The United States Special Operations Command Civil Military Engagement Program - A Model for Military-Interagency Low Cost / Small Footprint Activities
Author(s)Bartos, Brent M
Contributor(s)NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIV NORFOLK VA JOINT FORCES STAFF COLLEGE
KeywordsGovernment and Political Science
Sociology and Law
Military Forces and Organizations
*MILITARY FORCES(UNITED STATES)
*SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
USSOCOM(UNITED STATES SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND)
CME(CIVIL MILITARY ENGAGEMENT)
UAP(UNIFIED ACTION PARTNERS)
FOREIGN INTERNAL DEFENSE
BUILDING PARTNER CAPACITY
Full recordShow full item record
AbstractFuture threats to United States security vary from conventional state actors to unconventional forces, global terrorist groups, environmental challenges, and transnational criminal organizations (TCO). The threats are increasingly networked adding new dimensions of complexity that challenge the United States ability to strengthen economic and security partnerships abroad. The current United States political, economic, and social climate place an enormous burden across the elements of national power specifically the United States military. The services continue to navigate sequestration and reduced defense budgets resulting in reduced training and exercise opportunities, force restructuring, and readiness challenges. As the threats, fiscal uncertainty, and conflicts continue to grow more dynamic and complex, the United States military must identify and assess new venues by which it will remain relevant, maintain global access, affirm commitments to allies and partners, and invest in capabilities that enhance national security interests abroad. The Department of Defense (DOD) with our Unified Action Partners have and continue to explore low cost, small footprint activities. The United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has postured itself to lead this effort by developing innovative approaches to prepare and operate within ambiguous environments, and simultaneously build lasting partnerships with our Unified Action Partners and allies. In his posture statement to the 113th Congress on 5 March 2013, the Commander of USSOCOM, Admiral William H. McCraven presented USSOCOM Strategy 2020.
The original document contains color images.
Copyright/LicenseApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Annual Report to the President and the Congress.OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON DC; Perry, William J. (1995-02)Over the past year America's armed forces continued to protect and advance the nation's interests throughout the world. Our accomplishments demonstrate that the U.S. military is strong, ready, and highly capable of meeting America's security needs. This Annual Defense Report details how the Department of Defense built its capabilities and is working to maintain them into the future. We have organized our task around three objectives. First, we want to prevent the reemergence of a post-Cold War nuclear threat by helping Russia and the other nuclear states of the former Soviet Union dismantle their nuclear weapons arsenals, and by developing effective means to counter the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. Second, we want to continue to manage the post-Cold War drawdown of our armed forces efficiently and effectively. We have carried out this drawdown while protecting the quality and morale of America's armed forces and sustaining the high readiness needed to ensure U.S. security. This is a historic accomplishment. Third, we want to be smart, deliberate, and clear on how America will use force or the threat of force effectively in this complex world. (MM)
Making Riflemen from Mud: Restoring the Army's Culture of Irregular Warfare (CSL Student Issue Paper, Volume S01-07, Jul 2007)ARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS PA CENTER FOR STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP; Campbell, James D. (2007-07)In the ongoing effort to both succeed in our current fights in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, East Africa and elsewhere, and to continue the evolution of our doctrine and tactics to address upcoming threats, the Army must certainly look to the future. The Army must also, however, look to the past as well, to recapture some of those organizational strengths that have led to success in our long history of low-level conflict. One of these strengths was the institutionalized practice of working with and through local irregular military forces. This practice and the comfort and ease with which the Army at large followed it in the period prior to the Cold War need to be reclaimed Army-wide. The culture of irregular warfare - advising, liaison, training, leading and operating closely with local tribal levies, militias and other non-state forces - must be embraced by every part of the Army, and moved out of its current sole proprietorship in the Special Operations Command. This development is imperative now more than ever, given the limited number of Special Forces units and the demands currently being placed upon them - conventional units can, and must be able to conduct irregular operations wherever they are deployed. This paper will examine both the Army's historical practice of working with indigenous forces and auxiliaries, and the institutional training programs formerly in place designed to prepare officers and soldiers for roles as advisors, working with both irregular and regular forces. Using these examples, and discussing current operations and the debates surrounding incorporation of local irregular troops into those operations, I will recommend some steps that can and should be taken by the Army in order to restore the culture of generalized acceptance and facility in dealing with indigenous forces. This essay is not a call for establishment of an American "foreign legion," or units of "native" or "colonial" troops.
Integrated Stability: Northeast Asian Security for the New MillenniumNAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA; Erickson, Michael R. (1994-12)With the end of the Cold War alignment paradigm, Asian states have lost, or perceive the threat of losing their political patrons. In lieu of traditional alliances, many states are embracing multilateral security arrangements. Placing an increased emphasis on economic security instead of military security. These states appear to be ranking economic development ahead of traditional security concerns. By focusing on economic growth, these nations would seem to be subordinating military security as a matter of foreign policy. To this end, nations in the region are increasingly viewing multilateral arrangements as a means to effect cooperative ventures. The Cold War strategies of nuclear deterrence, military predominance,and cooperation within the U.N. and within other bilateral alliances no longer adequately address America's national interests. In the rapidly evolving security environment, the United States is called upon to reaffirm these interests and to formulate additional policies to meet the challenge of a rapidly changing international environment. The need for a nuclear deterrent continues. The end of the Cold War and the budgetary restraints of the United States calls for a limited downsizing of American military capabilities. The increasing importance of economic factors in the security equation, particularly the proliferation of transnational organizations, shows clearly the need for a greater degree of multilateralization-both in political and economic activities. The United States watches closely the proliferation of multilateral institutions in North America, Europe, Northeast and Southeast Asia.