Pro-Shah demonstrators set fire to communist property in Tehran, August 19, 1953. That morning, crowds directed by pro-Shah organizers with ties to the CIA marched from the bazaars of southern Tehran into the city center. Some were led by agents of TP BEDAMN, the network the CIA had built years earlier for a different purpose. Photograph: 1953 U.S. press photo, via Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.
“Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. Hence the step is always long from cognition to volition, from knowledge to ability.”
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, Book I, Chapter 3 (Howard and Paret translation)
“And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.”
Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter VI (Marriott translation)
In the dead of night, the underground network surged to life, flooding the streets with coordinated protests, blazing storefronts, and targeted strikes on military outposts. Simultaneously, the armed forces fractured from within as officers chose sides, either following clandestine letters from the fleeing Shah or being bought off by deep-pocketed black funds. Within 72 hours, a mission its planners thought had failed that very night achieved total victory, collapsing the Iranian regime and removing what Washington and London saw as a major threat to the West in a single lightning stroke.
In March 2026, American and Israeli military planners considered options to leverage Iran’s Kurdish groups to pressure Tehran or overthrow the sitting regime. The debate that followed was whether to sponsor these irregulars in what is doctrinally known as unconventional warfare (UW) or to use more conventional strike options. But this was not a new debate. Sponsoring irregulars against Iran is one of the oldest cases in modern U.S. UW history. Operation AJAX, or TP AJAX, successfully overthrew the Iranian regime seventy-three years earlier, less than a decade after World War II.
In late 1952, Britain knocked on Washington’s door with a high-stakes proposition: help overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq. The Truman administration slammed the door shut. But the machinery of unconventional warfare was already idling in the dark. Since the late 1940s, the CIA had been running a clandestine network inside Iran, codenamed TP BEDAMN. Conventional military options were never seriously considered.
Within months of Eisenhower taking the Oval Office, the answer flipped. By August 1953, that same underground network flooded Tehran’s streets with crowds that helped bring Mosaddeq down. The network hadn’t changed, nor had the lack of conventional options. What changed was who sat at the table and what they understood unconventional warfare could do.
The Third Finding
In our 2012 Naval Postgraduate School research, Why UW, Colonel Ryan C. Agee and I examined U.S.-sponsored unconventional warfare cases from 1892 to 2010 and selected four for close study: Iran, Tibet, Laos, and Nicaragua. Three conditions were present in all of them.
The first condition was an existing UW capability, which Why Not UW? described as a composite organism: the irregular partner plus what the sponsor adds across the Golden Bridge.
The second condition was a task the conventional option could not meet, which The Question Is… Why UW? traced to the denied area.
The third condition is the subject of this article. The research called it the presence of positive UW feedback loops, and its framework called it influence on policy. It had three parts: people with UW experience who had direct access to or influence over the decision maker; a decision maker who inherited a course of action leading to UW; and past UW successes that increased that influence. Together, they constitute UW advocacy: someone at or near the decision table who speaks for UW.
These are correlations, not causes. All three appeared in every case where UW was chosen, but that does not prove they produced the choice, and the research does not claim it.
Iran is useful for a different reason: it is the clearest case in which the first two conditions remained largely steady across two administrations while advocacy gained placement at the top. Under Truman, the capability existed and the conventional option did not. Advocates existed too, but they could not secure approval. Under Eisenhower, the same capability faced the same constraint, and approval came within months. Other factors changed as well: oil negotiations collapsed in March 1953, Washington’s assessment of the communist threat hardened, and the network had to be repurposed. Still, the clearest change among the three conditions was the people.
Advocacy is not enough by itself. Across the four cases, capability carried the most weight; neither advocacy nor the absence of a conventional option could substitute for it. Advocacy does something different. It determines whether a capable option, facing a problem the conventional force cannot solve, reaches the people who decide and stays in front of them until a decision is made. Without it, decision makers choose from whatever options reach them. In recent decades, those have often been precision strike and raids by special operations forces (SOF).
