NY Times is out with a new article, In Ukraine, US Veterans Step In Where the Military Will Not, touting the magical powers of veterans of U.S. Special Operations units signing up to go train Ukrainians and help turn the tide of the war. I am not discounting their bravery and skill, but U.S. Special Operations forces have little role to play in the conventional war unfolding in Ukraine. They lack the equipment and, frankly, the knowledge required to deal with the kind of ground combat underway. Let me explain.
The average person, American and otherwise, use the term “Special Forces” interchangeably with “Special Operations Forces”. That is a mistake. Special Forces, in U.S. military parlance, refers to Green Berets.
The Green Berets are geared towards nine doctrinal missions: unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, direct action, counterinsurgency, special reconnaissance, counterterrorism, information operations, counterproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and security force assistance. The unit emphasizes language, cultural, and training skills in working with foreign troops; recruits are required to learn a foreign language as part of their training and must maintain knowledge of the political, economic and cultural complexities of the regions in which they are deployed.
The qualification process to become a Green Beret is rigorous and most who apply fail to pass. That is why it is called “Special”. The distinguishing feature of Special Forces is that they are like lethal Peace Corps volunteers in terms of their mindset–they are supposed to be fluent in at least one language and they see their mission as working with foreigners to train and equip them to operate as guerrilla fighters.
Then you have your Army Rangers. Also an elite branch that puts aspiring recruits through a grueling qualification course. Rangers are not inculcated with the priority of “going native”, i.e., learning the culture and habits of a foreign people and trying to fit it. That is a Green Beret approach.
In a broader and less formal sense, the term “ranger” has been used, officially and unofficially, in North America since the 17th century, to describe light infantry in small, independent units—usually companies. The first units to be officially designated Rangers were companies recruited in the colonies of New England by the British Army, to fight in King Philip’s War (1676). Following that time, the term became more common in official usage, during the French and Indian Wars of the 18th century. The US military has had “Ranger” companies since the American Revolution. British units later called “Rangers” have often also had historical links of some kind to British North America.
A Ranger is not automatically a Green Beret and vice versa. However, some inspired men end up getting both qualifications. One of the current Ranger specialties is taking and seizing an airfield. I have witnessed that first hand. Quite impressive.
Special Operations is a completely different cat from Green Berets and Rangers. On the U.S. Army side of the house you have the most “famous” Special Operations unit, Delta Force. Just because you have a Green Beret tab or a Ranger tab does not automatically qualify you to join Delta. That is a whole other level of qualification. Most Green Berets and Rangers who try to qualify for Delta usually wash out. This does not mean they are weak or bad soldiers. They simply lack the skill set that Delta requires.
But Special Operations extends beyond just the Army. The Navy has its Special Operations forces too. Perhaps you have heard of them–the SEALS. Getting into the SEAL community is no cake walk either. You can pull up a Youtube video showing hell week during BUDS training to get an idea of what has made SEALS “special”.
Air Force has its own collection of “special operators” (Wikipedia offers a great overview of the various units in all services). The Marines were late to the game. They always believed they were special and relished the memory of having to rescue a squad of besieged SEALS on Grenada in 1983. Nonetheless, the Marines wanted in on the Special Ops game and established MARSOC on 25 November 2005:
The potential participation of the Marine Corps in SOCOM has been controversial since SOCOM was formed in 1986.[7] At the time, Marine Corps leaders felt that their Force Reconnaissance (FORECON) units were best kept in the Marine Corps’ Marine Air-Ground Task Force command structure and that the detachment of an elite Marine special operations unit would be to the detriment of the Marine Corps as a whole. A re-evaluation following the September 11 attacks and the Global War on Terrorism, along with new policy established by Secretary Rumsfeld and Commandant General James L. Jones at The Pentagon, caused the Marine Corps to work towards integration with SOCOM. The establishment of MARSOC represented the most significant step towards that goal and followed the establishment of Detachment One (Det One), a small Marine Corps detachment formed as a pilot program to test Marine Corps integration into SOCOM. It was made up of mostly Marines from 1st and 2nd Force Reconnaissance Batalions along with other hand-picked support men and served with Navy SEALs under Naval Special Warfare Group One.
