Q&A: Michael G. Vickers
Written by Jeff McKaughan
SOTECH 2010 Volume: 8 Issue: 2 (March)
Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Special Operations/Low-Intensity
Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities
Vickers is the senior civilian advisor to the Secretary of Defense on the operational employment and capabilities of special operations forces. He is also the senior civilian adviser on counterterrorism, irregular warfare, counternarcotics, and special activities. In his Interdependent Capabilities role, he advises the Secretary of Defense on the operational employment and capabilities of strategic and conventional forces.
Prior to his appointment as ASD (SO/LIC&IC), Vickers served as senior vice president, strategic studies, at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). From 1973 to 1986, he served as an Army Special Forces non-commissioned officer, Special Forces officer, and CIA operations officer. During this period, Vickers had operational and combat experience in Central America and the Caribbean, the Middle East, and Central and South Asia. His operational experience spans covert action and espionage, unconventional warfare, counterterrorism (including hostage rescue operations), counterinsurgency, and foreign internal defense. During the mid-1980s, Vickers was the principal strategist for the largest covert action program in the CIA’s history: the paramilitary operation that drove the Soviet army out of Afghanistan.
Vickers received his B.A., with honors, from the University of Alabama. He also holds an MBA from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Vickers was interviewed by SOTECH Editor Jeff McKaughan.
Q: We last sat down like this in 2007. How has your office changed since then in terms of structure, mission and purpose? As a follow-on, are there more changes being considered?
A: The Office of the Under Secretary for Policy was reorganized at the beginning of the Obama administration. The Strategic Capabilities office that I had oversight of during 2007-2008 has expanded into two offices under a new ASD for Global Strategic Affairs. The Force Transformation and Resources office that I managed has migrated to a new DUSD for Strategy, Plans and Forces. I still provide strategic advice on the development and employment of the department’s strategic and conventional forces, however, through my Interdependent Capabilities role.
As part of the reorganization, I now oversee two new offices with substantially expanded responsibilities: Partnership Strategy and Stability Operations, and Counternarcotics and Global Threats. I have retained the office that oversees Special Operations and Combating Terrorism. SO/CT’s responsibilities have been expanded to include all components of irregular warfare [IW]. In December 2008, the department issued DoD Directive 3000.07, which among other things assigns me as the principal civilian advisor to the Secretary of Defense for Irregular Warfare, which encompasses counterinsurgency, foreign internal defense, unconventional warfare, counterterrorism and stability operations. This policy shift reflects the secretary’s intent to institutionalize IW across the department. I spend about 95 percent of my time on operations— with the war in Afghanistan, our strategy toward Pakistan, our global counterterrorism and counternarcotics operations, and all of the sensitive activities that the department conducts or in which it participates, taking up most of my time.
The rest of the time I fulfill a “service secretary-like” role for special operations forces, provide advice on major force structure and investment decisions, and oversee the department’s threat finance and partnership strategy and stability operations portfolios. I don’t foresee any additional organizational change for a while.
Q: Can you give me any advance glimpses of what the FY11 budget request might look like in terms of dollars up or down from previous years? Any significant program adjustments/new adds/cancellations?
A: The FY11 budget reflects the secretary’s intent to create a more balanced force that places greater emphasis on the capabilities needed for our current wars and irregular conflicts. We’ll continue programmed growth in our special operations forces, and expand their organic capacity for rotary wing aviation, intelligence and other critical enabling capabilities. Across SOF and in the general purpose forces we are adding capabilities needed to train foreign security forces in ground, air and maritime operations. We are also seeking an increase in our Global Train and Equip Program.
The department is making some important investments— both in terms of resources and manpower, in cyberspace capabilities and homeland defense. We are also examining options to deter and, if necessary, defeat prospective adversaries armed with anti-access/area-denial systems and other high-end asymmetric capabilities. Studies have been funded, for example, in FY2011 to examine options for expanding penetrating and stand-off precision strike capabilities, increasing the resiliency of U.S. forward basing infrastructure, and enhancing space survivability.
Q: Could you go into just a little more detail about the Global Train and Equip Program? Do you know what size increase might be expected?
A: Sure, the Global Train and Equip program—also known as Section 1206—allows the U.S. to meet time-sensitive or emerging combatant commander requirements to train and equip key partners. It can be used to increase the capability of our partners to conduct counterterrorism operations at home or to help prepare willing coalition partners to serve alongside U.S. forces in places like Afghanistan.
The funding for FY2010 is $350 million, and we’re seeking to increase it in FY2011 to $500 million. It’s a global authority, so it can be used to address the security needs of multiple countries, typically those that face serious internal threats linked to al Qa’ida or other terrorist groups.
We’ve used 1206 funding and authorities to support urgent CT requirements in Pakistan, Lebanon, the Philippines and a number of other countries around the world. In the case of Pakistan, where demands exceeded the limits of 1206, Congress authorized a separate Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund, which for FY10 is resourced at $700 million.
Q: With the focus being on foreign partners?
A: Yes, training and equipping foreign partners, principally in counterterrorism and then secondarily for stability operations.
Q: Is that money allocated and authorized for use by your office or by USSOCOM?
A: Funding is appropriated to DoD for this program, but the authority to execute is “dual key,” meaning both the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State must agree with each proposal. My office receives the requests from the combatant commands via the Joint Staff, and administers the program for the Secretary of Defense.
Defense and State work together throughout the process— proposals are jointly developed by State and DoD personnel in the field, and the departments here in D.C. work closely to prioritize and refine them, and ultimately package them for approval and Congressional notification. There has always been more demand than supply, meaning it’s not possible for us to approve all of the combatant commanders’ requests, which is one of the reasons we are trying to expand the funding for this program.