The Capability Already in Place
TP BEDAMN was built to counter Soviet influence, not to topple a government. Its Iranian agents ran more than a hundred sub-agents who could put crowds into the streets, while British intelligence had developed a parallel network under Operation BOOT. When London handed its network over to Washington, the separate underground elements were brought under CIA direction, forming a composite organism ready for a new task.
Planners in 1953 did not call it unconventional warfare. By 1955, FM 31-20, U.S. Army Special Forces Group (Airborne), explicitly used the term. The concept, however, was already understood, carried over from the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forefather of the CIA and Special Forces, and its support to the French Resistance in World War II. By today’s statutory and doctrinal definition, TP AJAX was unconventional warfare: activities conducted to enable an insurgency to overthrow a government, operating through an underground and auxiliary in a denied area.
The capability had existed for years. What it lacked in 1952 was advocates with the placement to carry it through.
That changed in 1953. Eisenhower took office in January with John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State, and a month later his brother, Allen Dulles, took over the CIA. Walter Bedell Smith, Eisenhower’s wartime chief of staff, moved from the CIA to become Under Secretary of State. Allen Dulles, Kermit Roosevelt, and Frank Wisner were all veterans of the wartime OSS, sharing an institutional background that inclined them toward unconventional options. Roosevelt and Wisner strongly favored a coup, and Bedell Smith was an important advocate, according to historian Mark Gasiorowski’s “The 1953 Coup d’État Against Mosaddeq.” In Tehran, the new chief of the U.S. military mission was Brigadier General Robert McClure, who a year earlier had pushed the Army to create the Psychological Warfare Center at Fort Bragg and whom U.S. Army Special Operations Command honors as the “Father of U.S. Army Special Warfare.” By April, the CIA station in Tehran had $1 million to bring Mosaddeq down, and on July 11 the President gave final approval.
The Anatomy of Advocacy
In Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, political scientist John Kingdon observed that policy entrepreneurs need three things to succeed: a claim to a hearing, political connections, and persistence. In unconventional warfare, they translate into understanding what the composite organism can achieve, placement, and persistence.
Understanding and conviction. A claim to a hearing is earned through understanding. A successful advocate must know what a UW capability can and cannot achieve, what the composite organism requires to link the sponsor and the underground, and where it fits the problem. Conviction follows from understanding, and it is most reliable when the advocate has seen the option work and can explain why.
Iran’s advocates had that grounding. Their insight came from OSS practice, with Dulles having run the wartime OSS station in Bern, and was backed in Iran by the Agency’s own TP BEDAMN network. Political scientist Peter Haas’s study “Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination” gave a group of this kind a name: an epistemic community, “a network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain.” That recognized competence gave their recommendations weight.
Persistence. No one keeps pushing a rejected option through a change of administration without conviction. Allen Dulles and Wisner pursued the British proposal in November 1952, even while Truman was still president and Secretary of State Dean Acheson opposed a coup. Eisenhower inherited a course of action that already had momentum.
Placement and access. Kingdon’s political connections become placement. Placement provides access, and access can lead to influence. Understanding, conviction, and persistence create an advocate; placement decides whether the advocate is heard. In 1953, the advocates held the top seats: one brother ran the State Department, the other the CIA, and Bedell Smith had served beside Eisenhower through the war. For a crucial window, the circle framing the President’s options and the circle that understood UW were the same people.
Research on lobbying shows what that placement is worth. In their study “Revolving Door Lobbyists,” economists Jordi Blanes i Vidal, Mirko Draca, and Christian Fons-Rosen found that lobbyists who had worked for a U.S. Senator lost nearly a quarter of their revenue when that Senator left office, evidence that clients paid for the connection more than the expertise. Political scientists Richard Hall and Alan Deardorff, in “Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy,” noted that lobbyists rarely change minds; instead, they supply information and staff support to officials who already lean their way. In Iran, the CIA and British intelligence supplied the plan, the network, and the funding to officials who were already inclined to use them.
Understanding, conviction, and persistence build on one another, in that order. Placement and access stand apart. They do not depend on understanding, and understanding does not guarantee them. The same holds for influence. The people who hold it do not necessarily understand every option in front of them, and they bring their own biases and institutional motivations into the room. Decision makers who draw their advisors from a single background hear a single set of options. A room of like-minded advisors produces groupthink.
