If You Want to Keep War Irregular and ‘Over There’ — Who You Gonna Call?

It’s been almost a quarter-century since the United States last fought a conventional war. That was when we invaded Iraq in 2003.

Since then, American military operations have been dominated by “low-intensity conflict” (LIC), which is “political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states.” LIC more often than not involves “irregular warfare,” which is “a violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant populations.” (This excludes aircraft and drone strikes, which this millennium the US has conducted well over 14,000 times.)

Which units engage in such operations? Army Green Berets, Delta Force, and Rangers; Navy SEALs; MARSOC (Marine Corps Special Operations Command); Air Force Pararescue Jumpers; and several others, totaling about 70,000 personnel.

So when the DoD officials who command these Special Operations Forces (SOF) — the ones tasked with engaging in LIC — testify before Congress, we should take note.

On April 8, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Colby Jenkins (civilian head of Special Ops) and General Bryan P. Fenton (commander of US Special Operations Command, or USSOCOM) testified before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. They provided a 17-page written statement to accompany their oral testimony.

Here are the main takeaways.

Their Major Points

• SOF had 5,000 personnel cut in the last year of the Biden administration, despite a 200% increase in missions in the last three years; they’re now trying to restaff.
• Currently, about 7,000 SOF personnel are deployed in over 80 countries.
• Three main missions are deterring Great Power conflict, counterterrorism, and crisis response.
  • Deterrence means “to win without fighting conventional war,” so SOF works with South Korea, Japan, and other southeast Asian countries to deter China; it also is involved in preventing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from proliferating.
  • Counterterrorism currently encompasses direct engagement with groups like ISIS, al-Qa`ida, al-Shabab and the Houthis overseas; and indirect (so far) operations, supporting Homeland Security and other agencies, against Mexican and South American drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations.
  • Crisis response has included the likes of hostage rescue and embassy security.
• USSOCOM is investing in AI as “the big bet and principal to the success of future warfighting.”
• Countering “VEOs” (Violent Extremist Organizations) is a key SOF mission.
• SOF is also finding ways to field cheaper anti-drone systems. “Million-dollar missiles cannot be used to shoot down thousand-dollar drones,” they said, as we’ve been doing in Yemen.
• This year, a Space Force Special Operations Command was set up.
• SOF do all this “for less than 2% of the DoD budget and 3% of its force.”

Mostly a Senatorial Lovefest

The open testimony was mostly uneventful and friendly, with both Republicans and Democrats strongly supporting Jenkins and Fenton. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) chaired the meeting. Ranking Member Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) asked penetrating and informed questions — as would be expected of a former CIA analyst. Specifically, she pressed Jenkins on whether the terrorist label for the Mexican cartels gave SOF carte blanche to use lethal force against them.

He replied with a firm “no,” stating that USSOCOM was currently limited to providing intelligence to other government agencies. She also asked about Taiwan vis-à-vis China, but was told that answer could only be provided in the closed session.

Senator Ted Budd (R-NC) inquired about the situation in Ukraine. Fenton pointed out that since Russia enjoyed overwhelming conventional warfare superiority, Ukraine had had to resort to unconventional means — but, once again, said he could only reveal details in closed session. Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) asked about specific examples of countering China, and Jenkins responded that SOF had been instrumental in reducing Beijing’s influence in South America.

The only discordant note in this otherwise cordial hearing came from Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), whose initial reasonable question about information operations (IO) — what we used to call “propaganda” — turned into attacks on the Trump administration for firing the head of the National Security Agency and Cyber Command, General Timothy Haugh, and gutting the Voice of America budget. Jenkins and Fenton wisely sidestepped that political hot potato.

The Untouched Elephant in the Room

One problematic issue the senators didn’t touch was legislation passed in late 2023, titled “Support of special operations for irregular warfare” (10 USC §127d).

It states that

the Secretary of Defense may…expend up to $20,000,000 during any fiscal year to provide support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups or individuals engaged in supporting or facilitating ongoing and authorized irregular warfare operations by United States Special Operations Forces.

This made it easier to provide quick funds, in particular, to Ukraine. But as one expert has warned, this authority might well “be used in a similar fashion to conduct kinetic operations against Russia, China, Iran, or their proxies with virtually no congressional oversight and precisely zero public transparency or debate.”

The CIA and its ilk have been engaging in enough black missions. Do we really want SOF enabled to go and do likewise?

I worked for over five years as an analyst at USSOCOM. I know firsthand the immense value of our SOF warfighters. They have been the tip of the American spear for most of this millennium, and barring a major conflagration in, say, Taiwan, will remain so for the foreseeable future.

USSOCOM’s budget should certainly be more than its current $14 billion. President Donald Trump has proposed spending $1 trillion on defense next year, a 14% increase. Surely we can find more funding for the snake-eaters in that massive tranche, which is more than the next nine countries spend, combined. (How about we bring home some of the 60,000 troops we have in Europe?)

As the Statement for the Record points out, “SOF provide an outsized return on investment to the nation. With all due respect to our brave military volunteers in tanks, aircraft, and on ships — when terrorists come calling, who you gonna call?

Timothy Furnish has a PhD from Ohio State in Islamic, World & African history. He’s been an Arabic interrogator in the 101st Airborne, a US Special Operations Command analyst, an author and professor. Furnish is the military/security affairs writer for The Stream.