U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF):
Background and Issues for Congress

Updated October 29, 2018

Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RS21048

 U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress

Summary
Special Operations Forces (SOF) play a significant role in U.S. military operations and, in recent
years, have been given greater responsibility for planning and conducting worldwide
counterterrorism operations. U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has about 70,000
Active Duty, National Guard, and reserve personnel from all four services and Department of
Defense (DOD) civilians assigned to its headquarters, its four service component commands, and
eight subunified commands.
In 2013, based on a request from USSOCOM (with the concurrence of Geographic and
Functional Combatant Commanders and the Military Service Chiefs and Secretaries), the
Secretary of Defense assigned command of the Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs)
to USSOCOM. USSOCOM now has the responsibility to organize, train, and equip TSOCs.
While USSOCOM is now responsible for the organizing, training, and equipping of TSOCs, the
Geographic Combatant Commands will continue to have operational control over the TSOCs.
Because the TSOCs are now classified as subunified commands, the services are responsible to
provide non-SOF support to the TSOCs in the same manner in which they provide support to the
Geographic Combatant Command headquarters.
The current Unified Command Plan (UCP) stipulates USSOCOM responsibility for
synchronizing planning for global operations to combat terrorist networks. This focus on planning
limits its ability to conduct activities designed to deter emerging threats, build relationships with
foreign militaries, and potentially develop greater access to foreign militaries. USSOCOM is
proposing changes that would, in addition to current responsibilities, include the responsibility for
synchronizing the planning, coordination, deployment, and, when directed, the employment of
special operations forces globally and will do so with the approval of the Geographic Combatant
Commanders, the services, and, as directed, appropriate U.S. government agencies. Further, the
proposed changes would give broader responsibility to USSOCOM beyond counterterrorism
activities, to include activities against other threat networks. In August 2016, the Obama
Administration assigned USSOCOM the leading role in coordinating DOD’s efforts to counter
WMDs, a mission previously assigned to U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM).
A potential issue for Congress is the future of USSOCOM and U.S. SOF.

Congressional Research Service

 U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress

Contents
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 1
Command Structures and Components ..................................................................................... 1
Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs) .............................................................. 1
Additional USSOCOM Responsibilities ................................................................................... 2
Army Special Operations Command......................................................................................... 3
Air Force Special Operations Command .................................................................................. 4
U.S. Air Force Special Tactics ............................................................................................ 5
AFSOC Aircraft .................................................................................................................. 5
Naval Special Warfare Command ............................................................................................. 6
U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC).................................... 6
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) ................................................................................... 6
Potential Issue for Congress ............................................................................................................ 7
The Future of USSOCOM and U.S. SOF.................................................................................. 7
Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 9

Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 10

Congressional Research Service

 U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress

Background
Overview
Special operations are military operations requiring unique modes of employment, tactical
techniques, equipment, and training. These operations are often conducted in hostile, denied, or
politically sensitive environments and are characterized by one or more of the following
elements: time sensitive, clandestine, low visibility, conducted with and/or through indigenous
forces, requiring regional expertise, and/or a high degree of risk. Special Operations Forces (SOF)
are those active and reserve component forces of the services designated by the Secretary of
Defense and specifically organized, trained, and equipped to conduct and support special
operations. The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), headquartered at MacDill Air
Force Base in Tampa, FL, is a functional combatant command responsible for training, doctrine,
and equipping for all U.S. SOF units.