Two other qualities matter in any advocate: the skill to translate an option into the decision maker’s problem, and the trust that lets the decision maker rely on the advocate’s judgment. Like the advocate’s other qualities, they apply to every option. What is specific to UW is what the advocate must understand: how an indigenous resistance and external support, working together as a composite organism, can accomplish the specified task.
Conviction Without Understanding
Conviction does not always begin with understanding. It can arrive through ideology, a single remembered success, or loyalty to a community, and it still produces persistence. The result is not an advocate. It is a zealot. A decision maker needs to trust that the advocate understands unconventional warfare well enough to judge where it fits and where it does not. An advocate who cannot explain that is pushing UW for its own sake. Decision makers usually see through it, the advocate loses their trust, and the option loses its voice.
Collective conviction can produce the same failure. The original research compared the decision in Iran to the Bay of Pigs, where, as Irving Janis described in Victims of Groupthink, Kennedy and his advisors fell into groupthink: a cohesive circle whose drive for unanimity overrode a realistic appraisal of the alternatives. A room full of true believers fails the same way a single zealot does.
The Bay of Pigs also exposes the cost of uncritical momentum. Allen Dulles, who carried AJAX to Eisenhower, was Director of Central Intelligence when the invasion failed. The circle that made AJAX possible was a room of like-minded advisors: one background, one set of options. Success in Iran and the UW missions that followed had built conviction faster than anyone assessed the composite organism, the task, and the conditions. The same feedback loop that produces advocates can produce zealots. That is why understanding comes first. The advocate can say when UW is the wrong answer. The zealot cannot.
Who Speaks for UW Now?
The OSS generation came out of the Second World War with understanding born of practice, and it reached the seats where options were framed. That loop has weakened.
Writing in 2013, retired U.S. Army Special Forces Colonel and unconventional warfare advocate David Maxwell observed that because UW is widely seen as belonging to Special Forces alone, senior decision makers, policymakers, and strategists rarely consider it as a strategic option.
Three mechanisms help explain why.
The first mechanism is institutional availability. In Essence of Decision, political scientist Graham Allison showed that governments choose among policy options their permanent bureaucracies already know how to produce. An option without an institutional home or an organizational advocate rarely gets presented. U.S. special operations strike and raid capabilities enjoy permanent institutional backing. Two decades of the Global War on Terrorism reinforced that imbalance, building a culture that treats direct action and raids as the hallmark of special operations.
The second is feedback. A raid produces fast, visible, attributable results, often within hours. UW produces slow, ambiguous results, and its successes tend to remain classified for decades, while its failures leak immediately, eroding the conviction of those who might carry it forward. Each successful raid creates convinced advocates. A UW success may create none outside the few who ran it. Special Forces enable resistance movements around the world today, yet that work is seldom understood as unconventional warfare. Practitioners trained to look for Robin Sage, the Special Forces qualification exercise built around a guerrilla force behind enemy lines, do not see UW when it is already in front of them. An option no one recognizes when it is working cannot be carried forward when it is needed. Over time, the feedback loop that produced the OSS generation runs faster for direct action than for UW.
The third is promotion. In Winning the Next War, Stephen Rosen showed that new ways of war take hold only when promotion paths carry their practitioners into senior ranks. Where SOF careers forged in direct action raids lead to senior command and careers in UW tend not to, those who reach the seats bring their experiences and biases with them. They are advocates in the full sense, for the options they know. They rarely champion an option that runs against their experience.
This blind spot shows up in the literature itself. Susan Marquis’s 1997 book, Unconventional Warfare: Rebuilding U.S. Special Operations Forces, presents the rise of U.S. special operations direct-action and strike capabilities as the story of unconventional warfare. Despite its title, it is not a book about UW.
The result is the lower-left box in Figure 2. Capable SOF advocates with recognized skills and trust still hold the seats, carrying the options they believe serve the nation best. UW is not rejected at the table. It simply seldom arrives.
Why Unconventional Warfare?
This series began with a definition and ends with a decision.
