News & Briefings
Get the latest news and SOF commentary here. Your source for all news SOF since 2017.
Over the last 20 years, the U.S. military has been highly focused on counterinsurgency operations as we engaged in the Global War on Terror (GWOT). This focus, along with expertise in irregular warfare and partner force operations, enabled Special Forces to take a predominant role in Afghanistan and Iraq. Today we face a different world. Competition among the great powers is increasing, requiring the U.S. military to shift focus to prepare for LSCO undertaken against a peer enemy. This transition is a natural fit for the conventional force as tankers prepare for armored clashes, naval officers plan fleet engagements, and pilots contemplate a world without airspace supremacy. For Special Forces, this shift can be more confusing. As divisions and corps become the units of action, where does a small team of Green Berets fit?
BOSTON — In U.S. Special Operations Forces personnel, greater repeated blast exposure is associated with a higher prevalence of intracranial aneurysms, according to a recent study. An intracranial aneurysm is a weak, bulging area in a blood vessel wall in the brain, often described as balloon-like. While many remain asymptomatic until discovered or ruptured, a burst aneurysm causes a life-threatening hemorrhage that requires immediate medical emergency care.
A recent argument that the United States Army Special Forces have become a campaign afterthought is right about the diagnosis but provides an incomplete assessment of the cure. The decisive terrain of great-power competition is cognition, and the culturally immersed and distributed character of Special Forces—built on a “by, with, and through” —gives the regiment a latent comparative advantage in that contest. Realizing this advantage depends less on new equipment than on professional military education redesigned around four interlocking capacities: complexity analysis; epistemic humility; principled decision-making under uncertainty; and adaptive resilience. Together, these traits amount to the ability to lead in the complex—rather than the complicated—domain.
A question resurfaces in Special Forces circles whenever the Department of Defense/War pivots to a new priority effort: Who are we? It appeared after Vietnam when Groups stood down. It appeared after the Cold War. It appeared in the post-9/11 buildup, and again after the drawdowns from Iraq and Afghanistan. It has reappeared in the era of strategic competition.
The contemporary security environment is crowded with terminology. Policymakers, strategists, and military professionals routinely discuss gray zone competition, hybrid warfare, cognitive warfare, influence operations, strategic competition, and other related concepts. While each term offers some analytical value, the proliferation of terminology often obscures the enduring nature of conflict. Excessive focus on labels can create intellectual paralysis rather than strategic understanding.
It is hard to read national security literature and social media posts without coming across the term cognitive warfare. The conflict with Iran. China’s current operations. Russia’s way of war. North Korea’s nuclear strategy. Reports from NATO’s chief scientist. Countless articles from national security experts, including distinguished scholars, renowned Special Forces officers, and leading think tanks. The hype surrounding cognitive warfare has even spread beyond the national security space. The journal Pastoral Psychology published an article about cognitive warfare and religion, while Greater Good Magazine, a publication devoted to turning scientific research into tips and tools for a happier life and more compassionate society, has articles about “cog war.”
No results found.
Stay Up To Date
Subscribe to Our Newsletter and Stay Up to Date with the Latest Special Operations Forces Support News and Events