SEAL Deaths

You may recall the deaths of two SEALs back in Jan 2024, off Yemen, during a night boarding operation in poor weather with 6 ft seas.  One man slipped while climbing a scaling ladder and fell into the sea.  The second man dove in to assist the first man who was struggling to regain the ladder.  The Navy’s report states that the deaths were preventable and attributes the deaths to, 

The cause of the deaths was attributed to poor training, unfamiliarity with flotation gear, and possible improper maintenance of personal flotation devices.[1]

It is also noteworthy that the men were heavily loaded with gear. 

Each SEAL carried about 50 pounds of personal and mission equipment.  Navy Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Nathan Gage Ingram, 27, dived into the sea to assist Chambers. Ingram is believed to have carried about 80 pounds of gear when he dived in.[1]

Diving into high seas with 50-80 lbs of gear is not a formula for success.
 
The Navy identified what they consider the root cause of the tragedy to be: 

The root cause of the incident was unfamiliarity with personal flotation gear and a lack of standard procedure for using, training with, or wearing it.

Other team members told investigators that while they knew the importance of their tactical flotation system — which includes two inflatable floats that attach to a belt and foam inserts that can be added — few had ever operated one in training and there is little instruction on how to wear it.[1]

Contray to the Navy's claim, that is not the root cause and the statement clearly indicates that the Navy doesn’t have the faintest idea what the term ‘root cause’ means or how to conduct a root cause analysis.  A root cause is the ultimate reason something occurs and, inevitably, produces a cascading chain of lesser causes leading to the event itself.  Almost invariably, the true root cause of anything lies with flawed leadership at fairly high levels and, almost inevitably, organizations stop their root cause analysis at a low level, well before they get to the true, upper level (leadership) cause (I wonder why they stop, he asked sarcastically, knowing exactly why).
 
In this instance, the root cause was not the SEAL’s lack of familiarity with the flotation equipment.  That was a low level cause but nowhere near the true root cause.
 
Moving up the root cause chain a bit, the person who selected/specified unfamiliar equipment for the unit was a cause but, again, not the root cause.
 
Proceeding further up the root cause chain, the assignment by leadership of a mission in questionable weather by inadequately trained personnel was a higher level cause but, again, not the true root cause.  This is similar to whoever assigned the riverine boats a mission beyond their capabilities which resulted in the boats and crews being seized by Iran.
 
The true(er) root cause, then, was high level Navy leadership who were unaware (or uncaring) of the equipment and level of training of the unit and proceeded to assign a mission anyway under very questionable weather conditions.
 
The truly ultimate root cause was a Navy system that encouraged lackadaisical training, a never say no culture, an ignorance of real world conditions, and a lack of personal responsibility towards those under their command.  To be clear, I’m talking about SecNav and Chief of Naval Operations who fostered a flawed culture.  This flawed culture has been evident repeatedly in collisions, groundings, waivers leading to fatalities, capsized amphibious vehicles, a surrender rather than fight mentality, acquisition failures and coverups, prioritizing social issues over combat readiness, and so on.  There can be no disputing the failed culture of the Navy.
 
Aside from the root cause, there is another aspect to this tragedy and that is personal responsibility.  Frankly, given the SEALs supposed creed of attention to detail, I’m astounded that they would embark on a mission with unfamiliar equipment and known shortcomings in their training.  I know they (and the Navy/military, in general) have a ‘can do’ attitude (arrogance, when it comes down to it) that drives them to do foolish things but there comes a point where personal responsibility comes into play.  In addition to knowingly endangering themselves, each SEAL knowingly allowed their fellow SEALs to begin a mission that they knew their fellows were not adequately trained or prepared for and that danger was compounded by the darkness and weather conditions.  Even if they wish to ignore the danger to themselves, each SEAL is obligated to be responsible for his fellow team members if he sees them about to do something foolish.  Each SEAL member failed their obligation to their teammates.
 
I’m deeply disappointed in the SEALs individually and as a group culture.
 
Some of you may be offended by this analysis but that doesn’t change the reality.
 
 
 
_____________________________

 
[1]Redstate website, “Investigation Reveals Drowning of Two Navy SEALs During a Boarding Operation Was Entirely Preventable”, streiff, 12-Oct-2024,
https://redstate.com/streiff/2024/10/12/investigation-reveals-drowning-of-two-navy-seals-during-a-boarding-operation-was-entirely-preventable-n2180468

Special Forces in a Conventional War

Desert Storm provided an interesting perspective on the use of special forces in a conventional war.  General Schwarzkopf was dead set against the use of special forces and had no plans to use them until forced by the President to do so.

