Reforming SOF Targeting Authorities to Restore Strategic Coherence and Risk Discipline
by Kendall McElwee
|
06.01.2026 at 06:00am
Reforming SOF Targeting Authorities to Restore Strategic Coherence and Risk Discipline Image
A joint special forces team move together out of a U.S. Air Force CV-22 Osprey Feb. 26, 2018, at Melrose Training Range, New Mexico. At Emerald Warrior, the largest joint and combined special operations exercise, U.S. Special Operations Command forces train to respond to various threats across the spectrum of conflict. (U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Clayton Cupit)
Abstract
This memo argues that the current U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) targeting policy achieves tactical success but lacks strategic alignment, prioritizing rapid kinetic operations over long-term political and operational coherence. It evaluates three policy options and finds that existing frameworks fail to adequately address escalation risks, partner capacity development, and the demands of great-power competition. The memo recommends a theater-prioritized, effects-based targeting framework to better align tactical actions with broader strategic objectives while maintaining operational effectiveness.
Executive Summary
The current U.S. SOF targeting policy for counterterrorism strikes, based on frameworks derived from the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), has achieved tactical success but lacks strategic coherence. Throughout counterterrorism efforts, a decentralized, intelligence-led targeting model has become standard, emphasizing speed and lethality over long-term consequences. While this approach has weakened groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, it has also caused issues such as civilian harm, interagency conflicts, and the widespread deployment of U.S. SOF across theaters without clear priorities.
This memo argues that current targeting policy overemphasizes kinetic disruption at the expense of strategic alignment, escalation management, and sustainable burden-sharing. This memo evaluates three options: (A) maintaining current authorities with minor oversight reforms, (B) recentralizing targeting approval, or (C) adopting a theater-effects-based SOF targeting framework that incorporates political risk thresholds, partner capacity, and escalation triggers.
Option C is recommended. This approach is appropriate, feasible, and risk-aware. It maintains operational speed while restoring strategic discipline, aligns SOF targeting with priorities of great-power competition, and reduces civilian harm and political backlash. Implementation requires doctrinal updates, revised combatant command guidance, and structured congressional engagement.
https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/06/01/reforming-sof-targeting-authorities/
