A 221 MMAS Presentation

MAJ Ben Sunds

Agenda
Background Research questions Facts/Assumptions Limitations/Delimitations Literature Research Methodology Analysis Conclusions and Recommendations Your Feedback..

Background
Frustration w/ interagency experience Possible bias Objectivity

Limitations
UNCLASS No interviews/discussion with key leaders in interagency arena Time available (10 mos) Exposure only to DoD (USSOCOM) WOT planning Possible bias based on past experience

Delimitations
Not a study of which federal agency should lead the WOT conclusions are valid regardless of LFA. No recommendations on specific interagency agreements to accomplish missions. Does not argue US title 10/50 code authorities/ responsibilities.

Research Questions
Primary: As lead combatant command, should USSOCOM fight the War on Terror using continuous, preemptive, lowvisibility operations to disrupt terrorist operations outside the continental United States?

Research Questions (cont.)

Secondary: What comprises these types of operations? How can USSOCOM organize to accomplish these missions?

Assumptions
1.

2.

3. 4. 5.

National strategic documents and specifically NMSP-WOT are appropriate starting points for analysis. The WOT is actually a war against fundamentalists (regardless of ideology base) who use terror tactics against unarmed civilian populations. The specific current threat to US national interests in the WOT is that which advocates the overthrow of democratically elected nation states and specifically AQ and AQAN who seek to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate stretching from west Africa to southeast Asia. The United States must work with both partner nations and partners (elements who do not hold nation state status) to accomplish operations in the WOT. The US must work with partner nations using traditional bilateral relationships through its embassies abroad. Regardless of which US federal agency is designated as the lead in the WOT, DoD and specifically SOF operator expertise is necessary to synchronize low-vis DoD capabilities with other elements of national power.

Literature
Strategic documents:
NSS, NDS, NSCT, DoS Strategic Plan (05-09), NMSP-WOT, 9/11 Commission

Books on terrorism, COIN, and COE:

Hoffman, ONeill, Galula, Birtle, Huntington, Kaplan, Friedman, Barnett

Doctrine:
USMC SWM, FMs: 1,3,5

Theses/studies:
AWC, SSI, NWC, SAMS, NPS, CGSC, RAND

Articles:
Asymmetric warfare, 4GW, geo-presence, LLW

Analysis/ Methodology
Literature Experience Conclusions

Suitability: Does the proposed solution solve the problem and is it legal and ethical? Feasibility: Does the solution fit within available resources? Acceptability: Is the solution worth the cost or risk? Distinguishability: Does the solution contain critical aspects of solving the problem from start to finish? Completeness: Does this solution contain critical aspects of solving the problem from start to finish?

Conclusions and Recommendations

Types of LVO and what they can accomplish Task Organization at AMEMB level completes SOT integration and synchronization Recommendations for further study:
LFA and SFA roles and responsibilities Consolidated IA training for CT/COIN/COE Title capabilities/responsibilities

Your Feedback Here