Command Structures and Components
In 1986, Congress, concerned about the status of SOF within overall U.S. defense planning,
passed legislation (P.L. 99-661) to strengthen special operations’ position within the defense
community and to strengthen interoperability among the branches of U.S. SOF. These actions
included the establishment of USSOCOM as a new unified command. USSOCOM headquarters
currently consists of approximately 2,500 military and Department of Defense (DOD) civilians
(not including government contractors).1 As stipulated by U.S.C. Title X, Section 167, the
commander of USSOCOM is a four-star officer who may be from any military service. U.S.
Army General Raymond A. Thomas III is the current USSOCOM Commander. Army Lieutenant
General Richard Clarke will reportedly replace General Thomas, who is expected to retire in
2019.2 The USSOCOM Commander reports directly to the Secretary of Defense. The Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC), a member
of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy (OSD-P), provides civilian oversight over
USSOCOM activities and is chain of supervision between the Secretary of Defense and
USSOCOM Commander. The current ASD SOLIC is Owen West.
As of February 15, 2018, USSOCOM consisted of 57,478 active duty, 7,668 reserve and National
Guard, and 6,552 civilian personnel assigned to its headquarters, its four components, and
subunified commands.3 USSOCOM’s components are the U.S. Army Special Operations
Command (USASOC); the Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC); the Air Force Special
Operations Command (AFSOC); and the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command
(MARSOC). The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) is a USSOCOM subunified
command.

Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs)
Theater-level command and control responsibilities are vested in Theater Special Operations
Commands (TSOCs). TSOCs are subunified commands under their respective Geographic
1

Joint Publication 3.05, Doctrine for Special Operations, July 16, 2014;
http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_05.pdf.
2 Tara Copp, “New CENTCOM, SOCOM Leadership Named,” Military Times, August 22, 2018.
3 Statement of General Raymond A. Thomas III, Commander, United States Special Operations Command, Before the
House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, February 15, 2018, p. 3.

Congressional Research Service

RS21048 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED

1

 U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress

Combatant Commanders (GCCs). TSOCs are special operational headquarters elements designed
to support a GCC’s special operations logistics, planning, and operational command and control
requirements, and are normally commanded by a general officer.
In February 2013, based on a request from USSOCOM and with the concurrence of every
geographic and functional combatant commander and military service chiefs and Secretaries, the
Secretary of Defense transferred combatant command of the TSOCs from the GCCs to
USSOCOM.4 This means USSOCOM now has the responsibility to organize, train, and equip
TSOCs, as it previously had for all assigned SOF units as specified in U.S. Code, Title 10,
Section 167. This change is intended to enable USSOCOM to standardize, to the extent possible,
TSOC capabilities and manpower requirements. While USSOCOM is now responsible for the
organizing, training, and equipping of TSOCs, the GCCs continue to have operational control
over the TSOCs and all special operations in their respective theaters. TSOC commanders are the
senior SOF advisors for their respective GCCs. Each TSOC is capable of forming the core of a
joint task force headquarters for short-term operations, and can provide command and control for
all SOF in theater on a continuous basis. The services have what the DOD calls “Combatant
Command Service Agency (CCSA)” responsibilities for providing manpower, non-SOF peculiar
equipment, and logistic support to the TSOCs. The current TSOCs, the GCCs they support, and
the CCSA responsibility for those TSOCs are as follows.5


Special Operations Command South (SOCSOUTH), Homestead Air Force Base,
FL; supports U.S. Southern Command; its CCSA is the Army.



Special Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA), Stuttgart, Germany;
supports U.S. Africa Command; its CCSA is the Army.
Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR), Stuttgart, Germany; supports
U.S. European Command; its CCSA is the Army.
Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT), MacDill Air Force Base, FL;
supports U.S. Central Command; its CCSA is the Air Force.







Special Operations Command Pacific (SOCPAC), Camp Smith, HI; supports
U.S. Pacific Command; its CCSA is the Navy.
Special Operations Command Korea (SOCKOR), Yongsang, Korea; supports
U.S. Forces Korea; its CCSA is the Army.
Special Operations Command U.S. Northern Command (SOCNORTH), Peterson
Air Force Base, CO; supports U.S. Northern Command; its CCSA is the Air
Force.