Here is the problem with Special Operations forces–they do not have armor and crew served weapons. Yeah, they are smart guys and can learn quickly (because they are intelligent and resourceful) how to operate such systems, but those particular weapons are not part of their order of battle. If you want to raid Bin Laden’s hide out in Pakistan, you call on Special Operations forces (it was a choice between Delta and Seal Team Six and Admiral Bill McRaven, who was a SEAL, gave the mission to his guys). They are flown to the target by Army Air Special Operations units.
But these guys (yes, the vast majority are men) are not trained to operate in a conventional ground war. I was struck particularly by the crap presented in the opening paragraphs of the New York Times piece:
A democracy came under attack. The United States saw a threat to an ally and also to the entire world order, but it feared that sending troops could spark a nuclear war. So, instead, it supplied weapons. And a small number of American Special Operations trainers started quietly working with the local military.
That was the situation in South Vietnam in 1961, a few years before full-blown U.S. military involvement, when the American presence was limited to a “military advisory group.”
It is also the situation in Ukraine today. As a bloody conflict churns on, small teams of American Special Operations veterans are training Ukrainian soldiers near the front lines and, in some cases, helping to plan combat missions.
For starters, there were NO Special Operations forces in Vietnam. There were Green Berets. And there were no SEALS, at least as we know them now. The SEALS of that era began with UDT, who acted as advisors from 63-66. SEALs (from the only two teams that existed – 1 & 2) began combat deployment there in earnest in 66. At that point, UDT took a back seat. Both the Army Green Beret and the UDT bubbas were great at training guerrillas and promoting insurgency. That is their skill set. They know how to plan an ambush or launch a kill capture raid. But they are not skilled in sketching out fields of fire for artillery nor are they up to snuff on organizing and launching an attack by a tank battalion.
I pray that Perry Blackburn Jr., the retired “Special Ops” vet headed to Ukraine comes to his senses and stays in Tampa. The harsh reality is this–the United States does not have living veteran that understands and has experienced orgainizing attacks by a tank battalion. Those guys, the ones who served under General Patton, are either dead or way too old to get back into the fight. This nonsensical piece in the NY Times is but one more example of a reporter’s ignorance about the current state and operation of our military. More importantly, he does not have a damn clue about what is happening on the ground in Ukraine. A Special Ops ambush is not going to save the day.
Excellent run down on the different military branches. Too bad the NYT has no access to Wikipedia…
Too bad the NYT editors don’t have the common sense and basic civic courage to publish Larry Johnson’s military analyses.
There was a time they published my opeds. New management and I don’t fit with their narrative.
I have met some guys who fought their tank battalions in Gulf War 1. They should be able to give their limited experience to people. If anyone bothered to ask.
Except, Iraq was a third rate army. Not a peer at all and completely outgunned. Still, those guys are better equipped to advise Ukraine armor forces than the Spec Ops bubbas.
Sincerely not trying to offend anyone and hope I’m not, but neither SF nor SOF have ever won a war. It’s challenging – to me at least – to point to anything they’ve ever done that could even be considered decisive to the outcome of a major conflict. SF trains indigenous people, often behind enemy lines, and SOF tend to be something one could consider akin to the military version of a police SWAT team (think about rescuing hostages, taking out a terrorist cell, shooting pirates on the high seas or Bin Laden in his PJs; all good stuff, but not war winning). It’s the regular forces that win wars.
People like those at the NY Times have no clue. They imagine a small team of super hero Rambos accomplishing the impossible against enemy forces 100s of times their size. Too much Hollywood. Whereas, in reality, these guys bleed red blood and often do. They also experience all of the usual screw-ups, crashing helos, dropping gear (and men) in the ocean when the LZ is actually inland, etc., etc .
