional support brigades and 113 functional
support brigades, which would provide a significant amount of logistical and “enabling” support
to land-based deployed U.S. SOF.23 This represents 87% of planned growth, as the Army plans on
a total of 97 multi-functional support brigades and 130 functional support brigades by FY2013 to
achieve 100% planned growth. While the Army likely accounted for support to SOF as well as
other Services in determining this total proposed growth in support brigades, it is not clear if the
current high level of SOF support in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters has changed
requirements. Requirements for support brigades and possibly Army aviation units that, in some
cases, have provided over half of U.S. SOF’s rotary wing support, may have increased since the
Army first developed its support force structure requirements. Given current and potential future
demands from U.S. SOF for logistics support and support from “enablers,” a comprehensive
review of the adequacy of current and planned logistical and enabling forces might be beneficial.
Such a review—possibly involving DOD, the Services, and USSOCOM—might include an
examination of all potential solutions, including the establishment of additional units within
USSOCOM, or establishing new units within the Services from which USSOCOM can draw
support when deployed on operations.
Author Contact Information
Andrew Feickert
Specialist in Military Ground Forces
afeickert@crs.loc.gov, 7-7673
23
U.S. Army Briefing to Congressional Staff Members: GAO Report on Army Modularity, January 16, 2009, p. 10.
Congressional Research Service
7Naval Special Operations Forces12
The Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC) is located in Coronado, CA. NSWC is organized
around 10 SEAL Teams, two SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) Teams, and three Special Boat
Teams. SEAL Teams consist of six SEAL platoons each, consisting of two officers and 16
enlisted personnel. The major operational components of NSWC include Naval Special Warfare
Groups One, Three, and Eleven, stationed in Coronado, CA, and Naval Special Warfare Groups
Two and Four and the Naval Special Warfare Development Group in Little Creek, VA. These
components deploy SEAL Teams, SEAL Delivery Vehicle Teams, and Special Boat Teams
worldwide to meet the training, exercise, contingency and wartime requirements of theater
commanders. NSWC has approximately 5,400 total active-duty personnel—including 2,450
SEALs and 600 Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewmen (SWCC)—as well as a 1,200-person
reserve component of approximately 325 SEALs, 125 SWCC and 775 support personnel. SEALs
are considered the best-trained combat swimmers in the world, and can be deployed covertly
from submarines or from sea and land-based aircraft.
10
Associated Press, “Army Opts for a Neutral Name, New York Times, July 3, 2010.
11
Information in this section is taken from “Fact Book: United States Special Operations Command,” USSOCOM
Public Affairs, February 2009, p. 27.
12
Information in this section is from “Fact Book: United States Special Operations Command,” USSOCOM Public
Affairs, February 2009, p. 18 and the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command Website, http://www.navsoc.navy.mil,
accessed March 19, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
3
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) 13
On November 1, 2005, DOD announced the creation of the Marine Special Operations Command
(MARSOC) as a component of USSOCOM. MARSOC consists of three subordinate units—the
Marine Special Operations Regiment which includes 1st , 2nd , and 3rd Marine Special Operations
Battalions, the Marine Special Operations Support Group, and the Marine Special Operations
School. MARSOC Headquarters, the 2nd and 3rd Marine Special Operations Battalions, the Marine
Special Operations School, and the Marine Special Operations Support Group are stationed at
Camp Lejeune, NC. The 1st Marine Special Operations Battalion is stationed at Camp Pendleton,
CA. MARSOC forces have been deployed world-wide to conduct a full range of special
operations activities.
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)
According to DOD, the JSOC is “a joint headquarters designed to study special operations
requirements and techniques; ensure interoperability and equipment standardization; plan and
conduct joint special operations exercises and training; and develop joint special operations
tactics.”14 While not officially acknowledged by DOD or USSOCOM, JSOC, which is
headquartered at Pope Air Force Base, NC, is widely believed to command and control what are
described as the military’s special missions units—the Army’s Delta Force, the Navy’s SEAL
Team Six, the 75th Ranger Regiment, the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment and the Air
Force’s 24th Special Tactics Squadron. 15 JSOC’s primary mission is believed to be identifying and
destroying terrorists and terror cells worldwide.
