The role of the special forces.

[A.Mookerjee]

What exactly, is the role of the special forces, of a military? The Seals, may be able to combat terrorism, and so too, the Ranger's, and the Green Berets. But, what role do they fit in the army, if no covert operations were to be undertaken? The Pentagon, will never send the special forces into battle, except as a last resort, and then, it will be too late, for them to make a difference. The Special Forces are supposed to perhaps limit the attrition suffered, in a circumstance, which is unexpected. Also, why does the United States have so many wings of Special Forces? Perhaps, it is a case of overkill. I would prefer, that there be no need for the special forces in the Indian Army. Every soldier should meet the requirements of the special forces, and the military should challenge itself, so that this is the situation.

 

[Marc 1]

What exactly, is the role of the special forces, of a military? The Seals, may be able to combat terrorism, and so too, the Ranger's, and the Green Berets. But, what role do they fit in the army, if no covert operations were to be undertaken? The Pentagon, will never send the special forces into battle, except as a last resort, and then, it will be too late, for them to make a difference.

Wrong - many have been sent and many are in theatre in Afg as we speak. Being special forces, it is most usual for the countries employing the special forces to not publicise their employment and taskings. I know Australia has has SAS and Comando's employed in theatre since the very start of hostilities.

The Special Forces are supposed to perhaps limit the attrition suffered, in a circumstance, which is unexpected.

What do you mean by this statement? Do you find it unusual that special forces are not killing bucket loads of people? The real world is somewhat different to Hollywoods interpretation - in many instances a special forces patrol may be sent in to monitor the movement of high commanders of the Taleban, so they can calll in say a hellfire strike on them. Directly, their mission would be a great success if they personnally did not kill a single individual with their own weapons, and were not even seen by the bad guys. Special forces often travel in teams of little more than 5 or so blokes - if there are only 5 blokes on your side and you are surrounded by bad guys tens or hundreds of kilometers from any backup, you do not go on a killing spree like the Terminator (if nothing else there is a limit to the ammo and food you can carry).

Also, why does the United States have so many wings of Special Forces? Perhaps, it is a case of overkill. I would prefer, that there be no need for the special forces in the Indian Army. Every soldier should meet the requirements of the special forces, and the military should challenge itself, so that this is the situation.

Depends what the special forces roles are. In the case of the Aussie SAS they are usually deployed in small groups as recon/surveillance assets - to get an idea of taskings (albeit of the Brit SAS ) read Bravo Two Zero.

The SAS in Australia were the primary methods of combatting domestic terrorism (a role now shared with the Commando's). To see some evidence of what and how they go about their work look for info about the Iranian Embassy raid in London,1992(?) .

The SAS are the experts at these types of unconventional warfare.

In the British and Australian Armies the Commando forces tend to specialise in hard hitting strike operations, heavily armed and striking quickly.

Whilst it is a noble aim to have all of your defence force able to operate at the same levels as the SAS, the reality is somewhat different. The amount of training, practice, live firing etc that goes on just for the counter terrorism squadron whould burn up the ammunition and assets (air hours etc) probably used by an entire division. These are expensive specialised forces that cost a massive amount to keep trained and equipped to do their job properly. It would not at all be practical to have an entire defence force trained to this level.

Aside from any of the other requirements, not every soldier is able to become a supersoldier, many wash out in the selection courses due to them not being fit enough, or smart enough or just not having the right mental toughness and attitude. If someone was kicking in a door, tossing a flashbang, and entering with the intention of killing 5 heavily armed terrorists in a room where I was a hostage - I would want the first bloke through the door to be the very top of the pile - an elite well trained soldier skilled at his craft, not the bloke from the local reserve depot down the street.

 

[T.C.P]

What exactly, is the role of the special forces, of a military? The Seals, may be able to combat terrorism, and so too, the Ranger's, and the Green Berets. But, what role do they fit in the army, if no covert operations were to be undertaken? The Pentagon, will never send the special forces into battle, except as a last resort, and then, it will be too late, for them to make a difference. The Special Forces are supposed to perhaps limit the attrition suffered, in a circumstance, which is unexpected. Also, why does the United States have so many wings of Special Forces? Perhaps, it is a case of overkill. I would prefer, that there be no need for the special forces in the Indian Army. Every soldier should meet the requirements of the special forces, and the military should challenge itself, so that this is the situation.

