U.S. Air Force Lt Gen Slife, commander of Air Force Special Operations Command, addressed the Global SOF Foundation’s 2021 virtual SOF Imperatives Forum to discuss the critical mission areas AFSOC will need to focus on to remain competitive in the future operating environment on June 6, 2021.
Slife was joined by LTG Francis Beadudette, commanding general of U.S. Army Special Operations Command.
Linda Robinson, Global SOF Advisor, moderated the conversation with the two current SOF component commanders and begin with each commanders’ view of the state of special operations today.
“When I think of where we are at in 2021, we are at a third post-Vietnam discontinuity, a point of time where the future is best understood as not a linear extension of the past, but rather as something requiring something different all together,” Slife began.
“We have to maintain the ability to respond to crisis on behalf of the nation on a short notice anywhere around the globe, maintain pressure on counter violent extremist organizations,” said Slife. “We have to be prepared for conflict with peer adversaries in contested environments, and we have to compete strategically with global competitors who challenge U.S. interests and our way of life.”
Operating in contested environments, Slife continued, may require changes in how AFSOC deploys its forces.
“To the extent that we can, we need to be independent of main operating bases such as large runways, large fixed facilities,” said Slife. “We need to get smaller, lighter, and more expeditionary to succeed.”
“It’s imperative to lower our signature,” he continued. “We have to be able to blend into the noise both physically and electronically around the globe, wherever we want to compete.”
In a fiscally-constrained environment, Robinson asked Slife what areas of AFSOC might still see growth.
“Going forward I think we need to talk about language,” said Slife. “We need to take a look at ourselves in AFSOC and decide to what degree do we need regionally specialized forces who have deepened understanding of regions and cultures and nations inside those regions.”
When asked what AFSOC needs from its sister services in terms of cyber, electronic and communication capabilities, Slife stated he is not interested in growing an organic capability.
“While AFSOC has a range of kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities…as an enabler, I don’t want to be a duplicator of what people are already doing for us at scale,” said Slife. “I’m focused on the things that no one else can do and I don’t think we are in a resourcing environment that permits duplication for stuff that goes on elsewhere.”
When asked, “How much air support is enough?” Slife described his perspective on balancing the variables of mission, resources, and risk.
“The answer is it’s never enough. As you talk to ground formations, clearly they’ll tell you they need more aviation, he said.” “But it’s not a question of do we need more or not, it’s a question of, ‘At what level of risk?’”
“AFSOC is resourcing aviation at an appropriate level of risk. For every dollar we put into growing our aviation capabilities, there’s an opportunity cost elsewhere,” he went on. “That’s why the armed overwatch program is so important to us, because it’s a very cost effective way of providing that air support to our ground teammates who are going to be prosecuting these C-VEO operations for years to come,” said Slife.
In Slife’s closing remarks, he reiterated the men and women in AFSOC are a competitive advantage and it is up to leadership to ensure they are preparing a formation that is prepared and ready for tomorrow.
“Our challenge in leadership is to ensure that those middle school kids today who will put an AFSOC patch on in 10 years know when they come to AFSOC, they’ll still be relevant.”
Story by 1st Lt Melissa Crisostomo, Air Force Special Operations Command Public Affairs
“maintain pressure on counter violent extremist organizations”
Is he talking Al Qaeda or the often talked about and never seen internal groups here?
Oh Anti-FA( First Admendmenr), Burn Murder Loot (BLM) and the anarchist do exist! It’s just that they are not recognized as real threat, only the invisible white supremacist that supposedly lurk everywhere yet simultaneously are nowhere to be found. A real conundrum!
Oh! Don’t forget NFAC as well, an actual supremist group dedicated to killing police and their families and burning down their homes. You know, because of oppression ain sheeet!
We can all live without your attempt to caricature what you consider black speech. It makes you look like a racist.
Hardly a caricature when you can find that exact style of text all over Twitter.
I guess your days are over as well.
You hardly have a brain cell. Dumbass.
Eric, if that’s all you focus on from my comment then you’re PC-cuckold! Pathetic
No, I’m a guy who hates racists. I guess your days here are over. Nobody got time for that.
You dumbass. Eric’s wife is black and his kids are biracial. Hell, two of them are serving in the military right now. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Well ,knew that response was coming. It’s a pretty noticable change in language, and the CVE acronym barely makes sense outside of checking the buzzword box. Everyone’s worried about it Eric. When you have a senator and a president threatening to nuke people… Then he checks the box while taking about how much he needs a counter insurgency platform…..
Man, that ExEd/Yawnz/Leo/Oh Billy guy sure had a lot of accounts.
Too bad he doesn’t have as many brain cells…
“counter violent extremist organizations” (CVE) is a term the government has been using, instead of GWOT, for the campaign against Sunni Jihadists for well over a decade.
Yep, completely understand when that happened it was a big change. It just wasn’t being used in the same manner, it’s the difference between ” we have to continue to counter violent extremist organizations”(completely appropriate usage right?) and ” we have to keep pressure on counter-violent-extremist organizations” . It’s CVE being a verb or descriptive vs. CVE being an object. I know that doesn’t adequately describe it, but how do you define buzzwords when they’re expansive at best and deliberately obscure to misapplied at worst. This one in particular has a loaded meaning due to context and usage. This really isn’t the right place for this discussion, though I do appreciate the tolerance. It’s such a hard thing to talk about, and not something I’m sure is understandable to most people.
That’s what I was trying to ask. I didn’t mean to open that other box. Sorry about that Eric.
That’s what I was trying to ask. Didn’t mean to open that other box. Sorry about that Eric.
Don’t sweat it. People seem to have lost their minds.
It’s really hard to judge whether you should spend more time on extremists or near peers. Today I would give a completely different answer then, say, five years ago. Nonetheless I am glad LTG Slife is pondering both of these. I think the art is going to be the realties of covering both and the potential capability and knowledge gaps that creates. There may be some crossover in the fundamentals, but the mission and execution feels very different. But that’s just me.
AFSOC (minus 24th SOW) is a platform-based command and it can take a decade (or more) to field a new capability and reach FMC across the force. He’s got some serious pondering to do and so far, all I’ve seen him commit to is an additional 75 airframes and not talking about what he’s going to give up. He won’t pay the price for a big Air Force in SOCOM, the ground forces will.
“It’s really hard to judge whether you should spend more time on extremists or near peers.”
Now THAT is a great question that I would love to hear a panel discuss. How do you prepare for both? Or are you forced to choose? Conventional focuses on Near Peer, SOCOM on the others?
Did you use a new login for this?
My desktop. I was on TDY and on my phone for the last two weeks.
Thanks.
“…I don’t think we are in a resourcing environment that permits duplication for stuff that goes on elsewhere.”
Nice to know there’s at least one person at that rank who hold’s that view, ha.