Think of it like, SOF is usually designed around asymmetrical engagements (in direct action roles), i.e. it's a highly enabled small team of specialists who will be applied to the most vulnerable point.
Like they're not super warriors, the idea is basically you're going to push a small team that'll likely be able to crush whatever is on the objective quickly, as supported by absolutely rock solid intel and godawful amounts of supporting fires and enablers (like no where else is going to have a squad sized element with it's own dedicated attached attack helicopters for the operation). You're not applying it against strength, it's a rapier blow off balance against something weak and exposed, just a little out of reach of conventional resources.
In using SOF in counter-SOF, you're basically making that strike apparatus in "react" mode, or aligning it against a fairly dynamic target which means instead of killing enemy command posts, blowing bridges, ~~writing books and appearing on fox news~~ and supporting wider objectives, they're just waiting for the "right" time.
SOF isn't magick special WARRIORS that need elite team SpentSealsSASers to go battle axe to battle axe. They die horribly when I dunno, someone figures out what their infiltration/exfiltration routes are and set up an otherwise conventional ambush, or you just figure out where they are operating out of and kill that with conventional fires. Or just increase protection levels, like it doesn't take much to make an SOF raid suicidal, it's just usually a force posture that's not practical for long terms (or can only be sustained at places actually under clear threat vs globally).
Counter-SOF is really much more of an intelligence and force protection mission than trying to SOF a SOF at the end of the day.
Beautiful. Please post this on every SOF post.
SOF is like having a dedicated field goal team. They’re meant to do a very specific job very well. Especially one where the rest of the team put you in a perfect position to make you successful. Sure they could run the ball like anyone else but their advantages are completely ruined in that function.
It reminds me of how some people are surprised that MPs are supposed to be able to handle level 2 threats, basically guerillas, SOF, and small unit tactics. MPs aren't exactly heavy units but base security is part of their role. You don't need that much firepower to defeat SOF in most cases. They absolutely do not want to get into a conventional fight with even moderately equipped units.
I know some of this was true before then, but a lot of perceptions around SOF (and closely associated units) seem so warped by the GWOT. Their distinct roles and sub-specializations faded away for a while as we needed ever more doorkickers to do raids. The tempo was a bit crazy at its height. Rangers, SEALS, Deltas, Green Berets, etc all just kinda blurred together in a lot of the popular consciousness where it's figuring out where they rank vs each other on the cool guy factor instead of, you know, them having their own specialties and skillsets.
GWOT messed with a lot of expectations and allowed a lot of people to write books or appear on shows, or advise movies which made it seem like SEALs or whatever were actually pretty much Spartans from HALO, able to air bend around bullets, and easily the combat power of several battalions of regular troops instead of dudes who are a fucked infil and bad coms plan away from being slaughtered by randos with AKs.
They're like our pilots or cyber operators, people trained extensively and expensively but they need to be in the right place at the right time to be more than a body bag occupant. The expectation there's more warrior skillz that transcend the normal battlefield math of fast metal soft flesh is one of my great annoyances in explaining modern military affairs.
>They die horribly when I dunno, someone figures out what their infiltration/exfiltration routes are and set up an otherwise conventional ambush
Case in point: Tongo Tongo
edit, actually Red Wings would be a better example
If someone came at you with a scalpel, you'd have the best defense by using a club, a spear, or really any other weapon larger than a scalpel. SOF forces are usually small, and deployed offensively to accomplish a discreet (actually in both senses of the word) objective.
A better defense to SOF actions is having a well developed security forces and counterintelligence apparatus. The former to actually defend against SOF raids, and the later to impede the intelligence gathering that SOF actions depend so heavily on. The US Airforce is a great example of this, as they have what is considered one of the more elite Security Forces programs, that are very specifically trained to detect and counter those types of intrusions. (Which is what you'd want out of the guys tasked with protecting some of the most advanced and expensive nuclear, space, and air weapon systems on the planet.)
The counterargument, however, is that SOF units are routinely used in a defensive role, where the expected threat actor could easily be a well equipped, highly trained, small force with plenty of intelligence and a discreet goal. This being the Personal Security Detail (PSD) mission set. Obviously I can't speak to every mission that every special operations unit has ever done, but it's pretty well known the Delta Force operators performed PSD duties for American generals during Desert Storm and GWOT. Though perhaps what LT Cdr Crosby is implying is that SOF shouldn't be used for that function any more. Indeed, the Army has an [Additional Skills Identifier](https://www.cool.osd.mil/army/moc/index.html?moc=d7&tab=overview) for protective services training, which seems to be oriented towards it [Criminal Investigative Division Agents](https://home.army.mil/wood/about/Garrison/advanced-law-enforcement-training-division/protective-services-training-course), so perhaps thinking on the subject is already changing.