Newly Established NATO Special Operations Headquarters16
NATO’s newly established Special Operations Headquarters (NSHQ) reportedly will be
commanded by U.S. Air Force Major General Frank Kisner, who had previously commanded
U.S. Special Operations Command – Europe (SOCEUR). Major General Kisner reportedly will
be recommended for promotion to Lieutenant General before assuming his new post. The NSHQ
is envisioned to serve as the core of a combined joint force special operations component
command, which would the proponent for planning, training, doctrine, equipping, and evaluating
NATO special operations forces from 22 countries. The NSHQ is located with the Supreme
Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium, and will consist of about 150
NATO personnel.
13
Information in this section is from “Fact Book: United States Special Operations Command,” USSOCOM Public
Affairs, February 2010, p. 37.
14
USSOCOM website http://www.socom.mil/components/components.htm, accessed March 19, 2008.
15
Jennifer D. Kibbe, “The Rise of the Shadow Warriors,” Foreign Affairs, Volume 83, Number 2, March/April 2004
and Sean D. Naylor, “JSOC to Become Three-Star Command,” Army Times, February 13, 2006.
16
Information in this section is taken from Carlo Muňoz, “SOCEUR Chief Pegged: Air Force Two-Star to Head Up
New NATO Special Ops Headquarters,” Inside the Air Force, May 28, 2010 and NATO Fact Sheet, “NATO Special
Operations Headquarters (NSHQ),” accessed from http://www.NATO.int on July 1, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
4
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
Current Organizational and Budgetary Issues
2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report SOF-Related
Directives17
The 2010 QDR contains a number of SOF-related directives pertaining to personnel,
organizations, and equipment. These include the following:
•
To increase key enabling assets for special operations forces.
•
To maintain approximately 660 special operations teams;18 3 Ranger battalions;
and 165 tilt-rotor/fixed-wing mobility and fire support primary mission aircraft.
•
The Army and USSOCOM will add a company of upgraded cargo helicopters
(MH-47G) to the Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment.
•
The Navy will dedicate two helicopter squadrons for direct support to naval
special warfare units.
•
To increase civil affairs capacity organic to USSOCOM.
•
Starting in FY2012, purchase light, fixed-wing aircraft to enable the Air Force’s
6th Special Operations squadron to engage partner nations for whose air forces
such aircraft might be appropriate, as well as acquiring two non-U.S. helicopters
to support these efforts.
2010 USSOCOM Posture Statement19
In March 2010, USSOCOM Commander Admiral Eric T. Olson testified to the House and Senate
Armed Service Committees, providing them with an update of the current state of U.S. SOF. Key
points emphasized by Admiral Olson included the following:
•
Of the more than 12,000 SOF and SOF support forces deployed daily to more
than 75 countries, 86% of these forces are in the U.S. Central Command area of
responsibility and under their operational control.
•
USSOCOM is growing organic combat service and service support units to
support special operations forces to include communications, information support
specialists, forensic analysts, military working dog teams, and intelligence
experts, to name but a few. In FY2011, this will represent a growth of about
2,700 personnel.
•
Section 1208 authority (Section 1208 of P.L. 108-375, the FY2005 National
Defense Authorization Act) provides authority and funds for U.S. SOF to train
17
Information in this section is from Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February 2010.
These teams include Army Special Forces Operational Detachment-Alpha (ODA) teams; Navy Sea, Air, and Land
(SEAL) platoons; Marine special operations teams, Air Force special tactics teams; and operational aviation
detachments.
19
Admiral Eric T. Olson, “FY 2011 USSOCOM Posture Statement,” U.S. Special Operations Command, March 4,
2010, p. 2.
18
Congressional Research Service
5
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
and equip regular and irregular indigenous forces to conduct counterterrorism
operations. Section 1208 is considered a key tool in combating terrorism and is
directly responsible for a number of highly successful counter terror operations.
•
In cooperation with the Army, USSOCOM will grow its helicopter fleet by eight
MH-47 Chinooks by FY2015; fielding is almost complete for upgraded MH-47G
and MH-60M helicopters. USSOCOM currently has 12 CV-22 Osprey aircraft
and hopes to add 5 more aircraft this year.
FY2011 USSOCOM Budget Request
USSOCOM’s FY2011 Budget Request is $9.8 billion—with $6.3 billion in the baseline budget
and $3.5 billion in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget.20 Among other things,
this request is intended to support FY2011 USSOCOM growth of 2,787 military and civilian
personnel allocated as follows:
•
U.S. Army Special Operations Command: 1,638 personnel;
•
Air Force Special Operations Command: 1,119 personnel;
•
Naval Special Warfare Command: 26 personnel; and
•
Marine Corps Special Operations Command: 4 personnel.