 

Army Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, the four-star commander of US Central Command and the war's military leader, viewed unconventional-warfare units with skepticism.

 

Initially, Schwarzkopf was adamantly against special-operations units having any significant role in the conflict — though he did accept some Delta Force operators as personal bodyguards.

 

…  after some persuasion from the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Schwarzkopf relaxed his no-commandos policy. (1)

 

The problem with special forces in conventional wars is that, by definition, they can’t provide any significant firepower effects due both to their small unit size and their lack of heavy weaponry.  The best case scenario is a minor, occasional, nuisance effect and that’s not a war-winning impact.  Balanced against that minor impact is the significant cost required to man, train, and logistically support an entire military branch.  In addition, special forces seem to constantly require emergency extraction which takes away from the activities of other forces.

 

I recognize that this is not going to be a popular post for many people but, objectively, it is what it is.

 

Now, let’s consider some of the historical successes by special forces in conventional wars:

 

WWII Coastwatchers – This consisted of individuals who were inserted into enemy territory to report on enemy ship movements.

 

Vietnam Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol (LRRP, “Lurp”) – These small units inserted into enemy territory to provide deep reconnaissance.

 

French and Indian War (1754-1763) Rogers Rangers – This force was initially formed to provide scouting and reconnaissance but grew and morphed into light infantry.

 

Decima Flottiglia MAS – This Italian group of ‘frogmen’ conducted many ‘human torpedo’ attacks with a couple of partial successes such as temporarily disabling the British HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Valiant.  Overall, the effect was negligible and many/most forces were killed or captured.

 

 

 

The preceding examples demonstrate that there are a couple of characteristics of successful historical special forces:

 

Small Size – The forces have been small, ranging from individuals to small units.  Contrast that to today’s special force organizations which have ballooned in size and have become bloated, self-propagating entities.

 

Reconnaissance – The focus of successful historical special forces has been reconnaissance as opposed to firepower effects.  The question is whether the enhanced reconnaissance is worth the maintenance of entire organizations?  Could the information thus obtained have been obtained using other, possibly better, methods?

 

 

Unfortunately, the historical characteristics of successful special forces seem to be at odds – indeed, almost direct opposites – with today’s special forces which are large and ever-growing and have moved far beyond (left behind?) traditional reconnaissance roles and into light infantry roles.

 

How does all this tie into the Navy?

 

The Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC) comprises approximately 10,000 personnel, including active duty and reserve component Special Warfare Operators, known as SEALs; Special Warfare Boat Operators, known as Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewmen (SWCC); reserve personnel; support personnel, referred to as Enablers; and civilians. NSWC headquarters is located at Coronado, CA, and is composed of eight active duty SEAL Teams, two reserve component SEAL Teams, two SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) Teams, three Special Boat Teams, and two Special Reconnaissance Teams. Because SEALs are considered experts in special reconnaissance and direct action missions—primary counterterrorism skills—NSWC is viewed as well-postured to fight a globally dispersed enemy ashore or afloat. NSWC forces can operate in small groups and have the ability to quickly deploy from Navy ships, submarines and aircraft, overseas bases, and forward-based units. (2)

 

That’s 10,000 people, untold quantities of equipment, and vast sums of money all to support a force that will have little use in a conventional peer war.  That’s a lot of resources that could be better used by the regular Navy.  None of this is to suggest that Navy special forces be totally eliminated – just that they be vastly scaled back.  Navy SEALs, for example, should stop deploying as a ground infantry force and get back to operations in the water.  For an in-depth discussion of SEAL forces and the kind of missions they should be performing see, “SEALs”.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The US’ special forces have grown out of the last few decades of continual small wars and anti-terrorism activities.  Given that impetus and the inexorable tendency of any organization to attempt to grow itself (the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy), the special forces have expanded beyond all reason and need.

 

As stated about Navy SEALs , this is not to suggest that all special forces be eliminated but they should be vastly scaled back.  Conventional forces are more than sufficient for most of the missions we’re currently using special forces for.  We also need to reorient our military away from minor conflicts and back to peer war.

 

Future peer wars are going to be massive, fast, and deadly with armor and artillery being emphasized (as the US will quickly discover, to its regret).  This is not an environment where special forces will be particularly useful unless they re-embrace their roots of small size and reconnaissance.