Additional USSOCOM Responsibilities
In addition to Title 10 authorities and responsibilities, USSOCOM has been given additional
responsibilities. In the 2004 Unified Command Plan (UCP), USSOCOM was given the
responsibility for synchronizing DOD planning against global terrorist networks and, as directed,
conducting global operations against those networks.6 In this regard, USSOCOM “receives,
reviews, coordinates and prioritizes all DOD plans that support the global campaign against
Information in this section is taken from USSOCOM Information Paper, “Special Operations Forces: 2020: Theater
Special Operations Commands,” April 25, 2013.
5 USSOCOM Pamphlet, “United States Special Operations Command, GlobalSOF Network2020,” 2013.
6 “Fact Book: United States Special Operations Command,” USSOCOM Public Affairs, February 2013, p. 10.
4

Congressional Research Service

RS21048 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED

2

 U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress

terror, and then makes recommendations to the Joint Staff regarding force and resource
allocations to meet global requirements.”7 In October 2008, USSOCOM was designated the DOD
proponent for Security Force Assistance (SFA).8 In this role, USSOCOM performs a
synchronizing function in global training and assistance planning similar to the previously
described role of planning against terrorist networks.

Army Special Operations Command
U.S. Army SOF (ARSOF) includes approximately 33,000 soldiers from the active Army, National
Guard, and Army Reserve organized into Special Forces, Ranger, and special operations aviation
units, along with civil affairs units, military information units, and special operations support
units.9 ARSOF Headquarters and other resources, such as the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School, are located at Fort Bragg, NC. Five active Special Forces (SF) Groups
(Airborne),10 consisting of about 1,400 soldiers each, are stationed at Fort Bragg and at Fort
Lewis, WA; Fort Campbell, KY; Fort Carson, CO; and Eglin Air Force Base, FL. Special Forces
soldiers—also known as the Green Berets—are trained in various skills, including foreign
languages, that allow teams to operate independently throughout the world.
Two Army National Guard Special Forces groups are headquartered in Utah and Alabama. In
addition, an elite airborne light infantry unit specializing in direct action operations,11 the 75th
Ranger Regiment, is headquartered at Fort Benning, GA, and consists of three battalions of about
800 soldiers each and a regimental special troops battalion providing support to the three Ranger
battalions. The Army’s special operations aviation unit, the 160th Special Operations Aviation
Regiment (Airborne) (SOAR), consists of five battalions and is headquartered at Fort Campbell,
KY. The 160th SOAR features pilots trained to fly the most sophisticated Army rotary-wing
aircraft in the harshest environments, day or night, and in adverse weather and supports all
USSOCOM components, not just exclusively Army units.
Some of the most frequently deployed SOF assets are Civil Affairs (CA) units, which provide
experts in every area of civil government to help administer civilian affairs in operational
theaters. The 95th Civil Affairs Brigade (Airborne) is the only active CA unit that exclusively
supports USSOCOM. In September 2011 the 85th Civil Affairs Brigade was activated to support
U.S. Army General Purpose Forces (GPFs). All other CA units reside in the Reserves and are
affiliated with Army GPF units. Military Information Support Operations (formerly known as
psychological operations) units disseminate information to large foreign audiences through mass
media. Two active duty Military Information Support Groups (MISGs)—the 4th Military
7

Ibid.

8 Information

in this section is from testimony given by Admiral Eric T. Olson, Commander, USSOCOM, to the House
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee on the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request for the U.S. Special Operations Command, June 4, 2009.
9 Information in this section, unless otherwise noted is taken from “U.S. Special Operations Command Factbook 2018”
USSOCOM Public Affairs, 2018, p. 18.
10 Airborne refers to “personnel, troops especially trained to effect, following transport by air, an assault debarkation,
either by parachuting or touchdown.” Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and
Associated Terms, 12 April 2001 (As Amended Through 31 July 2010).
11 Direct action operations are short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions conducted as a special
operation in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments, as well as employing specialized military capabilities
to seize, destroy, capture, exploit, recover, or damage designated targets. Direct action differs from conventional
offensive actions in the level of physical and political risk, operational techniques, and the degree of discriminate and
precise use of force to achieve specific objectives.

Congressional Research Service

RS21048 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED

3

 U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress

Information Support Group (MISG) (Airborne) and 8th Military Information Support Group
(MISG) (Airborne)—are stationed at Fort Bragg, and their subordinate units are aligned with
Geographic Combatant Commands.

