The Myth of Special Operations Forces’ Supremacy, a Reality Check on War Strategies

?

The Myth of Special Operations Forces’ Supremacy, a Reality Check on War Strategies

Introduction

Special Operations Forces (SOF) are undoubtedly an integral part of contemporary military strategy, with their unconventional approaches, adaptability, and prowess in irregular warfare (IW). However, the belief that SOF's application of IW can singularly determine outcomes in large-scale combat operations (LSCO) is potentially misguided. This essay aims to debunk the myth of SOF supremacy in this context and emphasize the central role of conventional army forces in winning wars and determining strategic paths.

SOF is Exceptional, but not Absolute.

Special Operations Forces are esteemed for their capability to function effectively within volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environments. Their mastery in IW—encompassing activities such as counter-terrorism, counterinsurgency, unconventional warfare, and more—can disrupt adversary systems, generate significant psychological impacts, and shape the battlefield. However, despite their exceptional capabilities, believing that SOF alone can prevail in LSCO misconstrues the fundamental nature of warfare and the roles of different military components.

Limited Capacity and Specialization

Firstly, the relatively smaller size of SOF units limits their capacity to sustain large-scale operations independently. Their unique training, expertise, and structure are designed for specific, specialized missions, not the extensive and diverse tasks that characterize LSCO. For instance, in LSCO, the army is responsible for numerous simultaneous missions, including maintaining large swaths of territory, controlling populations, and coordinating vast logistical operations—tasks outside of SOF's purview.

Dependence on Conventional Forces

Moreover, SOF units often operate under the cover and support provided by larger, conventional forces. Whether it's artillery support, transportation, resupply, or casualty evacuation, the success of SOF missions is deeply intertwined with conventional army capabilities. Thus, suggesting that SOF's use of IW alone can triumph in LSCO overlooks the critical operational synergy between SOF and conventional forces.

The Conventional Army is The Core of War Strategies

Fundamentally, LSCO falls within the primary purview of the conventional army. Not only do they provide the manpower necessary to engage in such operations, but they also provide the strategic direction. Large-scale operations require strategic depth, operational resilience, and logistical robustness, attributes embodied by the conventional army.

Moreover, the strategic path in LSCO isn't simply determined by tactical victories but by a complex interplay of political, economic, and social factors. Conventional forces, with their multifaceted structure and broader mandate, are equipped to address these complexities. They formulate and execute strategies that incorporate all elements of national power, maintaining a holistic approach to warfare that goes beyond the battlefield.

Conclusion

While Special Operations Forces bring a unique set of capabilities to the table, their prowess in irregular warfare doesn't make them a panacea for LSCO. The conventional army, with its scale, strategic breadth, and integration with national objectives, remains pivotal in winning wars and deciding strategies. Recognizing this interdependence and leveraging each component's strengths will lead to a more balanced, effective, and comprehensive approach to modern warfare. It is essential to appreciate that the harmonious interplay between different military elements, not the supremacy of one, ultimately determines success in the diverse and complex theater of war.