Relationships empower Special Operations Forces (SOF) to perform as a
highly skilled and reliable cadre in collaboration with local partner
forces to prevent and solve shared problem sets, often accomplishing
more with less. Since 9/11, however, relationships between SOF and their
partners have not always been properly built and maintained. The authors
trace the causal effects of constraints, trainings, and incentives and
their impact on the current North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
SOF approach of building enduring relationships. Motivated by numerous
deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, with recurring problem
sets, we chose to conduct a struc-tured-focused comparison between U.S.
and Danish SOF supporting Operation Inherent Resolve in Al Anbar, Iraq
(2015-2018) and German SOF during the shift of the NATO-led
International Security Assistance Force to Resolute Support mission in
Afghanistan (2013-2015). The analysis of these cases finds that specific
interactions of the studied factors not only cause variations in
relationships between SOF and partner forces, but ultimately influence
operations and objectives determining mission success or failure. With
further testing of our analysis and recommendations, this research can
help to identify inherently flexible and nested strategic options for
SOF senior leaders, allowing them to deploy SOF elements efficiently
during times of asymmetric, diffuse, and episodic conflicts. Gojowsky
and Koegler have written a fascinating and important manuscript
concerning the use and lessons-learned of SOF in recent asymmetrical
conflicts. In doing so, the authors systematically assess modern SOF
tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) and relationships between NATO
SOF and their local partners. This is a must-read for those interested
in the future of SOF as well as counter-insurgencies' future TTPs,
constraints and incentives. Gojowsky and Koegler recommendations should
be carefully considered by NATO and i
