What Strategic Influence Do Special Operations Have - Coursework Example

STRATEGIC INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS A clear understanding of the culture, beliefs and the manner of operation isthe beginning step towards achieving the desired military influence. Without a clear understanding of the targeted audience, according to Adams (1998, 3) success will depend on arbitrariness, fortune as well as coincidence. However, a clear understanding of the targeted audience through the application of best scientific methods employed in special operations then the chances for success are higher. In Afghanistan, the rich contextual understanding (RCU) project conducted for the government of the United States revealed that the Taliban insurgents opposed education. However after thorough analysis, the project revealed that in the Waziristan region, a Taliban stronghold, there were more schools that were under the Taliban than at the moment of commencement of the project. RCU discovered that the observed images of burning schools were because of rivalry between different social and economic groupings rather than religious ideologies. This implied that if the United States had used religion to influence the local population against the Taliban then it would fail. In Saudi Arabia, Islam is the most influential in the behavior of young people. However, despite the significance of Islam is shaping the behavior of these young persons in the country, RCU revealed that the religion is not as significant as parental influence, football as well as nationalism. Therefore, this means that a campaign aimed at influencing this group of people based on religion will not be as much successful as one that will be based on football. In Afghanistan, the most defining feature that determines the behavior of the people is the tribe. However, according to the research, more significant factor in influencing people decisions is the geography. Although influential campaigns based on tribe may achieve significant results, the ones based on land and geography will achieve better results. Special operations, according to Adams (1998, 3) aim at coming up with an optimal identification of the target audience and measuring the degree of influence of that particular audience. In addition, they aim at establishing the best strategy of influencing that population as well as producing and deploying the triggers necessary to effect the changes. The special operation forces define the overall strength of a country’s influence and carry out activities through or in hectic environments, field gaps and in situations that are politically sensitive where the use of conventional forces is unsuitable. For the case of the United States this aim at achieving security objectives for the country both in war as well as in peacetime. In addition, the move is to achieve local power and significant superiority through the application of special operations on unwanted forces using political aggression as a method of contesting a government elected legitimately by the people. In case the prevailing condition is favorable, according to Butler (1996, 2) Special Forces control the situation using service facilities as well as leveraging local forces. A common characteristic of special operations as put by Derek (2006, 149) is the use of highly influential approaches in achieving the set goals. Perseverance appearance at the target area and the capability of changing, shaping and transforming the landscape differentiate them from the conventional forces. Special Forces possess a high degree of flexibility, adaptation as well as creativity in operating in a harsh unpredictable environment. Special Forces also receive special training of dealing with complicated matters in the targeted area and make use of special equipment and techniques. As opposed to the conventional units, as hint by Adams (1998, 3) special units create habitual as well as personal relationships with the local community, which facilitates the proper understanding of the prevailing conditions. Special units, have a wider view of the field in which they operate and achieve this objective using horizontal assimilation skills. Through the employment of special operations, it is possible to gain knowledge of the culture of the people and hence become more sensitive to the culture. Through the utilization of the services of special units, there is greater appreciation of the political character of the conflict and the risks involved. The strategic utilities of special operations, as pointed by Doyle (2006, 64) involve both kinetic and non-kinetic sound effects. Special operations possess a high degree of uniqueness in terms of both power and collective capabilities. They have the capability of freeing the oppressed individuals as well as restoring the legitimacy of sovereign states apart from carrying out decentralized operations. They also have distinctive deterrent as well as countervailing consequence in countering terrorism and have the ability of conducting human exactitude targeting actions. These special operations provide massive support to opposition movements to help a particular population in removing a totalitarian government. Another unique feature is that special units can successfully create a global network in counterterrorism and special operations. With a good example being in Libya during the conflict in 2011, special units can provide security to innocent civilians caught in denied territories. Special operation forces, according to Kiras (2006, 58) are capable of unilaterally serving the nation as a military tool to the government for providing solutions in disordered environments, which is the capability of achieving security targets outside the sphere of ordinary war. This is because with special units it is possible to achieve unconventional solutions to unconventional problems. In the process of achieving certain desirable outcomes, special operation units, through the vast knowledge, they possess and the heavy training they receive can assist in achieving other desirable outcomes. For example, they can protect innocent civilians in the war zone while at the same time influence behavioral changes that assist in providing permanent solution for the conflict. Now, the largely recognized domains in the world are five that include the air, the naval, the land, the cyber and the space. The only virtual domain is the cyberspace with all the other four being naturally geographical. Either the domain can be national like the sovereign area of the United