Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine)

Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine)

 * See also Simultaneous second peer review

Ideally, read this after having read the globalised article, insurgency. This article is intended to address U.S.-specific doctrine. It has no relationship to the article unconventional warfare.

This should be part of a series for the U.S., and hopefully for other countries. Other U.S. special operations doctrine articles include special reconnaissance, which is in reasonable shape, and the evolving foreign internal defense.

Thanks! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * With apologies, I have, at least for quite a while, given up on editing at Wikipedia. Please don't waste effort on this review if you don't want to do the changes yourself. Unless it fails, I'm finding Citizendium a much better working environment. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jon Catalán

 * I looked over the article and have a few questions:


 * I do appreciate the effort. In general, however, many are issues where the way I prefer to write is not the WP way, so I am reducing my WP involvement. That doesn't mean something isn't sourced, but not in a readily available reference -- and Wiki anonymity prevents my using direct expertise on the subject.

- Superficially, UW is the opposite of conventional warfare, which has so many potential meanings and overtones that an attempt to discuss "unconventional warfare" as defined in opposition to "conventional warfare" becomes virtually impossible. <-  Is this phrase needed? It contradicts itself (intentionally, I presume), but I don't see how the contradiction is entirely necessary. It seems more of a statement on conventional warfare, as well. I think it should be more direct in how it defines unconventional warfare as compared to conventional warfare. I think my opinion is justified given the next sentence:

This article focuses on the United States Department of Defense terminology and its associated usages; discussion of the other aspects of the topic requires a settled definition of the term "conventional warfare," which has not yet been reached. If it has nothing to do with the overall definition of unconventional warfare, then I don't think that such a arguable sentence before it is necessary.


 * There had been a very adamant IP insisting that no matter how something was explicitly described as US doctrine, it had to be globalised. This was Wikiselfdefense.

- In the United States, "special forces" refers specifically to the United States Army Special Forces (SF), as opposed to the usage in most other countries, where "special forces" refers to the range of unit types that the U.S. calls "special operations forces" controlled by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). <-  IIRC, 'special forces' when it comes to the US Army is spelt 'Special Forces', to denote that it applies to the US Army Special Forces, or Green Berets.


 * spelling error.

- ''The main strength of these movements came not from U.S., but local personnel. U.S. "behind the lines" units such as Merrill's Marauders, in modern doctrine, were not conducting UW but DA and SR. and then A variety of organizations, including United States personnel. conducted UW missions. '' <- These two sentences contradict each other. As to now create another point, I think the WWII section needs some sources, if they are available.


 * No, I don't see a contradiction, if one looks at the operations of the other units.

- ''After World War II, the original SF mission of UW, as shown in the first SF deployment of the 10th Special Forces Group to Europe, was in expectation of a Soviet attack on Western Europe. SF would help organize, train, and lead resistance movements to such an invasion.'' <- I think this needs a source, if one is available, because although it may seem 'common sense' to some, it might not be to others. In the sourced quote below, there is no mention of the Soviet Union, so I believe a source is necessary above, as well.


 * Again, this is where I come to a parting of the ways with Wikipedia.

- ''SF supported Kurdish resistance to Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In the 1980s, SF worked with the Afghan mujahadeen against the Soviets, but in a role of supporting rather than leading the local personnel. They did not need to create an underground and an auxiliary, and often supported the guerillas from outside the area of operations. Parts of the Afghan resistance, supported by SF and CIA elements, later became hostile to the U.S.'' <- Those statement need sources. I know they're hard to come by, especially since a lot of this information is classified top secret, but if they are available they should be added. The 1990s and 2000s sections also need sources, IMO. In general, without quoting everything, the article needs sources if they're available.


 * Often, sources are not available, or not public ones. I've relied, to some expense

What about other groups in the United States, other than Special Forces? Specifically, Delta Force (well, they could be considered part of Special Forces, but ... then again),


 * Delta Force is a DA/SR force. They don't do UW.


 * Combat Control and SEALs? SEALs operated in Afghanistan in much the same way that is described by the article.


 * I am unaware of SEALs doing other than DA or SR. They aren't trained, or even have personalities selected, for a UW mission. In the special operations community, there is a bitter argument that Rumsfeld, in particular, were taking Special Forces away from UW and giving them "door kicking" missions for which Delta and (some) SEALs are optimized; DEVGRU is the SEAL equivalent of Delta force.

Unfortunately, my books are not with me and so I can't direct you to a good source, but information on these groups should possibly be added in. Right now, it seems more like an article on Special Forces than on unconventional warfare.


 * Since UW was the original mission for Special Forces, that is not surprising; it is the only U.S. Special Operations organization that is fully trained for the UW mission. FID is the mirror of UW, so that also fits.

I hope my comments are moderately helpful! JonCatalan (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

MrPrada
A few quick comments from an ex-SOF guy. 02:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If this article is supposed to be about counterinsurgency doctrine, it needs to be named counterinsurgency. FID/UW is a totally different animal. Right now the article reads as though it is in fact about UW.
 * In the tactics section, the article does not go into nearly enough detail on CA/PSYOP, which is a major component of UW.
 * The article does not distinguish between low-intensity conflict, and high-intensity conflict. The major parts of the doctrine you've summarized are from the manual UW/Special Ops in Low Intensity Conflict, so it would certainly need to discuss what it is, what the differences are, etc.