24 June 2015 at Meetings of NATO Ministers of Defence Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Slovenia signed a letter of intent on multinational cooperation in Special Operations Forces aviation units. The agreement of four Defence Ministers follows up the Wales Summit to increase investments in NATO‘s capability priorities. It will cover procurement, logistical support, joint training and education, and possible co-basing and multinational fleet arrangements. Special Operations Forces aviation will be engaged into NATO missions in high-risk and hybrid warfare scenarios.
In 2013 USA Council on Foreign Relations has published the new Council Special
Report by RAND Corporation's Senior International Policy Analyst
Linda Robinson ‘The Future of U.S. Special Operations Forces’.
It is the comprehensive analysis of the most forward American military transformation strategy issues, but there is not any mention word ‘NATO’. Obviously the fact of appearance that kind of report is the signal that USA are open to intensive dialogue today about how to save NATO relevancy during uncertain time with crucial amount of features: terrorism threats expansion, globalization’s effects, budget’s cuts, strong austerity, especially in Europe.
USA today are caught between the beetle and the block: global terrorism is the real increasing threat around the world that needs more partners engagement, but NATO with it’s rules, frameworks and consensus has become insufficient in terms of necessity to involve and accept partners around the world on military level. Thus USA should pay twice and elaborate two parallel ways for own defense from terrorism – NATO and Pentagon. This is not acceptable tactics for comfortable times, and especially this is impossible to continue during financial crisis, USA budgetary pressures and economy problems. USA budget can just burst soon.
American military thought has driven not only Afghanistan mission. American military strategy leadership is the essence of NATO being. Since the beginning USA in NATO has provided military transformation for European forces.
During Cold War European Allies felt the strong NATO relevance for deterrence on two political blocks line. War could happen from Europe side, war could happen from USSR side. After Soviet time all USA efforts were addressed to European forces transformation that is called ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’ /RMA/. Year by year European forces has become more strong and modern, alongside with new common experience on the field with USA during operations and missions. In these latter times Europeans even started to talk about possible equality with Americans in NATO based on whole-Europe efforts. However that who calls to Europe for raise the burden sharing in NATO and for deliverance USA from overpayment – that cannot understand driving stream of RMA. The question of financing NATO is not so important as the question about how to organize global counterterrorism control due to RMA providing around the world.
This is the time when Europe became only as part of USA whole picture of interest. And this is the problem of NATO relevance. For remain relevant and important for USA, Europe should support some changes inside NATO military structure. Below will be described key conclusions from RAND Corporation report ‘The Future of U.S. Special Operations Forces’ and also will be described why NATO is important and in what way NATO can be profitable for new stream of RMA.
1.
Suited to threats
Through RMA must be elaborated the appropriate tool for threats which are diffusive, irregular, from nonstate actors such as terrorists, insurgents, and transnational criminal networks, that are increasingly empowered by technology due to globalization. This is era of dynamic, hybrid threats, global threats that cross geographic boundaries – the types of threats that Special Operations Forces /SOF/ are designed to address. SOF are designed for missions that conventional forces cannot undertake. After 9/11 attacks SOF were designated as the lead command for the war on terror. There is high demand for SOF, but they constitute less than 5% of total USA military forces and cannot be employed everywhere.
SOF exist in around 100 countries /mostly for short periods/. SOF have doubled in size and has been deployed more often and for longer periods. During past decade SOF combined budget has more than quadrupled, the special operations budget from $2.3 billion in 2001 increased to $10.5 billion in 2012 fiscal year and $10.4 billion for the 2013 fiscal year /around 1,4% of the total USA defense budget/. Including the amount of personnel and equipment the total comes to 4% of USA defense spending. Today SOF for USA become the military most important troops against range of security threats worldwide, against terrorist and criminal networks, and for minimize need for large-scale military interventions.