The first article in the series, Why Not UW?, examined the biases that reject unconventional warfare before its potential is assessed. The second, The Question Is… Why UW?, explained why UW belongs among the options when conventional options cannot solve the problem. This article adds the conditions that put the option in front of the people who decide.
Iran in 1953 shows all three. Operation BOOT and TP BEDAMN supplied the local capability. The absence of any acceptable conventional option supplied the need. Advocates with understanding and placement carried it to the President.
Iran also carries a caution. TP AJAX succeeded on its own terms, but its aftermath was another matter. The Shah went on to rule as an autocrat until the 1979 revolution overthrew him, and the coup became grist for an anti-American narrative that Iran’s leadership still invokes. Historians continue to debate how decisive the coup was, but the blowback was real and may have contributed to 1979. In Washington, the apparent success fed the belief that covert action could remove unwelcome leaders cheaply, a belief later operations would test at great cost.
Why Not UW? made the same point from the other direction: having a capability does not obligate its use. Could is not always should. UW can be misused and can leave a country worse off than it found it. So can a bombing campaign or a raid. That consideration belongs in every decision, whatever the option. Advocates must present the political, legal, and moral implications alongside the capability; decision makers remain accountable for the choice. The job of planners and practitioners is not to guarantee that UW is chosen. It is to ensure that UW is understood and valid, so that when it is the right answer, decision makers can see it, and when it is not, those who understand it best are the first to say so.
In our research, Colonel Agee and I concluded that UW stakeholders had been focused on the wrong side of the decision point, preparing to execute UW once it was chosen rather than shaping the decision itself. We found a shortage of competent UW strategists and reframed the community’s question from how to conduct UW to how organizations could be postured to shape the decision to use it. Fourteen years later, that question remains open.
For planners and analysts, it starts with understanding. An option no one in the room understands cannot be assessed, and an option that is not assessed cannot be offered. When UW is missing from a set of options, the first question is whether it was assessed and rejected or never raised. The second is who could have raised it. Advocates deserve the same scrutiny as the options they carry.
For practitioners, it also starts with understanding. The gap is not placement. Special operations officers already sit near the decision makers, but too often they bring forward the option their careers were built on. In my experience, when a SOF option is offered at all, it is usually a raid force. That does not mean UW disappears as a U.S. option. Other agencies with their own advocates still carry it to decision makers. But without understanding and conviction, those who hold the SOF seats will not fight for Special Forces to lead or support the mission.
Closing that gap starts with a cultural shift: valuing the full spectrum of what UW offers. That means coercion and disruption, not only overthrow; working through a partner, not only with one; the denied area as a relationship among a force, its task, and its conditions, not only a place behind enemy lines; and the composite organism, not the partner alone, as the unit of capability.
It also means building composite organisms that are valid, so the capability behind the advocacy is real. Then the advocates already in the seats can put UW in front of decision makers.
Much of that understanding must come from education. Unconventional warfare belongs in senior special operations professional military education as a course of its own, not as a rehash of the definition, seven phases, and three components. Officers, warrants, and NCOs headed for command or for the staffs where options are framed need a deeper grasp of how UW applies in the modern context: where its affordance pathways run, how to assess a composite organism, and how to recognize when UW is the wrong answer. The OSS generation learned UW by doing it. The next generation of advocates will have to learn much of it in the classroom first.
A force can be fully trained in UW and still never be asked to use it. Training answers whether UW can be done. Advocacy decides whether anyone asks.
Common sense says the choice among options should go to whichever is better, faster, cheaper, and safer. In practice, it more often goes to the option someone in the room understands, believes in, and keeps pressing on the people who decide. UW can win the first test and still lose the second.
The framework does not predict that unconventional warfare will be chosen whenever all three conditions align. It describes what was present each time the leap from knowledge to decision was taken. Today, the capability and the need may both be present, yet in the seats where special operations options are framed, the third condition remains vacant. When that happens, the problem persists, the means exist, and the question remains: who at the table speaks for UW?
If this article was helpful and you would like more content like it, please like and subscribe. Comments, questions, and feedback are always welcome.