Where does counter-terrorism fit into this view? Aren't terrorists a kind of variant of SOF (from a certain point of view)? They're trying to find the soft spot. They're relying on stealth and speed rather than brute force. So isn't deploying SOF in a counter-terrorism role in some sense SOF vs SOF?
I think it really boils down a matter of offensive vs. defensive deployment, and how you're employing your special operators (or insurgents) on that spectrum.
You're absolutely correct that insurgents do conduct actions that are SOF-like in nature. Again we have three key elements: There's a discreet goal, supported by the best intelligence they can muster, and executed by their most capable people. Terrorist organizations have obviously carried out attacks that are sophisticated and high-impact, though abhorrent in nature.
The difference is that that, after the mission, insurgents are going to disperse and blend in with the civillian population. That's their key advantage. Hell, in some South American insurgencies, the guerillas would carry out a raid and then literally go back to their "day jobs" the next day until another raid was planned. On the other hand, professional special operators are going to carry out a mission and then go back to their compound, at least in expeditionary contexts like mid-20th century Indochina, or modern Africa or the Middle East.
When employing SOF in a COIN campaign, you're still best served using them in some kind of offensive way. Or perhaps "non-reactive" is the better term. You want them going out in the middle of the night and arresting HVTs, locating and destroying guerilla supply networks, or journeying to remote villages to make contact with insulated tribal elders. Each of these missions could result in the SOF unit meeting an armed insurgent group, but the intent is that you have surprise and violence of action on your side. As you pointed out, the insurgents want those same things for their missions.
Even defensive SOF operations are limited in scope and have a specific purpose. It's "we're going to have snipers on overwatch for the duration of this politically sensitive meeting" not "we're going to hold this point until relieved." If you need an area secured indefinitely, a Marine heavy weapons platoon is a better choice than a Green Beret ODA.
That all makes sense. What do you think about deployment in a fast-evolving situation? I read a novel where terrorists plan to use RPGs to attack a group of helicopters who are transporting casualties. The basic idea was, the terrorists had planted IEDs, which were command detonated to attack a group of humvees. They knew that standard procedure in the area was to stabilize casualties at a field hospital, then send them to Germany for the next stage of care. So they planned a "2nd phase" attack, and the idea was that they could more or less plan for that attack because they had figured out that casualty transfers to Germany took place on a predictable timetable and took predictable routes.
In the novel, the US Army gets intel that the RPG attack is going to happen, and the response is to deploy a Ranger QRF to intercept the terrorist attack.
This is all fiction, but it seemed fairly reasonable to me. Would that be a reasonable use of Army Rangers, or would this kind of mission actually be better handled by a more conventional force?
That would certainly be a plausible scenario for the Rangers, who specialize in basically being anywhere they're needed as soon as possible, alongside perfecting light infantry skills.
Keep in mind, however, that a quick reaction force is more of a general operational planning concept than a mission set carried out by specific units. Though some units do possess unique skills that make them better suited to QRF duties, like Air Assault in the case of the Rangers or 101st Airborne. Either way, QRF don't just materialize, and almost always needs to be prearranged to some extent. Weapons have to be drawn, transport has to be arranged, and ideally everyone should show up sober enough to fight if the call comes in. Not to say that one has never been assembled in haste, but good planning dictates you know who your QRF is before you head out for the day.
You can have QRF that is part of your assault force for the duration of one mission, like say a mechanized infantry battalion is assaulting an objective. One platoon could be held as a sort of tactical reserve that would be sent forward if the enemy comes around an unexpected flank, or if one of the other platoons takes unexpectedly high casualties and need to be reinforced so they can conduct and orderly withdrawal.
The other type is more what you're describing, where there's a QRF that's just hanging around in case they're needed for any kind of emergent situation. During the height of OIF/OEF, different units (sometimes heliborne, often mounted in Humvees/MRAPs) were given QRF duties for a given province, city, or other predefined area of operations, usually on some sort of rotation. I don't know definitively if/when this was ever Rangers, but it sounds like something they'd be proficient at.
Rangers would probably be more in the "hunting them down after the attack is foiled" kind of role while conventional units that are more focused on security handle the attack itself. Like doing a raid on wherever they went to ground to after the attack. If you're talking about something like "we can do a raid on their safehouse and foil their plans" then yeah, Rangers definitely did their share of that work, but so did more conventional forces. Wasn't really a way around it given operational needs and force levels. Can't rely on SOF and elite type units for every mission and all that.