Air Force Special Operations Command
The Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) is one of the Air Force’s 10 major
commands, with approximately 19,500 active, reserve, and civilian personnel.12 AFSOC units
operate out of four major continental United States (CONUS) locations and two overseas
locations. The headquarters for AFSOC, the 1st Special Operations Wing (1st SOW), 24th Special
Operations Wing (24th SOW), and the Air Force Special Operations Air Warfare Center
(AFSOAWC) are located at Hurlburt Field, FL.13 The AFSOAWC is responsible for training,
education, irregular warfare program, innovation development, and operational testing.14 From
AFSOAWC’s fact sheet:
The AFSOAWC’s mission includes non-standard aviation in support of Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marine and allied special operations forces.
The following units are consolidated under the Air Warfare Center [AFSOAWC]:
■ U.S. Air Force Special Operations School, Hurlburt Field, FL
■ 6th Special Operations Squadron, Duke Field, FL
■ 19th Special Operations Squadron, Hurlburt Field, FL
■ 551st Special Operations Squadron, Cannon Air Force Base, NM
■ 5th Special Operations Squadron, a reserve unit from the 919 th Special Operations Wing,
Duke Field, FL
■ 371st Special Operations Combat Training Squadron, Hurlburt Field, FL
■ 18th Flight Test Squadron, Hurlburt Field, FL
■ 592nd Special Operations Maintenance Squadron, Duke Field, FL
■ 209th Civil Engineer Squadron, a guard unit from Gulfport, MS
■ 280th Special Operations Communications Squadron, a guard unit from Dothan, AL
The Air Warfare Center provides mission qualification training in SOF aviation platforms
to include AC-130U, AC-130W, U-28, MQ-1, MQ-9, C-145, C-146 as well as small
unmanned aerial systems (SUAS), Combat Aviation Advisors, medical element personnel,
and AFSOC Security Forces. In addition to AFSOC personnel, AFSOAWC is responsible
for educating and training other USSOCOM components and joint/interagency/coalition
partners.15

The 27th SOW is at Cannon AFB, NM. The 352nd and 353rd Special Operations Wings provide
forward presence in Europe (RAF Mildenhall, England) and in the Pacific (Kadena Air Base,
Japan), respectively. The 6th SOS’s mission is to assess, train, and advise partner nation aviation
units with the intent to raise their capability and capacity to interdict threats to their nation. The
Information in this section, unless otherwise noted, is taken from “U.S. Special Operations Command Factbook
2018” USSOCOM Public Affairs, 2018, p. 26.
13 AFSOAWC Fact Sheet, http://www.afsoc.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/140/Article/571079/air-forcespecial-operations-air-warfare-center.aspx, accessed April, 2, 2015.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
12

Congressional Research Service

RS21048 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED

4

 U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress

6th SOS provides aviation expertise to U.S. foreign internal defense (FID) missions. The Air
National Guard’s 193rd SOW at Harrisburg, PA, and the Air Force Reserve Command’s 919th
SOW at Duke Field, FL, complete AFSOC’s major flying units.
The 24th Special Operations Wing is one of three Air Force active duty special operations wings
assigned to Air Force Special Operations Command. The 24th SOW is based at Hurlburt Field,
Fla. The 24th SOW is the only Special Tactics wing in the Air Force.

U.S. Air Force Special Tactics
From the Air Force’s Special Tactics fact sheet:
The primary mission of the 24 SOW is to provide Special Tactics forces for rapid global
employment to enable airpower success. The 24 SOW is U.S. Special Operation
Command’s tactical air and ground integration force, and the Air Force’s special operations
ground force to enable global access, precision strike, and personnel recovery operations.
Core capabilities encompass: airfield reconnaissance, assessment, and control; personnel
recovery; joint terminal attack control and environmental reconnaissance.
Special Tactics is comprised of Special Tactics Officers, Combat Controllers, Combat
Rescue Officers, Pararescuemen, Special Operations Weather Officers and Airmen, Air
Liaison Officers, Tactical Air Control Party operators, and a number of combat support
Airmen which compromise 58 Air Force specialties.
These unique skills provide a full-spectrum, air-focused special operations capability to the
combatant commander in order to ensure airpower success. With their unique skill sets,
Special Tactics operators are often the first special operations elements deployed into crisis
situations. Special Tactics Airmen often embed with Navy SEALs, Army Green Berets and
Rangers to provide everything from combat air support to medical aid and personnel
recovery, depending on their specialty.
AFSOC’s Special Tactics experts include Combat Controllers, Pararescuemen, Special
Operations Weather Teams, Combat Aviation Advisors, and Tactical Air Control Party
(TACPs). As a collective group, they are known as Special Tactics and have also been
referred to as “Battlefield Airmen.” Their basic role is to provide an interface between air
and ground forces, and these airmen have highly developed skill sets. Usually embedded
with Army, Navy, or Marine SOF units, they provide control of air fire support, medical
and rescue expertise, or weather support, depending on the mission requirements. 16

