http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
Special Operations: Need to Know
If ever there were a bloody bureaucratic war entailing a high number of paper-cuts, it has been the fight between U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the other Defense Department regional commands, between SOCOM and the Joint Chiefs, between SOCOM and the CIA, and between SOCOM and the State Department.

The fight is over the powers that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wants to grant special operators to conduct not only their own "covert" operations -- called "special activities" in military parlance.

Traditionally, all special operations take place under the authority of a regional commander. For instance, in Iraq, special operations are controlled by U.S. Central Command. The issue here is independent operations, -- special operations outside of the purview or control of other commands, or even other agencies of the U.S. government (the State Department).

Vice Admiral Eric T. Olson, the Deputy Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), described such a mission to the Senate Armed Service Committee on Wednesday, saying "an example might be if a terrorist threat is operating across other Combatant Commanders' geographic boundaries or in the 'seams' along these boundaries, then USSOCOM, in its global role, could be directed to be the supported command for a specific mission or campaign."

"Could" is the important word here. After almost four years of battle, in which Rumsfeld has bombarded the military with memos urging faster and more special operations, after the mighty secretary has brought in his own team and stacked the deck in the Army and elsewhere with special operations boosters and alumni, Admiral Olson let slip Wednesday that "this has not happened since 9/11."

After four years of growth, with starring roles in Afghanistan and Iraq, with new Presidential and Secretary of Defense granted authorities, with a reorganized headquarters in Tampa geared to quick reaction operations, with a beefed up leadership, with a new counter-terrorism war plan, with a budget almost double pre-9/11 spending, with clandestine elements operating throughout the globe, special operations forces seem poised and ready to almost single handedly fight and win the war against terrorism.

I say seem because so much about the actual operations -- successes and failures -- are secret. Outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, we have only a whiff of what the clandestine forces are doing, and even on the two big battlefields, victories and progress are constantly being trumpeted even though you-know-who remains at large, the Taliban are reforming, and in Iraq, many of the most dangerous former regime members with military and internal security backgrounds remain at large, many even leading key insurgent factions, according to U.S. intelligence.

Special operations forces are the answer, we are told, but yet they seem to always be just one step away from getting started.

Wednesday, Thomas W. O’Connell, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, testified with Adm. Olson before the Senate on the state of special operations. The "significantly expanded SOF [special operations forces] program," O'Connell and Olson said, includes a 27 percent budget increase for FY 2007.

"We will be able to increase our access in focus countries and establish 'unblinking eyes'

in key locations," Adm. Olson said. New authorities and an expanded budget "also allows us to expand our capacity to work with, by, and through partner nations, further posturing us for the long-term GWOT [global war on terrorism]."

"The nature of this long war," O'Connell added, "requires the U.S. Armed Forces to adopt unconventional and indirect approaches to ultimately prevail in this historic struggle."

SOCOM is building up the ability to conduct what the two call "low-visibility, persistent presence missions and a global unconventional warfare campaign."

Just last week, Olson says, Rumsfeld approved "the initial Global Contingency plan" for independent special operations. "The Geographic Combatant Commands are developing supporting plans," Olson adds.

(I previously wrote that the worldwide counter-terrorism war plan written by SOCOM to implement the National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism is called OPLAN 71. BC wrote in to say he thought SOCOM's new plan was called CONPLAN 7500. Readers are invited to clarify.)

The SOCOM annual report for 2006 says that the command has "developed a list of high priority and priority countries to precisely employ limited SOF assets and focus regional intelligence, planning, and DOD operations to most effectively defeat this threat." In addition to Afghanistan and Iraq, these countries include Pakistan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia.

"It is no longer the Command's intent to deploy, fight, and win 'any place, any time,' the annual report says. "This concept did not reflect the need to judiciously use limited assets in a global conflict. Rather, the new vision expresses a need for low density, high demand SOF assets to be postured with a 'presence for purpose', to be at the 'right place, at the right time, facing the right adversary.' To achieve this posture, USSOCOM is developing a strategy to position SOF for an extended campaign."

Is developing, will be able, could, just last week.

Buried in the veiled explanation is this interesting remark from the SOCOM report: "Simply killing terrorists and repeatedly disrupting an ever-changing network poses a perpetual challenge and ultimately will not win the war."

So what will win the war? Special operations are poised to do something of significance, something that appears to have important implications for American foreign policy and for our position and reputation out there in the world, but where is the real explanation of what is transpiring, and where is the American consensus that it is what we want?