Special forces have a no. of different roles and are essential for modern day combat. Its not like the early 1900s, when wars were settled by large no. of soldiers fighting in a battle field. In modern day combat highly specialized elite units are needed for multitude tasks-assassination, sabotage, intelligence gathering, reconnaissance, hostage rescue etc.

The green berets for example help in force multiplication, they can go into enemy territory and raise rebel army s and destroy an enemy from the inside. The SAS and spetsnaz Alfa are highly renowned counter terrorist units. Special forces are deployed every where in the world you dont know much about it because like Marc said most are kept secret by the govt.

When you say that every soldier should be able to meet the requirements for special forces you are being highly unrealistic and impractical. you obviously have no idea about the high standard of training required in elite units. Bangladeshi navy SWADS have 98% failure rate in their training courses and this is more or less true for all special forces.Also setting up and maintaining a specialized unit is very expensive. You should also know that the special forces have high mortality rates in their training courses as they use live ammunition in almost all of their training exercises. These training courses are designed to turn avg soldiers into real life super men,into
killing machines. it is impossible in real life to create army s consisting of hundreds of thousands of such elite soldiers.

Do little more research on special forces and you will truly understand why they are so essential.

 

[outrider]

What exactly, is the role of the special forces, of a military?

I would prefer, that there be no need for the special forces in the Indian Army. Every soldier should meet the requirements of the special forces, and the military should challenge itself, so that this is the situation.

Being as conventional forces are practiced in large unit conventional tactics while "Special Forces" are trained primarily in small unit unconventional tactics I would think the two mutually exclusive and equally necessary.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Fundamentally, special forces undertake any mission that the regular army (and now includes navy or marines) are unable to perform or less capable of performing.

In the ol' days, that includes

- deep recce (eg SAS desert patrol) which was later subsumed into an army role in the form of the LRRP, espionage (nowadays also called recon), forward observation
- assault (which included taking of fortifications during d-day and other special assaults incl amph landings, paradrops, insertion)
- assassinations/sniper (eg the attempted rommel assassinations)
- - sabotage (nowadays called targeted strikes) which may include mini-subs, detonation, traps etc
- security (eg gurkhas)
- suicide missions (eg kamikaze)

Nowadays, it includes counter-terrorism ops, cyber warfare, counter mine ops, diving etc. It may be the traditional small unit ops but can also include large scale ops at bn, bde (eg abn/rangers) or div size (as in the case of NK) if the numbers are sufficient.

But essentially, it still does the fundamental mission.

 

[riksavage]

SF units, tier one in particular, will pay an increasingly important role as the asymmetrical threat becomes ever more complex, and clearly defined front-lines cease to exist. Such units must be able to operate in both a green (conventional) and black (urban/ plain clothes) environment. They represent the sharp end of the much larger intelligence community to undertake missions of strategic importance, such as the destruction of critical infrastructure and weapons of mass or the assassination of leaders / high-profile terrorists in difficult to access environments.

WWII well known SF units (LRDG, early SAS for example) tended to be populated by intellectual's and adventurers supported by nonconformist troops who didn't fit in with typical regimented routine. The reason for this was it took time to establish formal selection processes, senior officers assigned to form/command such units searched for mountaineers, linguists, explorers and prominent sportsmen. As the units developed they would look for nonconformist hard-men who enjoyed a challenge who could complete a ad-hoc series of tests.

Today tried and tested selection processes find men /women with similar capabilities, individuals who relish the opportunity to push themselves physically and mentally above and beyond the average infantry unit. These individuals may no longer be classic scholors, but they tend to exibit high IQ's complimented by bucket loads of common sense.

There also exists today a tiered system, whereby SF units are rated differently and often geared towards a single mission. Tier one are often the jack of all trades collective, with the largest budgets and range of capabilities (land, air, mountain, mobility, water), whose primary mission is to provide the state with a strategic go anywhere hard-hitting precision asset, such as: US Delta, Dev-Group and UK SAS/SBS, Second tier SF assets have been created to support theses, these may undertake a specialist role, such as securing the outer perimeter of a target thus freeing up tier one to focus on the primary target, or to gather ground intelligence in the run up to a tier one strike. Examples of such units would be the US Rangers and UK SFSG / Special Reconnaissance Regiment.