Sources and Further Reading
A note on sources. Descriptions of how unconventional warfare and strike options are discussed in planning and policy settings draw on the author’s participant observation across more than four decades in U.S. special operations, including UW doctrine work at the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School and service as Senior Irregular Warfare Advisor at U.S. Special Operations Command.
Ryan C. Agee and Maurice K. DuClos, Why UW: Factoring in the Decision Point for Unconventional Warfare, master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, December 2012. Iran, pp. 25–47, on OSS veterans in positions to influence Eisenhower and the momentum Eisenhower inherited, pp. 40–41; Variable 2 and its three factors, pp. 143–145; the sufficiency of the variables, p. 147; recommendations, pp. 158–160. Page references use the thesis’s printed pagination.
Graham T. Allison, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971). On the organizational process model; see the CIA’s contemporary review.
Jordi Blanes i Vidal, Mirko Draca, and Christian Fons-Rosen, “Revolving Door Lobbyists,” American Economic Review 102, no. 7 (December 2012): 3731–3748. The study tracked former congressional staffers who became Washington lobbyists and measured what happened to their lobbying revenue when the legislator they had worked for left office; for staffers of departing Senators, revenue fell by about 24 percent.
Gregory Brew, “The Collapse Narrative: The United States, Mohammed Mossadegh, and the Coup Decision of 1953,” Texas National Security Review 2, no. 4 (November 2019). On the collapse of oil negotiations and the hardening of U.S. views.
Central Intelligence Agency, “Identification Card of Allen W. Dulles,” CIA Museum. On Dulles’s OSS service in Switzerland and his appointment as DCI.
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), Book I, Chapter 3. Epigraph. The older J. J. Graham translation (1873) renders the passage “Truth alone is but a weak motive of action with men.”
Angelo M. Codevilla, review of Unconventional Warfare: Rebuilding U.S. Special Operations Forces, by Susan L. Marquis, Journal of Conflict Studies 18, no. 2 (Fall 1998): 136–138. On the book’s thin treatment of what unconventional warfare is.
Council on Foreign Relations, “The 1953 Overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq.” On Truman’s dismissal of British proposals to invade Iran, the coup’s aftermath, and the anti-American narrative it fed.
“Coup 53 Burning Kiosk,” Wikimedia Commons. Press photograph published in the United States in 1953 without a copyright notice; public domain. Header photograph.
Maurice “Duc” DuClos, “Operationally Detached: Why Decentralization, Not Consolidation, Is the Future of U.S. Army Special Forces,” Irregular Warfare Initiative, May 28, 2026.
Maurice “Duc” DuClos, “The Question Is… Why UW?,” The Unconventional Warfare Review, November 2, 2026.
Maurice “Duc” DuClos, “The Wrong Question: Why the Special Forces Debate Never Ends,” JSOU Press, June 16, 2026.
Maurice “Duc” DuClos, “Visible vs. Valuable: Why Restructuring U.S. Special Forces Won’t Fix a Failure of Perception,” Small Wars Journal, June 1, 2026.
Maurice “Duc” DuClos, “Why Not UW? The Three Half-Truths Killing Unconventional Warfare,” The Unconventional Warfare Review, October 26, 2026.
Department of the Army, FM 31-20, U.S. Army Special Forces Group (Airborne) (Washington, DC, August 10, 1955), para. 4a, p. 6. The earliest use of the term “unconventional warfare” found in Army doctrine, and, per later Army doctrine, the first manual to link Special Forces specifically to UW (FM 3-05.130, Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare, September 2008, para. 1-8). An earlier 1955 manual, FM 31-21, Guerrilla Warfare (March 23, 1955), may have used the term first. The Army’s 1951 manuals, FM 31-20, Operations Against Guerrilla Forces, and FM 31-21, Organization and Conduct of Guerilla Warfare, used “guerrilla warfare.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, “Smith, Walter Bedell: Collection of World War II Documents, 1941–45.” On Bedell Smith’s service as Chief of Staff, SHAEF, Director of Central Intelligence, and Under Secretary of State.
