Military Review English Edition July-August 2016 | Page 62

capabilities. In fact, there are no doctrinal minimum
capability requirements for NATO SOF CT in AJP-3.5.
If a member state invoked Article 5 today and included
a requirement for CT support, that embattled nation
would likely receive a hodgepodge of CT capabilities.
Estonian Maj. Margus Kuul, in “NATO SOF
Countries’ Three Main Mission Sets: Direct Action,
Special Reconnaissance, Military Assistance,” suggests
most NATO SOF partners lack the resources to maintain
SOF capabilities, including essential secondary capabilities such as maritime operations.33 The question should
be asked: What minimum capability requirements
are more valid in the current threat environment, CT
requirements such as hostage rescue and urban sniper
or maritime skills such as “combat swimming operation
using closed circuit breathing apparatus with man-pack
explosive devices?”34 The answer is beyond the scope of
this review, but the question will have to be answered by
NATO SOF leadership if CT becomes a principal mission in a resource-scarce environment.
Kuul recommends “mapping the real capabilities” of
partner state SOF units to determine specific needs.35
A survey of preexisting NATO SOF CT capabilities
would certainly pay dividends if CT were adopted as
a principal mission. Prior to establishing minimum

capability requirements for NATO SOF CT, a NATOwide assessment of member-state training programs
and doctrine should be conducted to find the most
efficient path for CT standardization and training for
NATO SOF.
Terrorism in Europe will continue to expand in the
near term, and, regardless of current NATO doctrine
and politics, CT will grow in importance for NATO SOF.
NATO SOF should not wait for the next terror crisis to
influence politicians to force a change in CT doctrine.
They should begin preparation for CT as a principal
mission now if they want to be relevant when a member
state invokes Article 5.
Several steps should be taken in anticipation of a
formal realignment of principal missions. First, conduct
an honest survey of CT capabilities across NATO SOF
partners. Second, begin a dialogue between partner states
on what supporting CT roles NATO SOF should, or
could, provide, following a single- or multi-state invocation of Article 5. Last, examine member-state SOF CT
doctrine to develop the best plan for the standardization
of training and resourcing the CT mission. In the spirit of
the SOF adage, “Competent SOF cannot be created after
emergencies occur,” and neither can CT partnerships,
doctrine, or mission capabilities.36

Biography
1st Lt. Matthew E. Miller is a U.S. Army Reserve military intelligence officer with the 5th Space Company, 1st
Space Battalion. His nineteen years of enlisted service include serving as a psychological