 

 

 

_____________________________________

 

(1)Insider website, “How US special-operations forces helped the US military win its first post-Cold War victory”, Stavros Atlamazoglou, 23-Feb-2021,

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-us-special-operations-forces-helped-win-the-gulf-war-2021-2

 

(2)https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/RS21048.pdf

SEALs

Navy SEALs.  Who doesn’t love Navy SEALs?  Well, I guess in a show of hands, ComNavOps might be one of the very few who raises his hand as not loving Navy SEALs.  Let me be clearer.  I don’t love what they’ve become organizationally and functionally.

Recall the SEAL’s lineage.  It began in WWII with the Amphibious Scouts and Raiders, Naval Combat Demolition Units, and Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT) and evolved over the years into the SEALs of the Vietnam era.  The founding missions were hydrographic surveys of potential assault sites, obstacle demolition, beach reconnaissance, infiltration, etc.  During the Vietnam war, there were two SEAL teams, one based on each coast of the US.

Underwater Demolition Team

There are now 8 SEAL Teams, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 with Teams 7 and 10 having been formed in 2002.  There are also two reserve SEAL Teams, 17 & 18.

Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC or NSW) was established in 1987 in Coronado, and has responsibility for SEAL, SWCC (Special Boat operators) and SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) personnel (1).   The SEAL Teams were designated as such in the mid-1980’s from the previous Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT).

It is difficult to get an accurate count of the number of SEAL and NSW personnel.  No two sources seem to quite agree.  The SOCOM 2018 Fact Book gives the NSW manpower as “approximately 10,000”. (6)

From the Navy’s website,

“The NSW community is organized around eight SEAL teams, one SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) team, three special boat teams and supporting commands which deploy forces worldwide. The community is comprised of approximately 9,200 total personnel including more than 2,700 active-duty Special Warfare Operators, 700 Special Warfare Boat Operators (SWCC), 700 reserve personnel, 4,000 support personnel and more than 1,100 civilians.” (4)

Or,

“NSWC is the parent command to a total of 5,400 active duty and 1,200 reserve NSW personnel. It oversees four subordinate Major Commands known as NSW Groups 1-4, and their lower commands: eight SEAL Teams, two SEAL Delivery Vehicle Teams (SDVT), and three Special Boat Teams (SBT). All even-numbered Groups and Teams are located on the East Coast, and all odd-numbered ones on the West Coast of the U.S.” (1)

And,

“The total number of personnel in the SEAL teams comes in at 8,195.  Subtracting those assigned to SEAL Team Six, we get a figure of 6,895.  Looking at the total number of soldiers assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment, we get 3,473. Can we lay this rumor to rest now? There are way more SEALs than there are Rangers.” (2)

Debates about the exact number of personnel aside, I’d like to examine the SEAL’s organizational growth and mission.

NSWC active duty personnel increased from around 5000 in 2001 to around 8100 in 2014 (3).  These are not all SEALs but the numbers provide a feel for the magnitude of the increase.  Funding increased from $260M in 2005 to $576M in 2014 (4).

Even very recently, NSW funding continues to grow.  From the 2016 budget justification document (5), we see that the specific account line for “Ship/Boat Operations”, which is a part of the NSW budget, rose from $87M in 2014 to an estimated $113M in 2016 – a 28% increase even after adjustment for inflation.

From two SEAL teams (and UDT) during the Vietnam War to the 8+ Teams and other NSW groups of today, it is clear that NSW has experienced explosive growth.  Well, there’s nothing wrong with growth if it’s necessary, right?  That leads us into the heart of this post.

What does NSW do? 

Popular impression is that SEALs conduct missions that originate from the sea and return to the sea.  The link to the sea is what distinguishes SEALs from other special forces such as the Green Berets or Rangers.  Of course, this is not completely accurate as we’ve seen SEALs deploy to completely land-locked areas and conduct purely ground actions.

Well, then, what is the official mission of the SEALs?  From the Navy NSW mission web page, we get this,

“NSW is postured to fight a globally-dispersed enemy, whether ashore or afloat, before they can act. NSW forces can operate in small groups and have a continuous presence overseas with their ability to quickly deploy from Navy ships, submarines and aircraft, overseas bases and forward-based units.  The proven ability of NSW forces to operate across the spectrum of conflict and in operations other than war, and provide real-time, first-hand intelligence offer decision makers immediate and multiple options in the face of rapidly changing crises around the world.” (4)

That’s a pretty generic and, therefore, worthless statement although it does offer two tidbits that we’ll come back to.

Setting aside the generic and largely non-specific mission statement, we all understand what SEALs do.  They do small unit, high degree of difficulty, high risk actions.  They attack high value targets, provide surveillance and intel, and the like.  This is admirable.  This is also redundant and counterproductive.

We already have several special operations forces dedicated to land operations.  Why are we using SEALs?  That’s redundant and wasteful.