Q: What role does your office have in supporting a rapid and transparent acquisition process that ensures getting systems into the hands of SOF warriors as fast as possible?
A: Through the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office, I conduct and support a wide range of DoD, Interagency and International research and development programs each year. CTTSO provides a needed forum for the development and delivery of technologies and capabilities for both antiterrorism and counterterrorism—defensive measures against attacks and direct action against terrorists, which make people safer and finding and neutralizing terrorists easier.
Products first prototyped with CTTSO are now in use with military units in combat, special operations forces, explosive ordnance disposal, law enforcement and first responders. The interagency scope of the organization, coupled with multiple international partners, has allowed CTTSO to be both innovative and entrepreneurial.
Q: Admiral [Eric] Olson [commander, USSOCOM] and others have emphasized the importance of adding gunship capabilities. Is there more that can be done to help add those capabilities sooner, and to address the aging aircraft issue within most of AFSOC’s C-130 assets?
A: This is a very important issue for us because it deals with a crucial capability that has both offensive and defensive applications for our deployed SOF. As we reported in the QDR, beginning in FY2012 the Air Force will convert 16 new C-130J aircraft to the gunship configuration, and older model AC-130s will be retired. These changes will, over time, simultaneously modernize the fleet and enlarge it from 25 to a total of 33 aircraft. In the interim, we have armed MC-130W Combat Spear aircraft with a modular precision-strike package to help meet immediate operational requirements.
Improved technology for delivery of precision munitions in a wide range of applications leads us to new and exciting options for future gunship employment. Fusing sensor packages with weapons systems will enhance the lethality of these platforms, and expand potential for use in a wider variety of operational environments.
Q: What is your office’s relationship with Congress, especially when it comes to keeping them educated on the capabilities of SOF and what their needs are in terms of manpower, funding and what their stretch limits are?
A: As you know, Congress created the office of the ASD SO/ LIC more than 20 years ago, and has remained keenly interested ever since. Today, we work closely with the Congress on all issues pertaining to development and employment of SOF. We frequently engage the Congress to keep members and staff informed of emerging issues and challenges. We are often teamed with our interagency colleagues to provide testimony in both open and closed sessions on important operational matters. One recent example of our efforts to keep Congress informed is the “Report to Congress on Civil Affairs,” dated April 29, 2009, on the requirements and roles of civil affairs throughout the full spectrum of operations.
Q: Is your office engaged with international partner nations at the defense department/ministry level to coordinate intelligence gathering and capability coordination?
A: Yes, we participate in several defense bilateral working groups that have within them sub-groups focused on these issues. This is particularly true in the area of counterterrorism, especially as it pertains to current and emergent threats. We also maintain regular contact with key U.S. allies with whom we have formal information and intelligence sharing agreements.
Q: Are there things you would like to do that can improve on the levels of international cooperation at both the strategic and tactical levels?
A: We focused heavily during the recent QDR on strengthening our capability to work with foreign security forces. We think that adding more emphasis to foreign language and regional expertise across the force, and developing recurring contact with these forces at all levels, will improve our ability to operate with partners and allies in future conflicts.
Q: When talking about the QDR, we’ve talked about gunships and strengthening capabilities with international partners and such; is there anything else in the QDR that you think is significant that will have an impact on the way special operations forces either do business or interact with partners?
A: The 2006 QDR provided for a very large increase in special operations forces ground units. For example, we increased active duty Special Forces battalions by a third, so from 15 to 20 active battalions, and added a fourth company to each Ranger battalion. We grew our SEAL force structure as well.
The 2010 QDR picked up where the 2006 QDR left off. It really focused on rounding out the combat support and enablers for special operations forces. The personal growth this time around is really in intel, logistics and other combat support and combat service support functions to enable the sustained operations that we are doing in Afghanistan. It will also provide additional rotary wing lift, which has been in short supply.
Q: How important will special operations forces be in protecting and securing nuclear weapons from being acquired by terrorist types?
A: The responsibility for protecting sensitive weapons, or any military materiel, belongs in the first instance to the country that owns them, and the U.S. government engages as appropriate with all nations to gain security assurances for sensitive technologies and materials. Should there be a breach of these security protocols, as with any aspect of contingency planning, our first priority will always be to take necessary action to protect the United States from external acts of aggression.
SOF will always be considered by DoD as a potential response force for any terrorist threat, although there are many other capabilities in the Department of Defense and the U.S. government that may be employed given the particular circumstances.
Q: What can you tell me about the level of assistance and support that U.S. Special Operations forces have provided to relief efforts in Haiti?
A: SOF have historically formed the nucleus of an initial disaster relief force, and Haiti was no exception. Combat controllers were quickly deployed to establish control of Port–au-Prince International Airport, keeping the flow of rescue personnel and badly needed medical supplies open until other forces could arrive. Our civil affairs troops have served a valuable role in getting essential services restored, and provided emergency broadcast capability to provide public service announcements throughout the affected areas of the country.
Q: I asked you this the last time and I’m going back to the well on it again. What do you see as the biggest challenge your office will face in the next 12 months?
A: We’ve laid out an aggressive timeline for surging additional forces into Afghanistan, reversing insurgent momentum, and accelerating the growth of Afghan National Security Forces. We have a complex set of counterterrorism challenges to deal with in Pakistan, and more recently, in Yemen as well. We have to continue to successfully manage the drawdown and transition in Iraq, and sustain counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and counternarcotics assistance in Colombia, the Philippines and several other high priority countries.
Q: That being said, what is needed to address those challenges?
A: We are very fortunate as a nation that we have a fantastic group of leaders, strategic thinkers and operators to deal with these very difficult times. The National Security team is as strong as I’ve ever seen and our troops are remarkable.
Q: Any final thoughts?
A: Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues with your readers. ♦