News & Briefings
Get the latest news and SOF commentary here. Your source for all news SOF since 2017.
The cognitive warfare tools demonstrated in Ukraine and Iran are not exclusively a high-intensity conflict problem. They are reshaping the gray zone as well, and the adversaries employing them below the threshold of kinetic engagement are operating faster than the doctrinal frameworks governing US competition-phase operations. This article applies the Praxis AI Doctrine’s Cognitive Warfare Operationalization Model to the below-threshold information environment and argues that special operations and interagency practitioners need cognitive warfare literacy as urgently as they need kinetic readiness.
The technological shifts introduced in Part 2 (The Two Trinities and the Human-Domain Advantage) should be read against the criterion space established by the two SOF trinities. Cyber integration, space-denied operations, and human-machine teaming matter for SOF selection to the extent that they alter how operators execute unconventional warfare (UW), irregular warfare (IW), and support to political warfare, not because they constitute a free-standing criterion of their own.
The global security environment is reshaping, forcing military planners to contend with the prospects of large-scale conflict. That has led to significant debate regarding the future of US Army Special Forces and their role in such a conflict. The fictional Operation Iron Shadow points toward a near future in which that role is clearly defined and Special Forces are as indispensable as they were during twenty years of low-intensity conflict during America’s post-9/11 wars. Adversarial states such as China and Russia have developed advanced capabilities, including antiaccess and area-denial systems, cyber warfare tools, and robust command-and-control networks, all designed to challenge the ability of the United States and its allies to project power and achieve dominance. While conventional forces remain the primary means of achieving decisive outcomes in this contested environment, Army Special Forces offer unique capabilities that complement and amplify the effectiveness of the joint force. Specifically, by conducting deep area operations and deep strike, Special Forces can disrupt adversary systems, shape the battlespace, and create dilemmas for enemy commanders well beyond division and corps fire support coordination lines. These operations, grounded in Special Forces’ expertise in unconventional warfare, extend the joint force’s operational reach and enable it to achieve strategic objectives in ways that conventional forces alone cannot.
One of the most important lessons in counterterrorism is that terrorist organizations reveal their intentions long before they act. They reveal them through the leaders they elevate, the institutions they rebuild, the capabilities they invest in, and the people they trust to shape the next generation. Those indicators often tell us far more about the future than any propaganda statement ever will.
Among the five of us who teach the Irregular Warfare Center’s (IWC) advanced campaigning course (IW401), we have spent a long time watching capable people lose slowly. Not only on the battlefield, where American units almost always prevailed, but in the space above it, where campaigns are designed and where conflicts are so often lost prematurely. The wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are examples of this — in each case the United States fielded the stronger force and still walked away short of what it set out to achieve. The comfortable explanation is that we executed poorly, and that a little more resolve or a few more resources would have turned the result. Between us we have written numerous campaign plans, in enough joint and combatant command headquarters, as well as interagency strategies at a U.S. embassy, to have reached a less comfortable conclusion. The recurring American failure in irregular warfare and conflict was seldom a failure of execution. Rather, it was the confident pursuit of the wrong problem.
Part 1 (The Operator Is the Platform) established that the SOF operator is the platform and that the validity of any SOF assessment, selection, and qualification (ASQ) system depends on the criterion space the system is built to predict. The logic, that ASQ systems are only as valid as the criterion they predict, carries a specific implication for Army SOF. For the majority of U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), and particularly for Special Forces, Civil Affairs, and Psychological Operations, the criterion space must be anchored in the force’s foundational missions: unconventional warfare (UW), irregular warfare (IW), and support to political warfare. We refer to these collectively as the first SOF trinity. Among them, UW warrants primacy in selection design, because it most fully exploits the comparative advantage of Army SOF and most clearly reveals the kind of human the force must identify: one capable of organizing, advising, and operating through resistance organizations, undergrounds, auxiliary structures, and indigenous partner forces in denied areas, often for extended duration with minimal external support. Indeed, only Army Special Forces has been organized, trained, equipped, educated, and optimized to conduct UW, and that fact should weigh heavily in how selection criteria are prioritized for the bulk of Army SOF.
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