By Dean Hoffman and Joe Mariani
The National Defense Industrial Association’s annual Special Operations Symposium is often a window into the future of Special Operations Forces, so it was perhaps unusual that the 35th symposium on Feb. 20 began with a bit of a history lesson.
Army Gen. Bryan Fenton, Special Operations Command commander, described how research had showed that the organization’s predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services, “had shortened World War II by five months.”
“But what if it had been there in 1939? How much shorter would the war have been? Would there have been a war at all?” he asked.
More than just historical trivia, the question comes loaded with implications for today.
For the first time in decades, the military is not directly engaged in a conflict, yet at the same time, demands have never been greater.
Deterring an aggressive China and non-state groups from narcotics cartels to terrorists around the world is proving a massive task.
It is a task that requires more than traditional tools. As retired Lt. Gen. Ken Tovo, former commander of Army Special Operations Command, said: “Conventional strength is necessary but not sufficient [for] deterrence.”
So, it is no surprise that when faced with so many diverse threats, leaders are calling on Special Operations Forces more and more. In recent years, requests for special operators have increased by 30 percent, reinforcing the need to align force sizing with this increased demand.
But the demand is driven by more than just numbers, it is because a strategic calculus built on deterrence is tailor-made for Special Operations Forces. From its very beginning, the force focused on asymmetric capabilities needed to shorten and even avoid direct conflicts. That was the core of Fenton’s analogy to the Office of Strategic Services.
Today’s Special Operations Forces renaissance does not require new doctrinal terms or discovering new capabilities, it is more a question of others awakening to its capabilities that have been there all along.
While the nature of today’s deterrence environment suits special operators’ traditional strengths well, the character of conflict is undoubtably changing. New technologies like first-person drones, artificial intelligence and autonomy are having outsized impacts on the battlefield, while familiar capabilities are being recombined into new architectures.
Nowhere is this more on display than in Ukraine, where Air Force Lt. Gen. Dagvin Anderson, director for joint force development on the Joint Staff, cited the example of one drone pilot who singlehandedly caused 434 enemy casualties, destroyed 42 tanks, 44 tracked vehicles and countless other vehicles in only five months.
In some cases, these capabilities are becoming mutually dependent. The “irregular triad” of special ops, space and cyber is one such example. Cyber and space are integral enablers of Special Operations Forces, and their unique access and placement enable the joint and integrated effects of the other two.
These new capabilities are so important in meeting the needs of today’s operating environment that Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Francis Donovan, SOCOM vice commander, describes “synchronization of SOF effects from seabed to low-earth orbit” as the key to the command’s effectiveness in future conflicts.
But new capabilities mean new ways of doing business. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, homed in on this point, saying: “The biggest problem is a focus on being requirements-driven, not outcome-focused.”
When new capabilities call for new ways of operating, ossified processes such as the requirements process can stand in the way. After all, it is difficult to articulate detailed requirements for operating environments that do not yet exist. A better way is to focus on the outcomes that special operators need and work iteratively to create those outcomes.
This is precisely where industry partners can help Special Operations Command prepare to prevent and, if necessary, prevail in future conflicts. Precisely because rapidly evolving technology and changing strategic environments make it difficult to predict future needs, Special Operations Forces need partners in discovery, not just things. As Fenton summarized, “it’s not the what, it’s the how.”
This may mean that industry is asked to work in new ways as well. Rather than just responding to prescriptive requirements, it may take more co-development to reach the outcome that Special Operations Forces need. Army Lt. Gen. Richard Angle, commander of NATO Allied Special Operations Forces Command, envisions small teams working iteratively.
“Put an operator, a coder, a developer, all together and closer to the problem,” and you will foster the innovation Special Operations Forces need, he said.
While today’s challenges are multiple and varied, Special Operations Forces’ roots are about transformation and made for this era. They do not wait for the future; they shape it.
With industry and Special Operations Command working together, today’s special operators can build on the success of their World War II predecessors and not just shorten the next conflict but perhaps prevent it entirely. The future of modern warfare is here, and Special Operations Forces are ready!
Link to Article: https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/5/6/sofs-past-makes-it-perfect-for-the-future