In 1987 all separate special operations units were brought together under formed U.S. Special Operations Command /USSOCOM/. But SOF are still under process of self-determination because they become the mainstream of USA army transformation. Present SOF structure /% of personnel from all total personnel 63,650 under USSOCOM, 2012/ is following: U.S. Special Operations Command Headquarters 4.0% /HQ/; U.S. Army Special Operations Command 45.0% /Army/; Air Force Special Operations Command 28.0% /Air/; Naval Special Warfare Command 14.0% /Naval/; U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command 4.0% /Marine/; Joint Special Operations Command HQ 2.4% /Joint/. In 2013 total number of personnel increased to 66,594 including civilians. Half of SOF military personnel are in Afghanistan. U.S. Special Operations Command plans to reach a total of 71,000 personnel in 2015.
SOF have 6 Theater Special Operations Commands TSOCs /with HQs/: Special Operations Command Central /SOCCENT/, Special Operations Command Europe /SOCEUR/, Special Operations Command Pacific /SOCPAC/, Special Operations Command Korea /SOCKOR/, Special Operations Command South /SOCSOUTH/, Special Operations Command Africa /SOCAFRICA/.
SOF in general are prepared for 11 Core operations and activities: counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, counterproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, foreign internal defense, security force assistance, unconventional warfare, direct action, special reconnaissance, information operations, military information support operations, civil affairs operations. It is very wide spectrum of responsibility including CIMIC and alongside with global territorial arrangement. For example we can remind excellent report of NATO ACT /Allied Command Transformation/ ‘MULTIPLE FUTURES PROJECT – Navigating towards 2030′ /NATO ACT MFP, 2009/. There were determined 4 scenarios of possible future global threats:
- DARK SIDE OF EXCLUSIVITY /Integration, Climate Change, Resource Allocation, Changing State Capacity/: weak and failed states generate instability in areas of interest, and the states of the globalised world are faced with related strategic choices.
- DECEPTIVE STABILITY /Demographics, Resource Allocation, Friction/: developed states preoccupied with societal change and demographic issues rather than geopolitical risk.
- CLASH OF MODERNITIES /Use of Technology, Demographics, Competing Ideologies and Worldviews/: advanced, rational networked societies with inherent fragility challenged by external authoritarian regimes.
- NEW POWER POLITICS /Friction, Competing Ideologies and Worldviews, Resource Allocation, Integration/: increasing number of major powers, competition and proliferation undermine value of international organisations.
As we see all of these scenarios have made progress. 4 scenarios are as 4 dimensions of whole future threats set. And SOF concept is very suited for that. If we look at 7 focus areas which were determined in NATO ACT MFP as most important that NATO can consider emphasizing for 2030, we also see how it reflects the SOF concept.
7 focus areas from NATO ACT MFP:
- Adapting to the Demands of Hybrid Threats;
- Operating with Others and Building Institutions;
- Conflict Management /prevention and resolution/ including Consequence Management;
- Counter Proliferation;
- Expeditionary and Combat Capability in Austere Environments;
- Strategic Communications and Winning the Battle of the Narrative;
- Organisational and Force Development Issues.
Operational Analysis and the Multiple Futures Project,
4 scenarios of possible future global threats,
Mr. Oke Thorngren
Pol/Mil Advisor, Strategic Plans and Policy/ACT, 2012
2.
Wide security partnerships – global alliance of partners
This part of article is devoted to problem – how America can manage to go away from global multiregional war that in perspective means the end for social-economical base of USA. It is the core issue for modern USA today, and for example present NATO is the obstacle on the way to find solution. All which are officially important for NATO – Allies, membership etc. – are not needed for USA to assure global security. All which are not officially priority for NATO – partnership frameworks, another countries around the world etc. – are needed for USA to assure global security. Will America sacrifice for Europe’s bright military and political careers at the same time having hard damage to social-economical base inside USA? Obviously will not.
NATO and USA with new partnership group of the Enhanced Opportunities Program:
Australia, Finland, Georgia, Jordan, Sweden. NATO Wales Summit, 2014
In RAND Council Special Report ‘The Future of U.S. Special Operations Forces’ have been said that SOF must be developed from just tactical tool for episodic ways to strategic enduring effects, adopting ‘new model with two essential features’:
- ‘The first is a shift to make developing and operating with partners – political-military activity in all its diverse forms – their central means of achieving lasting effect.