States of America or it can be a portion of the world common. As put by Kiras (2006, 58) it is necessary to secure and manage all the domains according to the principle of the rule of law to reach such objectives like security and economic prosperity. Antagonists can provide great challenge to the security of nations as well as the citizens in any given domain or across various domains calling for a military intervention to safeguard the affected domains. Thus, controlling and obtaining a satisfactory level of security in any particular domain requires a precise and modified military unit with sufficient strength. This will enable them to obtain dominance and the desirable influence on the activities in the domain hence leaving it secure for the objectives of the nation. Conventional military units do not work independently as they have the tendency of interfering and interacting amongst themselves, interagency as well as partners and coalitions in support of national objectives. Although the operations may possess similar capabilities, the specific service of the domain as put across in the various theories and doctrines are land power, sea and air strength. For example, the Naval Corps subsists as an amalgam, having land power, naval power together with air capabilities. Doyle (2006, 64) explained that special operations posses a view of multi domain as well as cross-domain and find applications in filling domain gaps. This is because they provide other military powers with the capability of carrying out their operations. In addition, they complement their capability and widen their strategic contact. Given the experience in the modern world, special operations find strategic applications independent of the formulation of the military and can be important weapons in other strategic applications for similar reasons. Special operations can obtain a given type of dominance in the absence of all conventional forces from some part of the domain or in situations where the use of conventional forces is irrelevant. Special operation forces can win significant superiority and the appropriate use of their services can locally dominate an enemy and secure the vulnerable population. There is an idea that special operation forces bring a given type of martial power to the safety environment and its responsibility and formation can find applications autonomously from a given domain. In addition, special operation forces according to Doyle (2006, 64) obtain efficacy in the domains as well as environments because their employment does not aim at achieving dominance or obtain superiority over the enemy. For example, the application of special operation may leverage local power to achieve dominance or superiority over the enemy. Doyle (2006, 64) added that special operations can aim at establishing the foundation for the collapse of the enemy or establish a substantial degree of fog as well as friction to cause effects of exhaustion and erosion. Special operations are therefore useful in providing support for both conventional and unconventional operation at various stages leading to desirable political and military results. Special operation forces as put by Doyle (2006, 64) operate inside, across well-defined domains, and in the ridges and breaches among the domains. Despite the fact that special operations idea of supporting conventional operations using unconventional means remains relevant, special operations will find application in influencing policy in the remote areas that subsists amongst traditional ways of employing the power nation. Special operation forces therefore fill an empty space in the capabilities of conventional forces absorbing the challenges that the conventional forces cannot absorb because of lack of resources and authorization. Special Forces also build relationships with and occupy the gaps in the capability of interagency. In addition, special operations acquire significance in environments where there is absence of a facility for national power that can provide the necessary response and the use of indigenous tools lack strategic influence or there are higher risks and costs involved. Indeed, special operation strategic value may be the highest in military as well as political conditions described by non-traditional atmospheres. In these environments, special operations can gain military targets as well as security targets with the lowest investment, footprint and political peril. These environments need a skillful hand as well as surgical accuracy that are possible with the utilization of special operation forces. Special operations, as viewed by Cline (2007, 575) consists of various environments under which they can operate beginning with the one called the complex operating environment. The common characteristics of this environment are lack of stability and ambiguity. Violent activities, influential and leverage happen in non-linear and indirect manner. These environments can be weak nations or areas not well governed where the international communities have high interests. They can also be environments established by the loopholes in the international rules where non-state players emerge as threats. These environments require subtlety as well as guile operations only achievable with the utilization of Special Forces. The other environment according to Cline (2007, 575) under which special operation forces operate is the high risk and high sensitive environment. These are the environments in the denied regions, in which the knowledge of the conventional operations will be very damaging to the political situation. There is very high personal and political risk in carrying out operations in the environment. This necessitates the use of very highly specialized group of individuals with special training and techniques. The operations in this environment are naturally covert and clandestine. The final environment under which special operation forces operate is the irregular warfare environment. Common feature of this environment is intra-state or sub-state actions of political aggression. The fighters in this environment want to either overthrow the government or change some specific policies. There are insurgency groups, subversion, aggressive political acts and wide spread terrorism. In addition, as put by Cline (2007, 575) the environment is centric in terms of population and therefore operations require forces that possess lower visibility that are comfortable in carrying out both military as well as political actions that do not actually involve open war. Thus, special operations