House Armed Services Committee Mark-Up: H.R. 5136, National
Defense Authorization Act for FY201121
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) recommended fully funding USSOCOM’s $9.8
billion budget request and included an additional $301.5 million for USSOCOM unfunded
requirements, including tactical vehicles, operational enhancements, and special operations
technology, as well as expanding counterterrorism support authorities. Recognizing the benefits
of the 1208 Authority program, the HASC recommended expanding the program and authorized
up to $50 million for the program. The HASC was encouraged by the steps being taken by the
Department of Defense to address special operations rotary wing requirements, but there was
concern that proposed solutions would not provide adequate relief fast enough and that continued
shortfalls could affect future operations. The HASC encouraged the Secretary of Defense and
USSOCOM Commander to aggressively identify and implement solutions to address SOF rotary
wing shortfalls, including non-standard aviation platforms and aviation foreign internal defense
activities.
20
Information in this section is from the United States Special Operations Command FY2011 Budget Estimates,
February 2010.
21
Summary of H.R. 5136, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, May 2010, pp. 23-24.
Congressional Research Service
6
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
Senate Armed Services Committee Mark-Up: H.R. 5136, National
Defense Authorization Act for FY201122
The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) recommended fully funding USSOCOM’s $9.8
billion budget request and included an additional $113.4 million, as opposed to the HASC, which
recommended $301.5 million ($188.1 million difference) for USSOCOM unfunded requirements.
These unfunded requirements included ground mobility vehicles, deployable communications
equipment, thermal and night vision goggles, the Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle
(SCAR), and non-lethal weapons technologies. The SASC also expanded the requirement for
USSOCOM to provide quarterly reports on the use of Combat Mission Requirement fund to
satisfy urgent operational needs.
Afghanistan-Related Issues
A Change of Command Relationship for U.S. SOF
A March 4, 2010, decision by Secretary of Defense Gates, which gave operational control of most
U.S. SOF as well as all Marine Forces to the former Commander of NATO’s International
Security Forces (ISAF) U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal, has raised a number of issues.23
U.S. SOF affected by this decision are Theater Mission Forces. Theater Mission Forces are
assigned or attached to Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs)—in this case the
Combined Special Operations Component Command – Afghanistan (CFSOCC-A), which was
under the operational control of Special Operations Command – Central (SOCCent). Theater
Mission Forces are intended to develop long-term military relationships in Afghanistan and
provide special operations support to combatant commanders. National Mission Forces were not
affected by this decision and remain under the control of the Commander of USSOCOM.
National Mission Forces conduct highly sensitive and often secretive operations of national
importance.
Some press reports have suggested that this change was made because of an alleged large number
of civilian casualties resulting from U.S.-led SOF night missions, as well as a lack of unity of
effort, as SOF often operated independently in Afghanistan’s various regional commands.24 U.S.
defense officials have denied that this move was made for reasons other than improving overall
unity of command. One of the concerns of this new command arrangement is that SOF units
would be disaggregated and used by General Purpose Forces commanders within their regional
commands, as well as SOF command and control organizations such as CFSOCC-A would have
no role in the employment of Theater Mission Forces.
22
Senate Armed Services Committee Press Release, “Senate Armed Services Committee Completes Mark Up of
National Defense Authorizations Act for Fiscal Year 2011,” U.S. Senate, May 28, 2010, pp. 19-20.
23
Sean D. Naylor, “Change at the Top: Special Forces, Marines in Afghanistan Come Under McChrystal’s Control,”
Army Times, March 29, 2010, pp. 16-17.
24
Carlo Muňoz, “Unity of Effort Sought – Official: New Special Ops Guidance Not Sparked by Casualty Concerns,”
Inside the Air Force, March 26, 2010, and Sean D. Naylor, “Change at the Top: Special Forces, Marines in Afghanistan
Come Under McChrystal’s Control,” Army Times, March 29, 2010, pp. 16-17.