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Iran, 1951–1954, Second Edition, ed. James C. Van Hook (Washington, DC: Government Publishing Office, 2018). The documentary record of TP AJAX planning and approval.
Mark J. Gasiorowski, “The 1953 Coup d’État Against Mosaddeq,” in Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, ed. Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2004). On TP BEDAMN, the Rashidian network, the advocates, and the 1953 approval sequence.
Peter M. Haas, “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination,” International Organization 46, no. 1 (Winter 1992): 1–35. Source of the definition of an epistemic community, p. 3.
Richard L. Hall and Alan V. Deardorff, “Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy,” American Political Science Review 100, no. 1 (February 2006): 69–84. On lobbying as a subsidy to legislators who already share the lobbyist’s goals, not as persuasion or exchange.
Joseph W. Hamaker, “The Faster, Better, Cheaper Approach to Space Missions: An Engineering Management Assessment,” NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, 1999. On the “faster, better, cheaper” approach NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin introduced in 1992.
Irving L. Janis, Victims of Groupthink (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), 9. As cited in Agee and DuClos. On the Bay of Pigs as a case of groupthink.
John W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 1995). On the policy entrepreneur’s resources; summarized in Karin Guldbrandsson and colleagues, “An exploration of the theoretical concepts policy windows and policy entrepreneurs at the Swedish public health arena,” Health Promotion International (2009).
Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. W. K. Marriott (1908), Chapter VI. Epigraph.
Susan L. Marquis, Unconventional Warfare: Rebuilding U.S. Special Operations Forces (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997).
David Maxwell, “Unconventional Warfare Does Not Belong to Special Forces,” War on the Rocks, August 12, 2013.
Siamak T. Naficy and Maurice “Duc” DuClos, “Mission or Meaning? Rethinking the Identity Crisis in U.S. Army Special Forces,” JSOU Press.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Public Law 114–92, §1097(d). Statutory definition of unconventional warfare: “activities conducted to enable a resistance movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt, or overthrow a government or occupying power by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary, or guerrilla force in a denied area.” The article’s description of TP AJAX uses only the parts that apply. Some will argue that TP AJAX was a CIA covert action, not UW. It was both. In 1953, covert operations were defined by NSC 10/2 (June 18, 1948); today, covert action is defined in 50 U.S.C. §3093(e). Both definitions turn on concealing the U.S. role, so covert action describes how the sponsor hides its hand and the legal and funding approvals the operation must pass through. NSC 10/2 itself listed “assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas” among covert operations. Unconventional warfare is the current doctrinal term for those activities, and it is not limited by which organization or state conducts them. The categories overlap, and many covert actions, TP AJAX among them, meet the current definition of UW.
National Security Archive, “1953 Iran Coup: New U.S. Documents Confirm British Approached U.S. in Late 1952 About Ousting Mosaddeq,” August 8, 2017. On the Truman administration’s refusal.
National Security Archive, “Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran.” On the August 19 crowds directed by pro-Shah organizers with ties to the CIA.
Stephen Peter Rosen, Winning the Next War: Innovation and the Modern Military (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991). On promotion pathways that carry officers of a new way of war into senior ranks.
Jonathan Schroden and Zack Gold, “Proxy Pressure on Iran: The Promise and Pitfalls of Arming the Kurds,” War on the Rocks, March 25, 2026.
David Shapiro, “Better, Faster, Cheaper, Safer: Why AI Must Replace Human Labor,” Medium, September 5, 2023. Shapiro’s four-part “better, faster, cheaper, safer” extends NASA’s 1990s engineering management mantra, “faster, better, cheaper” (see Hamaker), into a framework for choosing between substitutes, popularized in his work on post-labor economics.
Jared M. Tracy, “Major General Robert A. McClure,” Veritas 7, no. 2. On the Psychological Warfare Center and McClure’s 1953 appointment to Iran.
U.S. Army Special Operations Command History Office, “Major General Robert A. McClure,” ARSOF History. Source of the title “Father of U.S. Army Special Warfare.” USASOC dedicated its headquarters building to McClure in January 2001, and U.S. Special Operations Command inducted him into its Commando Hall of Honor in 2010.