What should SEALs be doing?  They should return to their roots which is actions on the sea and from the sea and leave the pure land actions to the other groups.

Now, here’s the counterproductive part.  Because of the focus on land operations, SEALs are largely ignoring many vital missions.  Let’s consider some possibilities.

• Destruction/sabotage of the illegal Chinese artificial islands.  Those islands, especially while they were under construction were ideal targets for sabotage and destruction.

• Destruction/sabotage of Iranian swarm boats and base facilities.  Iran is long overdue for some serious punishment for its repeated pattern of reckless and illegal behavior toward the U.S. Navy.

• Seizure of vessels supplying arms and supplies to NKorea and Iran.

• Sea-launched anti-terrorist surveillance, intel, and stike actions in Africa.

• Capture and/or destruction of drug trafficking vessels in South America and Mexico.  Clearly those countries are incapable of effectively conducting their own operations.

• Seizure of Chinese unmanned vehicles operation on, under, or over the ocean.

• Destruction of NKorean naval vessels such as the SSBN that is being built.

• Destruction/sabotage of the Crimean shipyards seized from Ukraine and the Russian corvette vessels reportedly under construction there.  Such clandestine efforts would be an appropriate response to Russia’s illegal, militaristic, expansionist activities and send a clear message about our resolve.

And the list goes on.  To be fair, some of these activities may be occurring without public knowledge.  In fact, one hopes they are!  However, nothing I’ve seen even hints at this.  The SEALS appear to be firmly wedded to the land and make no particular effort to hide that fact which makes it unlikely that they are conducting the kind of hidden missions I’ve outlined.

There’s one more aspect to the SEALs that needs to be addressed.  SEALs, along with other military assets, have traditionally been used to take actions that support our national security but which may, on the face of it, appear illegal according to international laws and regulations.  For example, it’s widely believed that during the Cold War we sent submarines inside Soviet Union territorial waters to conduct clandestine operations.  Similarly, it’s assumed that we send SEALs on missions that may violate territorial boundaries.

The justification for this is that the countries in question have, by their own illegal and irresponsible actions, presented a threat to our national security and forfeited their rights to the protections provided by international law.  This is not the point of the post so I’m not going to discuss it further.

Note that in the SEAL mission description quoted earlier, we see this snippet regarding SEAL missions, “enemy …  before they can act”.  This is formally recognizing the pre-emptive nature of special forces missions.  The SEALs exist to take action before an enemy can take action against us.  Thus, the suggested missions list I presented earlier and which some of you are undoubtedly furiously pounding out replies about the illegality of, now become clear for what they are:  pre-emptive and preventative actions.

The SEALs need to return to the sea and leave the purely land operations to the other groups.  Why do we have Delta Force, Rangers, Green Berets, etc. if we’re going to intrude into their responsibilities with SEALs?  Would we think it makes sense to have Green Berets conduct sea based operations?  Of course not and the Navy would pitch a fit if they did, so why do we think the reverse makes sense?

Here’s another tidbit from the mission statement,

“… provide real-time, first-hand intelligence …”

The original purpose of the UDT/SEAL force was to provide intel.  Over the years, that has morphed into active and intentional combat.  The SEAL community has lost its focus or, more likely, intentionally changed the focus in pursuit of a larger budget slice.  We need to return the SEALs to clandestine intel collection and isolated destruction/sabotage rather than wholesale land combat.

The SEALs were never intended for sustained land combat and yet that is what they have become.  They’ve become a naval army.

Let’s cut way back on the size of the SEAL force, return those billets to the fleet, and refocus the SEAL mission responsibility to the sea-based arena that it is supposed to function in.

I love SEALs but I don’t love what they’ve become.

________________________________________

(1)navyseals.com website,

https://navyseals.com/nsw/structure/

(2)Sofrep website, “Navy SEALs or Army Rangers: Who Has the Higher Numbers?”, Jack Murphy, 6-Aug-2015,

https://sofrep.com/42425/jsoc-navy-seals-army-rangers-higher-numbers/

(3)Government Accounting Office (GAO), “Special Operations Forces”, July 2015, GAO-15-571, p.46

(4)ibid, p.55

(4)Navy website, Naval Special Warfare Command,

http://www.public.navy.mil/NSW/Pages/Mission.aspx

(5)United States Special Operations Command Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Budget Estimates, SOCOM-847,

http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2016/budget_justification/pdfs/01_Operation_and_Maintenance/O_M_VOL_1_PART_1/USSOCOM_PB16.pdf

(6)http://www.socom.mil/FactBook/2018%20Fact%20Book.pdf