Going Big by Going Small

[Madhu]

Looks like an interesting book.

For example he suggests replacing some of the joint doctrine elements of operational design with Special Operations (SO) Phase 0 Expressions. For example, replacing center of gravity with Right Partner, Place, Time (R3), and decisive points with decisive relationships.
-Despite their clear distinctions, USSOF campaigns are inextricably tied to and in support of the macro-strategy of the combatant commander and the US country team.

[Bill Moore]

Madhu,

I found it very interesting based on my profession and personal interests, and based on your numerous comments on SWJ I think you will too. This is not a criticism of the book, but readers should understand this book only addresses a part of the larger Phase 0 construct. The book focuses on SOF campaigns focused on individual countries, mostly against internal threats. It does not address the operational art associated with: setting conditions to successfully respond to contingencies, tackle global threat networks, or how the Geographical Combatant Command shapes the theater strategically in an effort to prevent conflict. SOF has a role in all these areas, and depending on where SOF is employed the priority focus areas may not be helping a nation address an internal threat. None the less the Phase 0 friction points and the logic of Phase 0 applies beyond the areas Petit focused on.

Important to not that each theater will have different priorities SOF will need to support. SOUTHCOM and AFRICOM were redesigned or designed to focus on stability operations and they have a lot of interagency partners on their staffs to help develop whole of government approaches to these challenges. EUCOM SOF may find maintaining their partnership and improving inter-operability with NATO and emerging NATO partners is a higher priority than conducting stability operations, while CENTCOM will likely switch to a new posture with an expanded effort on Phase 0 to try to keep a lid on their region, while PACOM will focus on both and non-traditional challenges. A recent and good article on the strategic issues PACOM is wrestling with is on the journal titled, “The Role of an Air Sea Battle-Centric Posture in Strategic Reassurance.” While well argued you can see SOF was left out of the discussion. My concern with any book on operational art is higher level staffs will say brilliant, now I want SOF globally to operate this way, which actually flies in the face of Petit’s argument that SOF is value added because it can adjust to the environment and operational requirements versus coming in with a standardized SOF approach that may have worked somewhere else. SOF members who have been around the block understand this, but bean counters understandably like standardization. SOF can’t afford to fall into the standardized mold. We have to support our operational commander's priorities, and those priorities vary widely by region. Regardless of the operational priorities I think this book offers insights who will help the Phase 0 planners with their challenge.