The true Lone Survivor story/Murphy MoH illustrates. A four man SEAL team compromised themselves by noisily lumbering around the mountains of Afghanistan (it wasn’t the goat herders that gave them away) on an ill planned mission to assassinate a small time local bandito leader. Instead of exfil when clearly compromised, the team took up a poorly chosen position (low ground, only way out was the way in) in an attempt to continue the mission. They were ambushed by 9 or 10 Taliban and nearly wiped out except for the “lone survivor”. The book and movie – aka “hollywood” – make it out that the team was attacked by hundreds of enemy. The official AAR says “up to” 35 Taliban (so that number can be reduced to what other sources state and/or show; 9 or 10 Taliban). Point not being to demean brave men, just that they have feet of clay like everyone else and they cannot win a battle on their own, let alone a war.
i see you get your information from the US marines who ran the Red Wings operation or from Ed Darrack the writer who focus on that ops.. Yes the Lone Survivor book was garbage fiction , the SEALs are trapped in low ground with estimated taliban ambushers less than a dozen but armed with heavy weapons and rockets.
the so called ‘lone survivor’ never fired his rifle during the contact and fled immediately. The rescuer found out all his ammo still intact on his webbelt.
but for the sake of potraying super soldier SEAL to clueless american public , we saw the media circus and lies propagated by the book and the movie.. Incredible how naive and stupid most american public when it come to dissecting truth and propaganda in the movies , it is like most american public are programmed to salute everything in uniform and put them on pedestal to be worshiped..
Several sources and confirmation coming from those you mention + Gularb, the Afghan elder that took in and protected the surviving SEAL, under traditional Pashtunwali. He has spoken out in recent years.
Again, I don’t feel totally ok presenting a perspective that could be seen as smearing brave, dedicated and capable men. SF and SoF deserve respect and they often accomplish extremely challenging missions. That said, they screw up too, like all humans and military. And, as Larry has already said, winning major battles (let alone wars) is not in their mission set or capabilities.
Larry, on an unrelated note. How effective are switchblade drones against armor and artillery?
They seem kind of small to be able to much damage to a tank.
for what i gather on the info in telegram , the switchblade drones are too small , too short ranged and carry less than useful ordnance against even armored carrier let alone against tanks. Unlike China’s loitering drone with bigger ordnance that can kill tanks from top down attack profile.
Yes looking into them I cannot see them doing much damage to a tank especially one with reactive armor. I see stupid videos of them hitting tanks claiming that they can completely destroy the tank, which I though was a ludicrous.
However I am willing to bet than can wreak hell on an automobile, and SUV or even truck, which I think we will start seeing as the Ukies are selling these things on the Dark Web for about $4000.
Also available and listed “In Stock” by numerous Dark Web selling sites are M-4 packages, with suppressor, holographic sight and ten full magazines for $2400.
Not that they made any more of a difference than the “Special Oops” (see “Iranian Hostage Rescue,” etc) of our other service branches, but we U.S. Navy “advisers” to the Mekong Delta’s “Brown Water Navy” had both SEAL and UDT detachments at Solid Anchor where I spent over a year from November of 1970 through the end of January 1972 — precisely where the Asshole of the Universe meets The Bottom of the Barrel.
SEAL/MST OPERATIONS FROM SEA FLOAT/SOLID ANCHOR IN 1970
Anyway, a relevant excerpt, just for the record:
I could tell stories . . .
Always welcome. Did you know Larry Bailey? Stan Humphries? Paul Evancoe?
i remember marcinko got in hotwaters with larry bailey after falsely potraying him as coward during marcinko first mission.. marcinko changed his description of the scene later (removing larry bailey’s name)
nor withstanding the numerous SEAL books from vietnam era , i found that the SEALs deployed on vietnam (ST1 & 2 and other advisers) seem like a more ‘innocent’ kind of SEAL (innocent in relation to not making up too much for their books)..
while today’s SEALs who entered the book industry seem to be content blowing smoke puffing their way into stardom.. lone survivor and american sniper are both the most famous and the worst liars ever visit fragil american mind that it seem both books are made with approval from pentagon propaganda dept to shore up the myth of SEAL and US commandos as super soldiers..
That’s very interesting, thank you.
It is really vital that Russia wins this proxy war by achieving all the objectives it has set for itself, to shatter once and for all the myth of American invincibility.