AFSOC Aircraft
AFSOC’s active duty and reserve component flying units operate fixed and rotary-wing aircraft,
including the CV-22B, AC-130, C-130, EC-130, MC-130, MQ-1, MQ-9, U-28A, C-145A, C146A, and PC-12.17

16From

Air Force Special Tactics website: http://www.24sow.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/140/Article/
496534/24th-special-operations-wing.aspx, accessed April 22, 2015.
17 From AFSOC website, http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104528/air-force-specialoperations-command.aspx, accessed April 22, 2015.

Congressional Research Service

RS21048 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED

5

 U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress

Naval Special Warfare Command18
The Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC) is composed of approximately 10,000 personnel,
including active-duty Special Warfare Operators, known as SEALs; Special Warfare Boat
Operators, known as Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewmen (SWCC); reserve personnel;
support personnel; and civilians. NSWC is organized around 10 SEAL Teams, 2 SEAL Delivery
Vehicle (SDV) Teams, and 3 Special Boat Teams. SEAL Teams consist of six SEAL platoons
each, consisting of 2 officers and 16 enlisted personnel. The major operational components of
NSWC include Naval Special Warfare Groups One, Three, and Eleven, stationed in Coronado,
CA, and Naval Special Warfare Groups Two, Four, and Ten and the Naval Special Warfare
Development Group in Little Creek, VA. These components deploy SEAL Teams, SEAL Delivery
Vehicle Teams, and Special Boat Teams worldwide to meet the training, exercise, contingency,
and wartime requirements of theater commanders. Because SEALs are considered experts in
special reconnaissance and direct action missions—primary counterterrorism skills—NSWC is
viewed as well postured to fight a globally dispersed enemy ashore or afloat. NSWC forces can
operate in small groups and have the ability to quickly deploy from Navy ships, submarines and
aircraft, overseas bases, and forward-based units.

U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command
(MARSOC)19
On November 1, 2005, DOD announced the creation of the Marine Special Operations Command
(MARSOC) as a component of USSOCOM. Now referred to as the U.S. Marine Corps Forces
Special Operations Command, MARSOC consists of the Marine Raider Regiment, which
includes 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Marine Raider Battalions; the Marine Raider Support Group; 1st, 2nd, and
3rd Marine Raider Support Battalions; and the Marine Special Operations School. MARSOC
headquarters, the 2nd and 3rd Marine Raider Battalions, the Marine Special Operations School, and
the Marine Raider Support Group are stationed at Camp Lejeune, NC. The 1st Marine Raider
Battalion is stationed at Camp Pendleton, CA. MARSOC forces have been deployed worldwide
to conduct a full range of special operations activities. MARSOC missions include direct action,
special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense, counterterrorism, and information operations.
MARSOC currently has approximately 3,000 personnel assigned.20

Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)21
From USSOCOM’s official website:
The Joint Special Operations Command, located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is a subunified command of the U.S. Special Operations Command. It is charged to study Special
Operations requirements and techniques, ensure interoperability and equipment

Information in this section, unless otherwise noted is taken from “U.S. Special Operations Command Factbook
2018” USSOCOM Public Affairs, 2018, p. 22.
19 Information in this section is from “Fact Book: United States Special Operations Command,” USSOCOM Public
Affairs, February 2013, p. 20; “U.S. Special Operations Command Factbook 2015” USSOCOM Public Affairs, p. 30;
and CRS discussions with USSOCOM staff, September 10, 2013.
20 U.S. Special Operations Command Factbook 2018” USSOCOM Public Affairs, 2018, p. 30.
21 Taken directly from USSOCOM website, http://www.socom.mil/pages/jointspecialoperationscommand.aspx,
accessed April 12, 2018.
18

Congressional Research Service

RS21048 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED

6

 U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress

standardization, plan and conduct Special Operations exercises and training, and develop
joint Special Operations tactics.

