Abstract
The authors argue that the character of today’s conflict, and presumably of tomorrow’s, requires SOF in small states to generally enhance their commitment in networks. However, the commitment within a global SOF network also holds challenges for the small state with limited resources. The fifth chapter explores the Global SOF Network initiative and USSOCOM’s perspective and identifies challenges for the resourceful lead organization of the global network. The chapter also expands the perspective of the small nation SOF—what are the challenges and potential actions to meet those challenges, and, finally, what are the potential opportunities that accompany an active network membership? The chapter is argued on specific Swedish conditions; however, many of the potential challenges and recommended actions can also be applied to other GSN partner nations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The authors are not revealing sensitive specific conditions for Swedish SOF. The chapter is written without describing actions already implemented or actions that are only hypothetical or disregarded by SWESOCOM.
- 2.
Admiral William McRaven, “Closing remarks from the commander”, In The Matter of: International Special Operations Forces. Consolidated Transcripts May 22, 2014: p. 241.
- 3.
Scott Morrison, “Redefining the Indirect Approach, Defining Special Operations Forces (SOF) Power, and the Global Networking of SOF,” Journal of Strategic Security 7, no. 2 (2013): 48‒54. John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, eds. “The Advent of Netwar (Revisited),” in Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy, (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2001), p. 15.
- 4.
- 5.
US Department of Defense (DOD), US Quadrennial Defense Review, Executive summary, March 4, 2014: III.
- 6.
USSOCOM, ISOF Conference 2014, Senior Leader Guide.
- 7.
Tom-Erik Kihl and Jonas Carling, “The Global Special Operations Forces Network from a Partner-Nation Perspective,” Masters’ thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, 2014.
- 8.
The main networks include: the US SOF network; the U.S. inter-agency network; and the Partner Nation network.
- 9.
Patti Anklam, Net Work: A Practical Guide to Creating and Sustaining Networks at Work and in the World. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Butterworth-Heinemann & Elsevier, 2007, p. 69.
- 10.
Op cit, Kihl and Carling. See also Brinton H. Milward and Keith G. Provan, “A manager´s Guide to Choosing and Using Collaborative Networks.” Networks and Partnerships Series, IBM Center for the Business of Government, 2006, pp. 7, 21–24. According to Milward and Provan, network governance structures are either Self-governance, Lead organization, or Network Administrative Organization (NAO).
- 11.
An arrangement between two or more nations for common action. US Joint Publication 1–02, 8 November 2010 (As Amended Through 15 June 2015).
- 12.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and/or Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
- 13.
USSOCOM J3-I brief, “IPR to Commander USSOCOM”, 2 June 2015.
- 14.
- 15.
Swedish Liaison Officer at USSOCOM from 2013–08-01 and onwards.
- 16.
Op cit. US Department of Defense (DOD).
- 17.
Jim Thomas and Chris Dougherty, “Beyond the Ramparts, the Future of U.S. Special Operations.” Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), report 2013.
- 18.
Op cit. US Department of Defense (DOD), p. 37.
- 19.
Op cit.Thomas and Dougherty, p. 8.
- 20.
Ibid, p. 12.
- 21.
Op cit. US Department of Defense (DOD), p. 22.
- 22.
Conflict Prevention is not a term used by USSOCOM. However, the US joint definition is, “A peace operation employing complementary diplomatic, civil, and, when necessary, military means, to monitor and identify the causes of conflict, and take timely action to prevent the occurrence, escalation, or resumption of hostilities.” This definition fits well with what USSOCOM wants to achieve. [US Joint Publication 1–02, 8 November 2010 (As Amended Through 15 June 2015)]
- 23.
Op cit. US Department of Defense (DOD), pp. 13, 15, 21, 37.
- 24.
Op cit. Thomas and Dougherty, pp. 13–30, 55, 76, 80.
- 25.
Admiral William H. McRaven Commander, USSOCOM, Posture Statement to the 113th Congress House Armed Services Committee, March 6, 2013.
- 26.
Op cit. Thomas and Dougherty, p. 71.
- 27.
Op cit. Milward and Provan.
- 28.
Ibid, p. 19.
- 29.
Op cit. Kihl and Carling.
- 30.
Op cit. Milward and Provan.
- 31.
An LO is normally organically a part of his/her parental staff. However, this does not exclude a management function to achieve the full effect of the appointment of the LO.
- 32.
BICES- Battlefield Information Collection and Exploitation System. BICES is a communication network for secure communication.
- 33.
It is crucial during this process for the network management function to interact with the national stakeholders to ensure that they also gain ownership of the GSN narrative.
- 34.
The policy level would include the military strategic leadership and relevant personnel in the Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- 35.
The purpose is for the national LO at USSOCOM J3-I to be able to inform international partners (PN) that their nations have been provided Swedish information through, for example, intelligence agency channels.
- 36.
The role as manager of a whole network is related to unique challenges and tasks (Management of Networks). See Table above. Op cit. Milward and Provan p. 19. Other research has identified the following ten challenges that should be addressed for SWESOCOM as manager of a national network. These are: handling free-riders, bringing members onboard, getting members to behave as network members, seeing the network effort as worthwhile, handling internal frictions due to added workload, addressing stove-piping and “turf” issues, managing perception of formal leadership, uniting members toward a common purpose, understanding the value of contributions, and upholding member commitment over time. Op cit. Kihl and Carling.
- 37.
Op cit. Milward and Provan.
- 38.
Christopher Lamb, “Global SOF and Interagency Collaboration.” Journal of Strategic Security 7, no. 2 (2013): p. 19.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
MLI, JCA (2017). Swedish Special Operations Forces in a Global SOF Network—Challenges, Recommendations, and Benefits. In: Eriksson, G., Pettersson, U. (eds) Special Operations from a Small State Perspective. New Security Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43961-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43961-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43960-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43961-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)