The advantage of having a tiered system is you can provide a scalable career path for interested parties. Join the infantry for a few years to gain the basic skills and experience, undertake selection for a tier two unit and gain specialist weapons and trade training before going for the final an ultimate challenge - tier one selection. By taking this approach you should end up with tier one team members who are of the right age bracket (mid-late twenties) and who have a lot of operational experience under their belt. I've never been a fan of the direct entry approach unless the individual brings a specific skill to the game because IMHO there is no substitute for operational experience.

 

[Waylander]

Very good summary.

Special Forces tend to get alot of attention these days as they are extremely usefull in the world we live in. With theaters like Iraq and Afghanistan as well as anti-terror ops all over the globe these assets are able to use all their strengthes while their weaknesses are less important.

Sure they are in the shit if employed in the wrong place or have just bad luck. But they still have a much better chance than under other circumstances. These days even a small SOF unit is mostly able to hold it's ground (especially with air and artillery support) against larger numbers of enemies.

In a more conventional scenario being in the wrong place may very well mean that a SOF unit is overrun by a company of mech infantry within minutes.

Right now we have the luxury to support them with everything we have (fixed wing and rotary air, artillery, recon assets, etc.) which greatly enhances the capabilities of such units.
This is not possible against an enemy with halfway decent tech and training.

In open confrontation even special forces are highly vulnerable under many circumstances.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

What exactly, is the role of the special forces, of a military? The Seals, may be able to combat terrorism, and so too, the Ranger's, and the Green Berets. But, what role do they fit in the army, if no covert operations were to be undertaken? The Pentagon, will never send the special forces into battle, except as a last resort, and then, it will be too late, for them to make a difference. The Special Forces are supposed to perhaps limit the attrition suffered, in a circumstance, which is unexpected. Also, why does the United States have so many wings of Special Forces? Perhaps, it is a case of overkill. I would prefer, that there be no need for the special forces in the Indian Army. Every soldier should meet the requirements of the special forces, and the military should challenge itself, so that this is the situation.

The idea that every soldier can and/or should be able to perform at the special Forces level is a damaging and very, very unrealistic one. The physical conditioning, ral technical/professional aptitude, and perhaps most importantly, mental attitude are just not traits you find in the average civilian, or in the average soldier.

The only way to bring every soldier up to a "special forces" standard is to lower the bar until the standard becomes so low it ceases to be meaningful or recruit only the handful of people capable of meeting a high standard, in which case you end up with an army of only a few hundred or few thousand people.

And even it it was possible, training everyone, be they a mess hall cook or a typist, to be special operators would be a needlees distraction. You'd be taking valuable time and resources to give many soldiers skills they'll never use or need all while distracting them from the duties and training which they'll actually need and use of a daily/regular basis.

Seperate special forces exist for a reason and proposing that a massive military force like the Indian Army by homogenized to that standard strikes me as a fantasy.

As for the modern role of special forces; the missions vary from country to country and force to force. However, four roles which have become significantly more important in modern times are counter-terror, "major bad guy hunting" (Uday and Qusay, Sadaam, etc.) COIN, and ally training operations. Each of these missions can clearly be sub-divided into a variety of more specific ones; but for the sake of simplicity, I've left them in these broader categories.

As for the percieved redundancy within SOCOM. In recent years there has been overlap between the missions each service has conducted. We've seen SEALs deployed to Afghanistan, far away from the salt water we usually associate them with. However, simply because we aren't currently heavily using a specific force or set of skills does not mean we should disband it or let it atrophy.

For example, even though we aren't hemorrhaging aircraft like we did in Vietnam does not mean we should abolish the USAF's Pararescue forces. A day might come when we will be called upon to rescue downed aircrews in combat situations, and the US military cannot be scrambling around to improvise a force.

 

[justone]

What exactly, is the role of the special forces, of a military? The Seals, may be able to combat terrorism, and so too, the Ranger's, and the Green Berets. But, what role do they fit in the army, if no covert operations were to be undertaken? The Pentagon, will never send the special forces into battle, except as a last resort, and then, it will be too late, for them to make a difference. The Special Forces are supposed to perhaps limit the attrition suffered, in a circumstance, which is unexpected. Also, why does the United States have so many wings of Special Forces? Perhaps, it is a case of overkill. I would prefer, that there be no need for the special forces in the Indian Army. Every soldier should meet the requirements of the special forces, and the military should challenge itself, so that this is the situation.