Potential Issue for Congress
The Future of USSOCOM and U.S. SOF.
After 17 years at the forefront of the global military campaign against terrorism, policymakers,
defense officials, and academics are questioning the future role of USSOCOM and U.S. SOF.
Three legislative provisions in the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 115-232)
suggest growing congressional concern with misconduct, ethics, and professionalism; roles and
responsibilities for ASD SOLIC; and SOF’s ability to counter future threats across the spectrum
of conflict.
SEC. 1066. COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF PROFESSIONALISM AND ETH
ICS PROGRAMS FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES22
(a) REVIEW REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a comprehensive
review of the ethics programs and professionalism programs of the United States Special
Operations Command and of the military departments for officers and other military
personnel serving in special operations forces.
(b) ELEMENTS OF THE REVIEW.—The review conducted under subsection (a) shall
specifically include a description and assessment of each of the following:
(1) The professionalism and ethics standards of the United States Special Operations
Command and affiliated component commands.
(2) The ethics programs and professionalism programs of the military departments
available for special operations forces.
(3) The ethics programs and professionalism programs of the United States Special
Operations Command and affiliated component commands.
(4) The roles and responsibilities of the military departments and the United States Special
Operations Command and affiliated component commands in administering, overseeing,
managing, and ensuring compliance and participation of special operations forces in ethics
programs and professionalism programs, including an identification of—
(A) Any gaps in the administration, oversight, and management of such programs and in
ensuring the compliance and participation in such programs; and
(B) Any additional guidance that may be required for a systematic, integrated approach in
administering, over- seeing, and managing such programs and in ensuring compliance with
and participation in such programs in order to address issues and improve adherence to
professionalism and ethics standards.
(5) The adequacy of the existing management and oversight framework for ensuring that
all ethics programs and professionalism programs available to special operations forces
meet Department standards.
(6) Tools and metrics for identifying and assessing individual and organizational ethics and
professionalism issues with respect to special operations forces.

22Conference

Report 115-874 to Accompany H.R. 5515, John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2019, July 25, 2018, pp. 341-343.

Congressional Research Service

RS21048 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED

7

 U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress

(7) Tools and metrics for assessing the effectiveness of existing ethics programs and
professionalism programs in improving or addressing individual and organizational ethicsrelated and professionalism issues with respect to special operations forces.
(8) Any additional actions that may be required to address or improve individual and
organizational ethics and professionalism issues with respect to special operations forces.
(9) Any additional actions that may be required to improve the oversight and accountability
by senior leaders of ethics and professionalism-related issues with respect to special
operations forces.
(c) LIMITATION ON DELEGATION.—The Secretary of Defense may only delegate
responsibility for any element of the review required by subsection (a) to the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, in coordination
with other appropriate offices of the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military
departments.
(d) DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTAL OF REVIEW.—The Secretary of Defense shall
submit the review required by subsection (a) to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives by not later than March 1, 2019.
(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) The term ‘‘ethics program’’ means a program that includes—
(A) Compliance-based ethics training, education, initiative, or other activity that focuses
on adherence to rules and regulations; and
(B) Values-based ethics training, education, initiative, or other activity that focuses on
upholding a set of ethical principles in order to achieve high standards of conduct and
incorporate guiding principles to help foster an ethical culture and inform decision-making
where rules are not clear.
(2) The term ‘‘professionalism program’’ means a program that includes training
education, initiative, or other activity that focuses on values, ethics, standards, code of
conduct, and skills as related to the military profession.
SEC. 917. DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF
REQUIREMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH ORGANIZATION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR MANAGEMENT OF SPECIAL
OPERATIONS FORCES AND SPECIAL OPERATIONS23
The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the implementation of Section 922 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 130 Stat.
2354) and the amendments made by that section is fully complete by not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 914. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR SPECIAL
OPERATIONS AND LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT REVIEW OF UNITED
STATES SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND24
(a) REVIEW REQUIRED.—The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
and Low Intensity Conflict shall, in coordination with the Commander of the United States
Special Operations Command, conduct a comprehensive review of the United States
Special Operations Command for purposes of ensuring that the institutional and operational

