Ending the Debate: Unconventional Warfare, Foreign Internal Defense, and Why Words Matter
Abstract
There is an ongoing debate within the Special Forces community whether unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are applicable in the contemporary and future Special Operations environments, based on current doctrinal definitions and operational concepts. For unconventional warfare, the debate surrounds its current broad and confusing definition and whether it can be an overarching term for efforts against nonstate actors in the Global War on Terrorism. The foreign internal defense debate is not over definitions, but responsibilities, as the conventional military begins to play a larger role in foreign internal defense, a legacy Special Forces mission. This thesis argues that unconventional warfare needs a clear and concise definition, such as "operations by a state or nonstate actor to support an insurgency aimed at the overthrow of a government or occupying power," that unconventional warfare should not be "transformed" to fight global insurgency; that there is an identifiable relationship between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense called the "transition point" signifying the change from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense, and that this relationship can be modeled; that operational preparation of the environment is not unconventional warfare, but an emerging operation requiring its own doctrine; and that unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, and operational preparation of the environment will be the dominant Special Forces missions in the Global War on Terrorism.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Jun 01, 2006
- Accession Number
- ADA451259
Entities
People
- Daniel R. Jones
Organizations
- United States Army Command and General Staff College