Congressional Research Service
7
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
Another concern is that this new command arrangement was a result of an earlier decision by
General McChrystal to limit not only U.S.-led SOF night missions, but also air and artillery
strikes in order to hopefully lessen civilian casualties, which was viewed as a necessary step to
support the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. USSOCOM Commander, Admiral
Eric Olson, reportedly has expressed concerns that counterinsurgency has “become more focused
on operations to protect the local populace and less on finding, capturing, and killing
insurgents.”25 These views are seemingly shared by many U.S. service members in the ranks who
view current rules as too restrictive, playing into the hands of the insurgents who are aware of
these rules and use them to negate superior U.S. firepower, resulting in more U.S. casualties.26 It
is not known whether General McChrystal’s successor, General David Petraeus, who approved
these rules of engagement when he was Commander of U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM),
will continue to abide by these rules or adopt a less restrictive approach. During his Senate
confirmation hearing, however, General Petraeus stated that the protection of his troops was a
moral imperative and that he would closely review current restrictions. 27
U.S. SOF Direct Action Against Afghan Insurgents28
Despite limitations on SOF night raids under current rules of engagement, reports suggest that
U.S. SOF efforts to capture or kill senior insurgent leaders have been highly effective. Senior U.S.
military officials have stated that raids by SOF have killed or captured 186 insurgent leaders and
detained an additional 925 lower-level insurgents in the past 110 days. These raids have
reportedly been most effective in and around Kandahar; officials have seen indications that
improvised explosive device (IED) attacks have decreased and that Taliban control appears to be
weakening. Senior NATO officials note that intelligences suggests that SOF missions aimed at
provincial insurgent leaders has compelled some Taliban leaders to begin internal discussions
about accepting the Karzai government’s offer of reconciliation. It has also been reported that a
number of insurgent leaders have left their bases in Afghanistan to seek sanctuary in Pakistan
because of the raids.
While SOF raids have resulted in civilian casualties and collateral damage, military officials who
have tracked the raids note that on about 80% of these raids, no shots are fired as U.S. SOF and
Afghan commando units have achieved tactical surprise, usually at night. SOF reportedly carry
out an average of five raids per day against a constantly updated list of high-value targets. A little
over half of the time, the raid captures or kills its intended high-value target. If the intended target
is not present, however, SOF have rounded up other insurgents who have provided valuable
intelligence.
25
Carlo Muňoz, “SOCOM Commander Concerned Over Direction of Pentagon COIN Strategy,” Inside the Navy, May
31, 2010.
26
Robert H. Reid, “Petraeus Faces Complaints on War Rules,” Philadelphia Inquirer, June 26, 2010.
27
Elisabeth Bumiller, “Petraeus Pledges Look at Strikes in Afghanistan, New York Times, June 30,2010.
28
Information in this section is taken from Thom Shanker and Alissa Rubin, “Quest to Neutralize Afghan Militants is
Showing Glimpses of Success, NATO Says,” New York Times, June 29, 2010 and David S. Cloud and Julian E. Barnes,
“Afghan War Strategy May Change,” Los Angeles Times, June 29, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
8
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
Training Afghan Police29
As a means of reducing the high attrition rate and to improve unit performance, senior U.S.
military leadership in Afghanistan directed U.S. SOF to provide additional training and establish
long-term partnerships with a number of Afghan National Civil Order Police (ANCOP) units. To
address the high attrition rate—ranging from 50% to 140%—U.S. SOF trainers put the ANCOP
Kandaks (a battalion sized organization of about 500 personnel) on a red-amber-green training
cycle similar the cycle adopted by Afghan commando units previously trained by U.S. SOF. It is
hoped that the new cycle, which provides for rest, refit, education, and training opportunities as
well as training by and partnering with SOF, will enable these units to be employed in anticipated
future military operations around Kandahar. ANCOP units are intended to augment Afghan
National Police (ANP) units and are generally considered better trained, more effective, and more
professional than the ANP.
Training Village Security Forces30
A reportedly long-advocated U.S. SOF strategy to train and equip Afghan villagers is set to be
enacted in about 23 rural areas in Afghanistan beyond the reach of U.S. and Afghan regular
forces. The program, known as “The Village Stabilization Program,” is expected to be approved
by Afghan President Karzai in the next few weeks. It calls for organizing, equipping, and training
local militias that would then be placed under the control of local Afghan police chiefs. Army
Special Forces Operational Detachment – Alphas (ODAs) would oversee these efforts. It is hoped
that these village militias will counteract Taliban forces, but past U.S. SOF efforts to train local
militias have met with resistance from the U.S. Embassy and the Afghan government, who were
concerned that these local militias would instead conduct operations against tribal rivals as
opposed to Taliban forces. Under the Village Stabilization Program, officials believe that this
concern will be unwarranted, as the village militias will take their directions from the local police
chief. In turn, the local police chief is answerable to the Minister of the Interior in Kabul, who
will provide wages and weapons to the militia. While the Village Stabilization Program might
enhance local security in outlying regions as intended, past tendencies for changing loyalties
amongst the various Afghan tribal and ethnic groups could result in U.S. SOF-trained militias
instead supporting insurgent groups as opposed to the Afghan central government. In deference to
this possibility, U.S. SOF trainers might consider limiting training so as not to provide these
village militias with tactics, techniques, and procedures—known as TTPs—used by U.S. and
NATO forces that could be turned against Coalition forces if militias later switch loyalties to the
insurgents.
