The Foreign Service Journal, June 2017

26 JUNE 2017 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL be to embrace the indirect activities of U.S. special operations forces. Both sides need to recognize the importance of coordi- nating and deconflicting their respective activi- ties. Our special opera- tions leadership is keenly aware that, as one recent State POLAD to SOCOM put it, they “could be whacking moles from now to eternity if we don’t address the root causes and fertile ground from which violent extremism emerges”—and that there can be little progress in this effort without State and USAID. This is why SOF leaders are among the most compel- ling advocates for State and USAID appropriations. Given that the SOF budget is likely to far outstrip civilian agencies’ funding under the current administration, however, there can be little doubt that developmental and humanitarian projects by special operations units will take on greater prominence as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. Special Operations: Wave of the Future? At a time when the most pressing danger to U.S. national security comes from international terrorism and asymmetric threats from extremist networks spread across multiple countries—and when so much of our diplomacy revolves around building coalitions to combat these threats—special operations will inevitably have an increasingly central role in U.S. foreign policy. SOF have the primary mission of countering terrorism and violent extremism, as well as preventing the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. And this places it front and center in so much of what our diplomats are doing these days. Furthermore, foreign govern- ments place enormous value on the assistance that elite U.S. special operators can provide in countering these threats. The offer of U.S. SOF support has frequently become a “deliverable” in negotiations with allies and even adversaries; in some instances, it is the most valuable asset we can offer. By contrast with the conventional military, SOF often function in a dimension that shadows traditional diplomacy and provides additional By contrast with the conventional military, SOF often function in a dimension that shadows traditional diplomacy. options for dealing with thorny problems. General Joseph Votel, who served as SOCOM commander from 2014 to 2016, set forth this thinking in a January 2016 essay in JFQ: Joint Force Quarterly , “Unconventiona l Warfare in the Gray Zone.” Gen. Votel articulates the role of SOF this way: “While ‘Gray Zone’ refers to a space in the peace-conflict continuum, the methods for engaging our adversaries in that environment have much in common with the political warfare that was predominant during the Cold War years. Political warfare is played out in that space between diplo- macy and open warfare, where traditional statecraft is inadequate or ineffective and large-scale conventional military options are not suitable or are deemed inappropriate for a variety of reasons. … SOF are optimized to provide the pre-eminent military contri- bution to a national political warfare capability because of their inherent proficiency in low-visibility, small-footprint and politi- cally sensitive operations. SOF provide national decision-makers strategic options for protecting and advancing U.S. national inter- ests without committing major combat forces to costly, long-term contingency operations.” A U.S. Special Forces soldier distributes toothbrushes to a group of children as part of a public health campaign. U.S.DEPARTMENTOFDEFENSE