The role of Special Forces is train and gather information or specialize in a certain field. The Special Forces was sent into Afghanistan first after 9/11 to overthrow the Taliban. That plan worked with limited casualities to U.S. forces. If there is no covert operations they still have thing to do like train other armies. Each wing have it purpose like Rangers are highly skill infantrymen. Airborne are soldiers who learn how jump out planes and helicopter. To get into the Special Forces you must complete Ranger school, Airborne school, and Infantry school. Everybody cant handle the requirement to get in the Special Forces. Indian Army needs Special Forces especially in the mountian area in the north. Special Forces when use the right way is very valuable asset to any military. The greatest armies in world has some kind of special units. Thoughtout history you will see good army had this.

 

[A.Mookerjee]

In my opinion, counter-terrorism activities should not be the work of the military. For example, if there is a hostage situation in New York, will one call in the military, because the hostage takers are the Taliban? What if the hostage takers, are not well trained, will you air-lift the special forces? There was a terrorist act in Mumbai. The units asked to fight the terrorists were not from the regular army, though they were commando's. An army commando should be a paratrooper. To tell the truth, I would never want to use paratroopers, because in all paratroop drops, the paratroopers are not in an advantage.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

In my opinion, counter-terrorism activities should not be the work of the military. For example, if there is a hostage situation in New York, will one call in the military, because the hostage takers are the Taliban? What if the hostage takers, are not well trained, will you air-lift the special forces? There was a terrorist act in Mumbai. The units asked to fight the terrorists were not from the regular army, though they were commando's. An army commando should be a paratrooper. To tell the truth, I would never want to use paratroopers, because in all paratroop drops, the paratroopers are not in an advantage.

Mookerjee, I don't really see the point in your statement that counter-terrorist forces should be non-military. There are a wide range of counter-terror operations which do not fit within civilian jurisdiction, capability, or means. This is the reason units like DEVGRU/ST6, SOF-D, the USMC's FAST, SASR, and the SAS Special Projects team(s) exist.

Civilian units like GSG 9, SWAT, the FBI's HRT, etc exists for similar reasons. The greater range of units allows for specialization, which in turn allows for greater proficiency in their core mission. Civilian law enforcement and military special operations can be and usually are, very, very different

Force structure, geography, and availability all shape what units are used when. Because the US has a wider range of well-trained civilian SWAT/special tactics teams than most nations, a domestic hostage situation or terror attack would probably be resolved by the FBI's HRT, or local SWAT, rather than by a SOCOM unit. IIRC, the US Constitution places some restrictions on the use of military forces on US soil in time of peace.

As for paratroopers...You do realize that it's very unlikely a "paratrooper drop" would ever be a part of a traditional urban hostage scenario like the ones you mention in you post. In that case fast-roping or breaching would probably be the likely means of insertion. That doesn't even mention the fact that regular airborne or light infantry are probably not the best force for dealing with a specialized task like a hostage situation.

However, opposed (non/semi--urban) hostage rescue operations have been successfully undertaken by airborne forces, most notably in this example. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kolwezi"]Battle of Kolwezi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Mortier2.jpg" class="image" title="Mortar in action"><img alt="Mortar in action" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Mortier2.jpg/200px-Mortier2.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/e/e7/Mortier2.jpg/200px-Mortier2.jpg[/ame]

 

[Marc 1]

In my opinion, counter-terrorism activities should not be the work of the military. .

Depends what you mean by anti-terrorist doesn't it? We are fighting terrorists in Afghanistan - are you suggesting sending police armed with a batton, a pair of handcuffs, a 9mm pistol and a singlet to take on the Taleban armed with IED's and RPG's? Who would you suggest handles the following terrorist situations and why:

1. Obviously - the ground war in Afghanistan.

2. A threat such as the Iranian embassy situation or the Hotels in Mumbai?

For example, if there is a hostage situation in New York, will one call in the military, because the hostage takers are the Taliban?.

Why not? It depends on the threat and if innocent civillians are involved - why not provide the best protection? If you don't you get the debacle we saw in the Phillipines with that policeman holding hostage a bus full of chinese nationals. The only remarkable thing about that clusterfuck was that more people didn't get killed. The forced entry of the front door was so slow a quadruplegic granny terrorist could have pulled herself down the isle by her eyelids and bitten every passenger before being stopped.