Indeed, after the disaster of Afghanistan, outside observers are only waiting for one thing, the confirmation of the irreversible decline of the United States, not because of a hatred towards the brave American people (I mean the conservatives), but because the world has become more unfair and less secure in the last 30 years, behind the American leadership.
The rebalancing of forces between North and South, and East and West, has become the most defining issue of the times in which we live.
Today’s potrayal of ‘special forces / SOCOM’ go beyond even the normally boastfull military propaganda. They are potrayed as supermen / supersoldiers that invincible against any enemy , no matter their only opponents so far are insurgents / non peer soldiers.. Alas there’s many incident concerning failure / over dependance of ‘special’ forces recorded in public information repository (and i believe many more loss on covert side like that 2 stars on CIA wall)
The famous Bravo2zero , brit SAS unit who got compromised , hunted and captured by ordinary iraqi soldiers.. Thats what happens to any special forces caught behind enemy lines without support. The SAS Scud hunt team (using their landrover mobility troops) fares better due to constant supply and air support but even then they still took losses when facing iraqi soldiers on BMPs / armor.
The Patilla SEAL disaster , where a SEAL assault team (i believe ST4 under commodore Sandoz) got slaughtered in open airfield by panamanian guarding noriega’s private learjet. This because they lost comms with the orbiting AC130 who should give them firepower advantage..
The dead green berets and other operatives in Mali when their convoy was intercepted by islamic fighters on motorcycles. Outnumbered they still fought on even when they still have means to escape , slowly the enemy numerical superiority won the battle..
Those hyped SOG operations on laos , when the NVA caught on how they operate , they infiltrate all possible LZ and use their ‘tiger team’ to hunt SOG teams. NVA become so effective it is not unknown for a team who just landed to be destroyed in shortime or their helicopter RPG-ed before disbarking.
and remember these ‘special’ forces need a massive support behind them otherwise they just light infantry
there’s so many historical example of failed Special operations that it borderline insane for public to still worship them as super soldiers
I think you forgot to mention the underlying reason for sending “trainers” to Ukraine – as is always the case in US funded wars / rackets – to funnel funds to security contractors and retired military personnel. That’s where a good part of the $60 billion go. These guys get paid six figure sums for a short deployment with little personal risk.
The skills they “teach” Ukranians are not something that Ukraine is incapable of having on its own. In fact, I am fairly confident Ukraine has had special forces since the days of the Soviet Union. It’s not a third world country in terms of military that needs guidance from American saviors, and as you mentioned, those skills are probably useless given the entirely different operational situation on the battlefield than what these special forces are used to (i.e. third rate militaries and militias).
There ain’t no QRF in Ukraine.
Special forces are not special in Ukraine.
If you believe in the war, Ukraine needs logistics and training on newly supplied equipment. Truck drivers are a bigger force multiplier than ex-Rangers, Berets, Seals …
There are situations where special units are a force multiplier but this aint it.
Special ops were effective coordinating air strikes against ISIS and the Ranger operation in Pointe du Huc, Normandy were good examples of using their talents effectively.
Re: “Here is the problem with Special Operations forces–they do not have armor and crew served weapons.”
Larry, do they not have even machine guns and mortars, which are usually served by two man crews?
They’ll have a SAW (i.e., Squad Automatic Weapon) or a 240. But they don’t normally carry a 50 cal machine gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M240_machine_gun).
What is the purpose of the Green Berets? To interfere in a place where the US shouldn’t be?
Ike wanted to get rid of the Marines. For good reason. But even the Supreme Allied Commander couldn’t get his way with that. So we’re stuck with them.
You and Ike got it backwards. I always thought that if you want to minimize major foreign military adventures the Army should be eliminated and the Marines kept. Someone needs to protect the Navy and we do need a Navy.
David Halberstam’s “The Best and the Brightest” shows that Ike was right. Vietnam was a disaster caused by the refusal to respect the Vietnamese as human beings. Then, the Army got sidelined by the Navy and Airforce because it is the latter who demanded carriers and jets to bomb Hanoi back to the stone age despite the fact that Hanoi was in the stone age and did not really care much. The Navy and Airforce are kept so that money keeps flowing to everyone in the loop i.e. carriers and jets and all that. In the end, it is the Army – the traditional one – that has to do the work.