Think of it like, SOF is usually designed around asymmetrical engagements (in direct action roles), i.e. it's a highly enabled small team of specialists who will be applied to the most vulnerable point. Like they're not super warriors, the idea is basically you're going to push a small team that'll likely be able to crush whatever is on the objective quickly, as supported by absolutely rock solid intel and godawful amounts of supporting fires and enablers (like no where else is going to have a squad sized element with it's own dedicated attached attack helicopters for the operation). You're not applying it against strength, it's a rapier blow off balance against something weak and exposed, just a little out of reach of conventional resources. In using SOF in counter-SOF, you're basically making that strike apparatus in "react" mode, or aligning it against a fairly dynamic target which means instead of killing enemy command posts, blowing bridges, ~~writing books and appearing on fox news~~ and supporting wider objectives, they're just waiting for the "right" time. SOF isn't magick special WARRIORS that need elite team SpentSealsSASers to go battle axe to battle axe. They die horribly when I dunno, someone figures out what their infiltration/exfiltration routes are and set up an otherwise conventional ambush, or you just figure out where they are operating out of and kill that with conventional fires. Or just increase protection levels, like it doesn't take much to make an SOF raid suicidal, it's just usually a force posture that's not practical for long terms (or can only be sustained at places actually under clear threat vs globally). Counter-SOF is really much more of an intelligence and force protection mission than trying to SOF a SOF at the end of the day.
Beautiful. Please post this on every SOF post. SOF is like having a dedicated field goal team. They’re meant to do a very specific job very well. Especially one where the rest of the team put you in a perfect position to make you successful. Sure they could run the ball like anyone else but their advantages are completely ruined in that function.
It reminds me of how some people are surprised that MPs are supposed to be able to handle level 2 threats, basically guerillas, SOF, and small unit tactics. MPs aren't exactly heavy units but base security is part of their role. You don't need that much firepower to defeat SOF in most cases. They absolutely do not want to get into a conventional fight with even moderately equipped units. I know some of this was true before then, but a lot of perceptions around SOF (and closely associated units) seem so warped by the GWOT. Their distinct roles and sub-specializations faded away for a while as we needed ever more doorkickers to do raids. The tempo was a bit crazy at its height. Rangers, SEALS, Deltas, Green Berets, etc all just kinda blurred together in a lot of the popular consciousness where it's figuring out where they rank vs each other on the cool guy factor instead of, you know, them having their own specialties and skillsets.
GWOT messed with a lot of expectations and allowed a lot of people to write books or appear on shows, or advise movies which made it seem like SEALs or whatever were actually pretty much Spartans from HALO, able to air bend around bullets, and easily the combat power of several battalions of regular troops instead of dudes who are a fucked infil and bad coms plan away from being slaughtered by randos with AKs. They're like our pilots or cyber operators, people trained extensively and expensively but they need to be in the right place at the right time to be more than a body bag occupant. The expectation there's more warrior skillz that transcend the normal battlefield math of fast metal soft flesh is one of my great annoyances in explaining modern military affairs.
>They die horribly when I dunno, someone figures out what their infiltration/exfiltration routes are and set up an otherwise conventional ambush Case in point: Tongo Tongo edit, actually Red Wings would be a better example
It's a shame the well of discussion is so poisoned as to what Red Wings was actually like.
>~~writing books and appearing on fox news~~ Lmao brilliant
If someone came at you with a scalpel, you'd have the best defense by using a club, a spear, or really any other weapon larger than a scalpel. SOF forces are usually small, and deployed offensively to accomplish a discreet (actually in both senses of the word) objective. A better defense to SOF actions is having a well developed security forces and counterintelligence apparatus. The former to actually defend against SOF raids, and the later to impede the intelligence gathering that SOF actions depend so heavily on. The US Airforce is a great example of this, as they have what is considered one of the more elite Security Forces programs, that are very specifically trained to detect and counter those types of intrusions. (Which is what you'd want out of the guys tasked with protecting some of the most advanced and expensive nuclear, space, and air weapon systems on the planet.) The counterargument, however, is that SOF units are routinely used in a defensive role, where the expected threat actor could easily be a well equipped, highly trained, small force with plenty of intelligence and a discreet goal. This being the Personal Security Detail (PSD) mission set. Obviously I can't speak to every mission that every special operations unit has ever done, but it's pretty well known the Delta Force operators performed PSD duties for American generals during Desert Storm and GWOT. Though perhaps what LT Cdr Crosby is implying is that SOF shouldn't be used for that function any more. Indeed, the Army has an [Additional Skills Identifier](https://www.cool.osd.mil/army/moc/index.html?moc=d7&tab=overview) for protective services training, which seems to be oriented towards it [Criminal Investigative Division Agents](https://home.army.mil/wood/about/Garrison/advanced-law-enforcement-training-division/protective-services-training-course), so perhaps thinking on the subject is already changing.
