Voici quelques extraits d'un article assez intéressant publié par ISN. Je ne suis pas d'accord avec l'argument de l'auteur, mais disons que la réflexion est intéressante. Qui plus est, je retiens de différentes discussions personnelles et conférences à Washington que le rôle des forces spéciales et bel et bien en pleine expansion. Dès lors, il n'est pas inutile de considérer avec attention le scénario de l'auteur. Extraits:
Robert Martinage, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), advocated in a Washington briefing last month an expanded role for US special forces, including, as in the battle of Tora Bora, the "use of non-state actors against other non-state actors."
The field manual for US Army special operations defines partnering with irregular forces as "unconventional warfare" during one of the missions of US special operations forces. Martinage's proposal is in sync with army thinking: The special ops field manual, which was published in September 2008, emphasizes unconventional warfare over other special operations missions such as civil affairs, foreign internal defense (which involves direct aid to local government forces), information operations and psychological operations.
If CSBA's analysis is accepted, special operations forces - elite, highly trained military units that conduct operations that exceed the capabilities of conventional forces - will become increasingly mainstream in responding to all of these emerging threats. One reason is that the US does not have a good track record of predicting where military intervention will be required, according to Andrew Krepinevich, CSBA's president and a retired army officer.
"If we can't predict future conflicts," he told ISN Security Watch, "we've got to adapt quickly to emerging threats."
The flexibility and maneuverability of special operations forces, so the argument goes, provides one answer to that challenge.