What if the hostage takers, are not well trained, will you air-lift the special forces?.

Again, why not use your best regardless? Perhaps if you are talking a kid high on cocaine holding a nail file to someone else's neck the local police/hostage negotiation team could and should handle it, but any scenario involving automatic weapons, hostages, or significant buildings should be the guys that train for and practice this suff all the time the counter terrorism team..

There was a terrorist act in Mumbai. The units asked to fight the terrorists were not from the regular army, though they were commando's..

Perhaps you have misunderstood when we say special forces. In Australia, the UK and doubtless elsewhere on the planet there is a subset of our special forces that set aside their normal duties such as reconnaisance, demolitions, long range sniping and interdiction behind enemy lines and become the CT team on call. In Australia, it's a Squadron of SAS on the west coast called TAG West and on the East coast a Company (I think) of Commando's - TAG East. For the period they are given this responsibility, they finely hone all the necessary skills to be the best force possible for a situation like the Hotel situation in Mumbai. They spend a period of time being on call, then the responsibility rotates to another Squadron/company that have been training up for the role. They even carry different weapons better suited to dropping a target at close range or flash bangs designed to blind and disorientate. The Commando's that responded would have been using whatever MOUT (FIBUA) techniques they had been taught and with weapons not particularly suited to entering a smoke filled room and dropping a terrorist in the midst of a crowd of innocents. Their training weapons and techniques were not optimised for the situation, although I'd hazard a guess they would be better than the police with Lee Enfields taking cover outside.

An army commando should be a paratrooper..

Why?

To tell the truth, I would never want to use paratroopers, because in all paratroop drops, the paratroopers are not in an advantage.

So, you never want to use your commando's? Why bother training them as paratroopers? Parachuting has come a long way for the SF guys than just dangling under a round canopy like birdpoop. Google HAHO, HALO, Wingsuits. Also consider it's just a means of inserting your troops - they should never be dropped on top of a defended position if it can be avoided. Helicopters landing will tell the enemy you have arrived. A stick of SAS blokes dropping from 20-30 thousand feet HALO style will be just about undetectable. Then a final stealthy approach on foot and voila, your SF are at the objective causing mayhem. Then they can be extracted by chopper.


Incidentally, the Philippine government has admitted that the lack of a CT team being present was a blunder - and they will raise one now. (and yet they have a separatist terrorist movement active in the south... Makes you wonder doesn't it?)

 

[riksavage]

As asymmetrical warfare continues to spread and we see borderless terrorist cells further exploit liberal western societies weaknesses and infiltrate increasingly large numbers of sleeper cells through legal, illegal immigration and local recruitment there will be a role to play for both military and police special force units.

IMHO (subject to available budgets), domestic terrorism is better dealt with through the use of Police SF units, thus leaving the military to focus on oversees operations. The reason being in western societies due to the rule of law any action must focus on not only preserving the crime scene but also (if practical) allow the assualters to use their arrest powers, rather than simply eliminate the threat completely. The modern media can be at the scene of a terrorist incident before the dedicated response unit, which means all activity outside the outer cordon (if in place), will come under scrutiny. This coupled with endless so called 'eyewitness' statements and the inevitable conspiracy theorists means the domestic counter-terrorist team must be trained not only in urban combat, but also the prevailing law, powers of arrest, detention and rules of engagement to a much higher level than a tier one military asset HALO'ing over some remote North African plain with a cart-blanche to kill all in his path. The recent Manila fiasco was a prime example of how not to conduct an operation in an urban environment under the scrutiny of the media.

If you look at units like GSG9, they arose out of the need to form a nonmilitary unit capable of mitigating domestic terrorism. WWII sensitivities meant that the unit had to come from the border guard (hence the number 9, the other 8 being normal border guard units) and they were not allowed to wear black (still wear dark green today, other border guard units wear a slightly lighter shade) due to SS connotations.

Most western societies have para-military police units to compliment the more traditional military ones - France: GIGN & RAID, US: HRT. Moving forward I can see such units deploying overseas more often in areas that cross the line between a police and/or military action. East Temor was a prime example, the fact that the Portuguese were able to deploy police para-military units with a CT capabilities brought much to the table - they earned a fearsome reputation for dealing with stone throwing crowds.