23

H.R. 5515, John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, p. 290.
Conference Report 115-874 to Accompany H.R. 5515, John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2019, July 25, 2018, pp. 289-290.
24

Congressional Research Service

RS21048 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED

8

 U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress

capabilities of special operations forces are appropriate to counter anticipated future threats
across the spectrum of conflict.
(b) SCOPE OF REVIEW.—The review required by subsection (a) shall include, at a
minimum, the following:
(1) An assessment of the adequacy of special operations forces doctrine, organization,
training, materiel, education, personnel, and facilities to implement the 2018 National
Defense Strategy, and recommendations, if any, for modifications for that purpose.
(2) An assessment of the roles and responsibilities of special operations forces as assigned
by law, Department of Defense guidance, or other formal designation, and
recommendations, if any, for additions to or divestitures of such roles or responsibilities.
(3) An assessment of the adequacy of the processes through which the United States
Special Operations Command evaluates and prioritizes the requirements at the geographic
combatant commands for special operations forces and special operations-unique
capabilities and makes recommendations on the allocation of special operations forces and
special operations unique capabilities to meet such requirements, and recommendations, if
any, for modifications of such processes.
(4) Any other matters the Assistant Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) DEADLINES.—
(1) COMPLETION OF REVIEW.—The review required by subsection (a) shall be
completed by not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) REPORT.—Not later than 30 days after completion of the review, the Assistant
Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the review,
including the findings and any recommendations of the Assistant Secretary as a result of
the review.

Discussion
These three legislative provisions, in addition to directing the Secretary of Defense to fully
implement directed changes in ASD SOLIC, call for ASD SOLIC and USSOCOM to take an
introspective look at U.S. SOF’s culture, roles and responsibilities, adequacy of resources,
organizational structure, and the adequacy of training, education, and personnel. Some have
suggested these provisions are a precursor for congressional and DOD actions to “rein in and
reorient” U.S. SOF from fighting terrorists to taking on nation-states instead.25 Others, citing
reportedly nonsanctioned military combat operations in Africa, where U.S. SOF are said to have
strayed from their train and assist mandate, have questioned whether or not U.S. SOF was
involved in direct combat in Niger.26 Some believe this situation calls into question the adequacy
of civilian oversight and control of U.S. SOF.27 Others assert that the size of U.S. SOF and the
scope of their missions have expanded beyond the ability of USSOCOM to handle them and that
congressional actions to increase ASD SOLIC oversight and control of U.S. SOF are necessary to
improve the current state of affairs.28 Aware that U.S. SOF are overburdened and that there is a
need to find the right balance between continuing to challenge terrorist organizations while
simultaneously addressing growing irregular warfare threats posed by nation-states, policymakers
will likely make good use of the two forthcoming congressionally mandated reviews. It is
Sean D. Naylor, “Special Operations Boom Years May Be Coming to a Close,” Yahoo News, September 13, 2018.
Ibid. and Alice Hunt Friend, “The Accompany They Keep: What Niger Tells Us About Accompany Missions,
Combat, and Operations Other Than War,” War on the Rocks, May 11, 2018.
27 Naylor.
28 Ibid.
25
26

Congressional Research Service

RS21048 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED

9

 U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress

possible that over the next few years, significant public policy debates on the future of
USSOCOM and U.S. SOF will be undertaken, potentially resulting in a number of changes for
ASD SOLIC, USSOCOM, and U.S. SOF.

Author Information
Andrew Feickert
Specialist in Military Ground Forces

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service

RS21048 · VERSION 60 · UPDATED

10