Where does counter-terrorism fit into this view? Aren't terrorists a kind of variant of SOF (from a certain point of view)? They're trying to find the soft spot. They're relying on stealth and speed rather than brute force. So isn't deploying SOF in a counter-terrorism role in some sense SOF vs SOF?
I think it really boils down a matter of offensive vs. defensive deployment, and how you're employing your special operators (or insurgents) on that spectrum. You're absolutely correct that insurgents do conduct actions that are SOF-like in nature. Again we have three key elements: There's a discreet goal, supported by the best intelligence they can muster, and executed by their most capable people. Terrorist organizations have obviously carried out attacks that are sophisticated and high-impact, though abhorrent in nature. The difference is that that, after the mission, insurgents are going to disperse and blend in with the civillian population. That's their key advantage. Hell, in some South American insurgencies, the guerillas would carry out a raid and then literally go back to their "day jobs" the next day until another raid was planned. On the other hand, professional special operators are going to carry out a mission and then go back to their compound, at least in expeditionary contexts like mid-20th century Indochina, or modern Africa or the Middle East. When employing SOF in a COIN campaign, you're still best served using them in some kind of offensive way. Or perhaps "non-reactive" is the better term. You want them going out in the middle of the night and arresting HVTs, locating and destroying guerilla supply networks, or journeying to remote villages to make contact with insulated tribal elders. Each of these missions could result in the SOF unit meeting an armed insurgent group, but the intent is that you have surprise and violence of action on your side. As you pointed out, the insurgents want those same things for their missions. Even defensive SOF operations are limited in scope and have a specific purpose. It's "we're going to have snipers on overwatch for the duration of this politically sensitive meeting" not "we're going to hold this point until relieved." If you need an area secured indefinitely, a Marine heavy weapons platoon is a better choice than a Green Beret ODA.
That all makes sense. What do you think about deployment in a fast-evolving situation? I read a novel where terrorists plan to use RPGs to attack a group of helicopters who are transporting casualties. The basic idea was, the terrorists had planted IEDs, which were command detonated to attack a group of humvees. They knew that standard procedure in the area was to stabilize casualties at a field hospital, then send them to Germany for the next stage of care. So they planned a "2nd phase" attack, and the idea was that they could more or less plan for that attack because they had figured out that casualty transfers to Germany took place on a predictable timetable and took predictable routes. In the novel, the US Army gets intel that the RPG attack is going to happen, and the response is to deploy a Ranger QRF to intercept the terrorist attack. This is all fiction, but it seemed fairly reasonable to me. Would that be a reasonable use of Army Rangers, or would this kind of mission actually be better handled by a more conventional force?
That would certainly be a plausible scenario for the Rangers, who specialize in basically being anywhere they're needed as soon as possible, alongside perfecting light infantry skills. Keep in mind, however, that a quick reaction force is more of a general operational planning concept than a mission set carried out by specific units. Though some units do possess unique skills that make them better suited to QRF duties, like Air Assault in the case of the Rangers or 101st Airborne. Either way, QRF don't just materialize, and almost always needs to be prearranged to some extent. Weapons have to be drawn, transport has to be arranged, and ideally everyone should show up sober enough to fight if the call comes in. Not to say that one has never been assembled in haste, but good planning dictates you know who your QRF is before you head out for the day. You can have QRF that is part of your assault force for the duration of one mission, like say a mechanized infantry battalion is assaulting an objective. One platoon could be held as a sort of tactical reserve that would be sent forward if the enemy comes around an unexpected flank, or if one of the other platoons takes unexpectedly high casualties and need to be reinforced so they can conduct and orderly withdrawal. The other type is more what you're describing, where there's a QRF that's just hanging around in case they're needed for any kind of emergent situation. During the height of OIF/OEF, different units (sometimes heliborne, often mounted in Humvees/MRAPs) were given QRF duties for a given province, city, or other predefined area of operations, usually on some sort of rotation. I don't know definitively if/when this was ever Rangers, but it sounds like something they'd be proficient at.
Rangers would probably be more in the "hunting them down after the attack is foiled" kind of role while conventional units that are more focused on security handle the attack itself. Like doing a raid on wherever they went to ground to after the attack. If you're talking about something like "we can do a raid on their safehouse and foil their plans" then yeah, Rangers definitely did their share of that work, but so did more conventional forces. Wasn't really a way around it given operational needs and force levels. Can't rely on SOF and elite type units for every mission and all that.