- The second is adoption of a systematic approach that routinely combines diverse special operations capabilities – civil affairs, informational, advisory, and so forth – as needed in deliberate campaigns executed over time, in concert with other military and civilian entities.’
Only one solution can help to avoid a perception of United States as a unilateralist power that writes its own rules – the strong global alliance of partners, was said in RAND Council Special Report. SOF core mission is to create capable partners and to work alongside with them in appropriate ways. Partners should become more proficient and quick in addressing threats within their own borders and with potential allies in regional or global efforts. It can be called as aligning the gap in security capabilities around the world. SOF must operate with partners in a range of political-military activities and improve other countries’ ability to secure themselves.
Today there are only 6 Theater Special Operations Commands /TSOCs/ in regions. They are described as most crucial points of growth, from TSOCs must begin the endured long-term security effect, relationships and partnerships with USA. TSOCs leaders should gain more understanding of national security strategy and policymaking in any region – country-team levels.
In RAND Council Special Report were mentioned two SOF official approaches:
Direct Approach /or surgical strike/ and
Indirect Approach /special warfare/.
Direct Approach includes precision raiders, unilateral manhunting, killing or capturing terrorists, rescuing hostages, securing weapons of mass destruction – due to technologically enabled small-units with precision lethality effect, focused intelligence, and interagency cooperation integrated on a digitally networked battlefield.
Indirect Approach includes empowering host nation forces, providing appropriate assistance to humanitarian agencies, and engaging key populations. Indirect Approach means persistent engagement of key countries with long-term efforts to increase partner capabilities to generate sufficient security and rule of law, address local needs. Most important that Indirect Approach provides advance ideas that discredit and defeat the appeal of violent extremism, it can counter the systemic components of the threat.
Indirect Approach means working through and with others, as decade-long effort to build indigenous competent special operations forces or counternarcotics police and assist the country’s counterinsurgency efforts to mitigate or end the conflict.
‘The Direct Approach alone is not the solution and it ultimately only buys time and space for the Indirect Approach and broader governmental elements to take effect,’ in RAND Council Special Report was said, ‘Indirect Approach is the decisive element, but it has not been prioritized in practice’. So what will be prioritized for SOF soon? It will be next and more tasks:
- training military and police units in partners’ countries;
- to advise armies, police forces;
- to be a combat advisers carrying guns in the field alongside with partners’ forces;
- supplying direct assistance such as Airlift or intelligence in the field;
- to conduct training in special operations techniques;
- training informal militias, tribes, and civil defense forces;
- political work with indigenous people to dispute resolution at the village level;
- collecting or disseminating of information that needed for security regime in partners’ countries;
- civil affairs projects as medical aid;
- building schools for indigenous people;
- working with counternarcotics police;
- shaping and influencing on environments and populations;
- advisory work in a variety of ways.
Indirect Approach must decrease USA direct involvement into regional security. Countries-partners will become ‘part of alliance or coalition efforts elsewhere in the world’. ‘Whether the partner forces merely secure their own countries or become part of wider security partnerships, these relationships are the most powerful enduring effect that special operations can aim to achieve,’ in RAND Council Special Report was said. So, bilateral relationships with partners’ countries are the most important security priority for USA, but not any official military alliances.
SOF is ‘ideally suited to work with other countries’ Special Operations Forces’ and for more ‘geographically diffuse operations’. What USA will gain due to SOF? Some of core advantages are enumerated:
- global security assurance achieved at lower cost with less USA presence through increasingly capable partner nations;
- decreasing USA direct, unilateral action in regions;
- long-term indirect security approach for countries’ stability;
- recognizing threats as essentially internal for any countries;
- more political commitments with another countries;
- improvement partnership approaches;
- comprehensive interoperability with partner’s forces;
- fostering more proficient and quick partners in addressing threats within their own borders and with potential allies in regional or global efforts;
- cost-effective and innovative flexible system to combine special operations forces with conventional forces;
- to have the full spectrum of special operations capabilities;
- to work within civilian and military structures.
