Special Operations Forces and Persistent Engagement
Preface
Prior to the Truman Presidency, Presidential Seal of the United States offered little ambiguity to our would-be enemies. The Eagle faced sinister (to its left) with a baleful eye fixated on the clutch of arrows. On October 25,1945, less than three months after Japan suffered atomic weaponry, President Truman signed Executive Order 9646, altering the Presidential Seal for future generations. The Eagle would face to the right, its eye on the olive branch, a symbol of peace. Perhaps a more telling indicator of Truman’s vision for the United States was his signing of the National Security Act Amendments of 1949, which offered a new name for the War Department—The Department of Defense. Truman’s new logo and new cabinet title, however, paled in comparison to the Marshal Plan’s contribution toward peace and stability for war-ravaged, Western Europe.
Under the Marshal Plan, $12 billion in aid and a constabulary force created the conditions necessary to deter expansion of the Russian conventional threat and secure the victory. Despite winning the war, or perhaps, because of winning the war, President Truman maintained a presence, or engagement, in the region. The United States’ engagement …show more content…
Therefore, the best option available for influencing emerging and existing non-state actor threats are SOF. However, the type of influence that SOF provides requires persistent engagement to achieve meaningful results. Withdrawing SOF from a region once short term objectives are met represents a shortsighted view of a dynamic world and the power of globalization. The “not in my backyard” view of the world is no longer relevant. There is only one backyard. The Soviet-Afghan war, and especially its aftermath, serve to highlight the