Green Berets are imbeded teachers.
:A democracy came under attack. The United States saw a threat to an ally and also to the entire world order, but it feared that sending troops could spark a nuclear war. So, instead, it supplied weapons. And a small number of American Special Operations trainers started quietly working with the local military.
That was the situation in South Vietnam in 1961″
That makes me feel so much better, comparing Ukraine to Vietnam. How’d that turn out for the Americans?
Also: neither the RVA nor Ukraine were democracies. Regardless what kind of US operatives were in S. Vietnam, we shouldn’t have been there.
“The United States supported a military government in the South and the decision of its leader, Ngo Dinh Diem, to prevent free elections, which might result in the unification of the country under the control of the Communists.”
That the US took over after the damn French got their colonial asses kicked out makes me want to puke. We should be a friend to liberty everywhere.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/vietnam
Certainly Special Units could have a role in Ukraine. Go back and look at the First Special Service Force in WWII and the OSS in WWII. Employed at the Strategic and Operational level they can be very useful.
In Ukraine, solo operations are a waste. Yes SF and Rangers are incredibly well trained infantry forces. History shows us though that in urban settings tanks need infantry to protect them from the close in battle. In wide open settings, infantry needs tanks to protect them. The notion that all of the branches are equals is dumb at best. Different missions and different terrain demands that one is the lead and the others are support.
Could special units be useful in Ukraine right now?
Could forces operate in the rear and disrupt C2, logistics and such? Probably not because they have no way to deliver them.
Could forces train the locals to take on and disrupt the Russians? Probably not because the area they are fighting in has been victims of the Ukrainians for a long time.
The problem with volunteer special folks right now is that the biggest skill they bring to the fight is being a very good infantryman. This isn’t an infantry war.
I doubt if the general staff of Ukraine has any idea of how to use organized special units.
The issue here is that they have no opportunity to do what they are good at.
1. call in airstrikes? – nope. The U.S. is not doing airstrikes against Russia.
2. Work deep behind Russian lines to disrupt supplies and organize locals? – nope. They do not have any logistical support from the U.S. do do that.
They are just volunteers fighting along side Ukrainians. They will face all of the problems that Ukrainians are having, lack of artillery shells while Russian artillery rains down on them.
They are skilled soldiers but are handicapped by the situation.
They definitely can provide expert reporting from the ground.
Special Forces are nothing new.
They have been around for a very long time (Sun Tzu is recorded to have mentioned them in dispatches to Henry Kissinger about 5th century BC).
They will also be around long after we have gone and used in the future wars to come (even if they are fought with sticks and stones).
There is a good reason for this.
It is due to their Importance in a Conventional War.
The merits of using ex members for training etc is most likely a mixture of price point/PR/BS and low risk. Add to that, the NYT is selling mixed meat product as quality sausage, so take it with a pinch of salt.
However you should not underestimate the bang for the buck that the ROI from a professional long establish SF can bring. They must of course be applied to the correct task in the correct area. In this case training is neither one.
Some here have mentioned the limitations and falls of SF in the past and this happens.
I do not see any mention of actions that went 100% to plan and in doing so DID have an Important role in a Conventional War. That is what it is all about.
PS. If you doubt this just ask the Russians how they view the importance of FS as an element of Conventional Warfare.
The USMC never had any of those Gucci warriors and it managed just fine in all manner of wars and lesser missions.
“They are flown to the target by Air Force Special Operations units.”
Nope they are flown in by a US Army unit. 160th SOAR. That who was driving during bin Laden raid. That is who drives SOF.
I know guys who are SF (Green Berets) who failed “Delta” selection. nuff said there.
Yep, SF can go to Ranger school, but not the other way around. Thye need to be selected just like the rest of us, unless something has changed. “Triple Canopy” anyone?
You’re correct. My bad. I was too busy trying to be inclusive.