29
Information in this section is taken from Sean D. Naylor, “Special Partnership: Special Forces Add Training for
Afghan Police Units,” Army Times, June 14, 2010, p. 16.
30
Information in this section is from Yaroslav Trofimov, “U.S. Enlists New Afghan Village Forces,” Wall Street
Journal, July 1, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
9
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
Issues for Congress
Are Current Command Relationships and Rules of Engagement
Having a Detrimental Impact on Special Operations in
Afghanistan?
Command relationships and rules that limit the conduct of certain types of military operations are
critical components in the planning and conduct of special operations. Under current command
arrangements, the ISAF Commander, General David Petraeus, will have an enhanced level of
authority over the organization and conduct of special operations in Afghanistan. Prior to March
2010, special forces operations forces were commanded by battalion-level special operations task
forces operating in the various regional commands that were under CFSOCC-A. Some General
Purpose Force commanders in these regions suggested that the autonomous operations of special
forces units in their regions had negative effects on their counterinsurgency (COIN) campaigns.
After March 2010, regional commanders would have much greater control over these SOF task
forces, and some SOF commanders have expressed a concern that conventional commanders do
not know how to properly employ SOF. Given the levels of concern of both conventional and
special operations commanders, a comprehensive examination of command authority over SOF in
Afghanistan might be warranted.
Limitations on SOF night raids against insurgent leadership, as well as SOF access to artillery and
air support, might also be considered for review. Military analysts agree that civilian casualties
and collateral damage are tragic inevitabilities in any type of conflict and that these occurrences
can also compel friends and relatives of victims to support or even join insurgents. Special
operations raids against insurgent leadership have proven effective and have been characterized
by some as the most successful aspect of the war in Afghanistan. Restricting these raids, while
possibly reducing civilian casualties, might in fact prolong the conflict, resulting in more civilian
and coalition casualties over time.
Are We Making the Best Use of SOF in Afghanistan?
While specific information about the employment of SOF National Mission Forces in
Afghanistan is not known, it can be assumed that they are focused on capturing or killing the
most senior terrorists operating in the region, even if they are not directly involved with Afghan
insurgents. Theater Mission Forces, however, are engaged in the full range of special operations
missions, from killing or capturing insurgents to training military, paramilitary, and police forces.
These Theater Mission Forces are operating under counterinsurgency guidelines, which have
been interpreted by some as population-centric as opposed to enemy-centric. While there is no
known delineation between high-value targets killed or captured by National Mission Forces as
opposed to Theater Mission Forces, it is known that Theater Mission Forces have been involved
in successful combat operations in their own right. While the Village Stabilization Program might
prove successful, the utilization of 23 Army Special Forces ODAs to train local militias and other
might not be the best use of these critical SOF assets. In a similar manner, dedicating SOF to train
Afghan National Civil Order Police, who are intended to man checkpoints and interact with
civilians, seems to be a mission that could be handled by conventional forces. While SOF training
is certainly warranted for elite or highly specialized Afghan military and police units, General
Purpose Forces are also capable of providing training to militias and paramilitary units. Another
Congressional Research Service
10
U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress
possibility is that current rules of engagement, which restrict SOF night raids, have resulted in
fewer opportunities for Theater Mission Forces to conduct raids against insurgents, and because
there are fewer opportunities, SOF units have been reassigned the aforementioned training
missions. A comprehensive review, focusing on ensuring that the most effective balance between
allocating SOF units between combat and training is achieved, might prove beneficial.
Author Contact Information
Andrew Feickert
Specialist in Military Ground Forces
afeickert@crs.loc.gov, 7-7673
Congressional Research Service
11