Barriers to Strategic Success in US Special Operations Forces Counterterrorism
Speaker(s): Lindquist, K. (NSI); Koven, B. (Deloitte Consulting & Joint Special Operations University)
Date: 10 February 2022
Speaker Session Summary
SMA hosted a speaker session with Dr. Katy A. Lindquist (Principal Research Scientist, NSI) and Dr. Barnett S. Koven (Data Science Manager, Deloitte Consulting; Adjunct Faculty Member, Joint Special Operations University) as part of its SMA SOCOM Speaker Series.
Despite high levels of counterterrorism (CT) spending by the US—mostly on powerful kinetic capabilities—the level of global terrorism has not decreased. Furthermore, the United States’ main national security concern has shifted from CT to interstate great power competition. Dr. Lindquist commented that there is a narrow band for strategic success relating to CT which includes overlap between: a) US grand strategy, b) coordination with partner states, c) tactical alignment with special operations forces (SOF), and d) interagency cooperation. Overall, maintaining both a coherent and clear grand strategy and CT strategy are key to achieving both military and non-military US objectives. Dr. Koven asserted that the US has not had a coherent approach to CT since it became the US’s main security concern following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, each new presidential administration has taken its own unique approach to CT strategy: adding to the overall US strategic CT incoherency. He likened the current CT strategy to a game of whack-a-mole.
Terrorism itself occurs when a radical group acquires a level of operational capability that matches their level of motivation: usually political motivation. Past CT operations have relied too heavily on counterinsurgency being led by SOF; however, a population centric approach—designed to win the hearts and minds of individuals—also has clear drawbacks. One such drawback is that not all violent extremists can be de-radicalized. Several other barriers to effective CT include domestic barriers such as, organizational mission biases, overly bureaucratic organizational structures, a lack of incentives for sharing information and resources, and ad hoc funding mechanisms. Ad hoc funding mechanisms are especially problematic and lead to strong interagency competition for DoD funding. While these barriers to CT exist, each organization also has resources and skilled employment unique to only themselves. Also, cooperation with overseas partners experiences the same barriers that interagency collaboration does: including the tendency for actors to focus only on a kinetic approach. Dr. Koven concluded the presentation by recommending that the DoD and SOCOM focus on a) disruption-based CT, b) fine-tuning interagency processes, c) increasing international collaboration, and d) identifying the appropriate metrics to measure CT successes and failures.
Comments