are very useful all through the field of conflict ranging from peace as well as various forms of war. However, the biggest strategic value seems to be in the least conventional environment. The three kinds of environments all describe the necessity of the presence of Special Forces to conduct specialized operations that require unique qualities that the conventional forces cannot possess. The environments are very unfriendly and unpredictable in a manner that military power alone cannot help achieve the desired goals and if positive results come then with very high costs and a lot of investment. Butler (1996, 2) when giving an insight view and summary of the nature of special operations and the purpose of carrying out such operations said that special operations are the activities of unconventional nature utilized to enhance the haze as well as friction of warfare on the enemies. If applied in the correct manner, Butler (1996, 2) pointed that they could assist to obtain strategic results in the area of impressive strategy, autonomous of the art of operation linked to the plans of campaign and targets or objectives. He added that in campaigns, the acts have the significant role of improving the conventional power scheme in meeting military goals. The application of special operations in the areas that have no conflict will help achieve diplomatic as well as foreign strategy programs of the country. Butler (1996, 2) insisted that the conduction of these special operations require specialized teams with special training and government as well as military guidance to cultivate, provide support and oversee special operation units to ensure their accomplishment. Cline (2005, 575) pointed out that past attempts to describe the effectiveness of special operations used deductive methods in that they extorted the properties of special operation forces and the nature of their operations by considering ordinary threads. According to Cline (2005, 575) creating a unified hypothesis for describing special operations will call for an inductive method, which begins by considering international dealings as well as national necessities for conducting the relations between different nations and narrowing down to special operation forces. Another thing that follows is the determination of the specific capabilities needed to achieve the requirements. Of the capabilities that need legal authorization in the use of force are the so-called special operations even in events of political wars. Militaries are simply a facility for a country to apply violence or a threat of aggression with the aim of achieving security targets for the nation. However, military aggression contains legal sanctions together with solid control and a responsibility enforced by law. The military presents a pecking order of power, imposed responsibilities for acts and mission results along with security. According to Cline (2005, 575) the alternatives for strokes in the building of international relationships when faced with an opposition will include the capability of co-opting, assisting, advising, persuading, rewarding, purchasing, ignoring, deterring, coercing, compelling, denying, damaging, destroying, controlling by means of war, conquering as well as occupying. To enhance the strategic usefulness of military power in the wide range of military alternatives short of warfare then the force has to remain small and reasonably autonomous. A good example of this strategic undertaking is the tracking down of Pancho villa. This is indeed the first strand of the effectiveness of special operations, which practical military capability for tailoring policy activities at favorable costs and perils. The other strand is having special operation forces capability practical to ordinary military services in battlefield. Special operation forces are fundamentally small forces that use resources that constitute a very small portion of the entire budget of the military. Hyper-infantry characteristics of special operation forces, which is the straight action, reconnaissance and raiding units, have greatly became capable with this approach. The method according to Kiras (2006, 58) has also established tension as well as identity matters inside the force involving both direct and circuitous advocates. However, all the strands of the employment of force as a tool for foreign strategy as well as specialized capabilities in ordinary warfare are national objectives and are not a proposition. Any idea about special operation addresses both the two strands. Conceivably, special operation greatest efficacy is when we consider that special operation entails the utilization of violence that has obtained legal authorization from an organization that is legally responsible. The past usefulness of special operations has been the prevention of war or not carrying out the peril of conventional warfare. In the very near future, special operations will acquire more significance since war will not be an alternative. The international atmosphere, the open aversion of the United States to intervention, the emergence of non-state players who are asymmetric to ordinary forces and unacceptable perils of escalation propose a security environment in which special operation forces strategic function has greater appeal. Good examples in which special operations successfully produced practical results include the secret war in Laos, the Iraqi freedom operation (OIF), operation-enduring freedom (OEF) and the greater global war on terrorism. According to Cline (2005, 575) special operations are a tool for diplomacy and international assistance. Bibliography Adams, Thomas K. US special operations forces in action: the challenge of unconventional warfare. Psychology Press, 1998. Butler, Frank K., John Haymann, and E. George Butler. Tactical combat casualty care in special operations. Association of Military Surgeons of the US, 1996. Derek Leebaert. To Dare & To Conquer: Special Operations and the Destiny of Nations, from Achilles to Al Qaeda. Park Avenue, NY. Little, Brown and Company, 2006 Cline, Lawrence E. "Special operations and the intelligence System." International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 18, no. 4 (2005): 575-592. Jogerst, Col John D. "USAF Special Operations School." Air & Space Power Journal (2007). Doyle, Michael W., and Nicholas Sambanis. Making war and building peace: United Nations peace operations. Princeton University Press, 2006. Kiras, James D. Special Operations and Strategy: From World War II to the War on Terrorism. Routledge, 2006. Read More