Introduction
In an era characterized by complex global dynamics and multifaceted threats, the United States Special Operations Forces (SOF) 's ability to engage effectively across diverse environments is paramount. For decades, a central tenet of special operations has been the importance of cultural and regional expertise. The ability of SOF to build relationships, navigate complex social terrains, and operate below the level of armed conflict is foundational to their success. While this requires a deep understanding of the operational environment, the specific role of language proficiency within that understanding has become a subject of intense debate.
While official doctrine emphasizes language, regional expertise, and culture (LREC) as a unified capability, language training has consistently been a low priority for many deploying units. Despite this, SOF has successfully executed missions and built partner networks for decades. This paradox raises a critical question: How should SOF reconcile its emphasis on language with a multi-decade history of success that has often occurred without it?
Language as Mission-Essential, Not Mission-Critical
The strategic value of language skills within SOF could be viewed as mission-essential (or, even mission-enhancing) rather than a mission-critical requirement. While direct communication in a partner's language is undoubtedly an asset that can accelerate the process of building trust and rapport, its absence does not automatically lead to mission failure. The long history of successful SOF operations globally demonstrates that forces can effectively achieve operational or strategic objectives by leveraging other critical competencies.
When SOF operators lack specific language skills, they face challenges that can be mitigated through the skilled use of interpreters or translators, a deep understanding of cultural norms, and a reliance on non-verbal communication. The primary risk is not a guaranteed failure to build partnerships, but rather a potential for friction as a result of communication inefficiencies. In a competitive environment where adversaries seek to exploit any perceived gap, a reliance on intermediaries can slow the speed of influence and require greater effort to ensure the clarity and authenticity of the message.
Therefore, language proficiency should be viewed as a tool that optimizes engagement and strengthens the application of U.S. power. It makes a culturally astute soldier even more effective and can provide a distinct advantage in nuanced interactions. However, the true foundation of SOF's success remains its deep regional expertise and cultural acumen, which enable operators to build credible, lasting relationships, regardless of shared language.
Policy vs. Practice: The Enduring Language Dilemma
The de facto treatment of language as mission-essential, rather than mission-critical, is not a new phenomenon. The decades-long gap between formal policy and operational reality is the most compelling evidence that the force has intuitively understood this distinction.
A 2023 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that language training is not completed equally across the SOF enterprise, with many elements focusing on other training to prepare for deployments (GAO, 2023). The report noted that while services have standards for language capabilities, there are limited consequences for failing to meet them.
These findings echo a 1991 Inspector General report on the Army Special Operations Forces (ARSOF) language program, which identified similar challenges; the ARSOF language training program failed to provide sufficient training for Special Forces Soldiers (Office of the Inspector General, 1991). The findings of both the 1991 and 2023 reports reveal a continuity: language training remains an advanced skill that is treated with less urgency than other mission-critical tasks. This trend is further solidified by high-level policy changes. The Department of the Army's Fiscal Year 2025 Command Plan Guidance explicitly directed a shift in how language-coded positions are managed (Department of the Army, 2023).
Proposed Solutions: Flexibility and Mission Command
Instead of fighting against this decades-long institutional reality, USSOCOM should formally embrace it. The solution is not to abandon LREC, but to rebalance its components and evolve beyond a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to language training. The goal should be an environment in which SOF leaders at the lowest echelons can implement language requirements based on operational necessity while ensuring their forces maintain a deep understanding of culture and regional dynamics. This can be achieved through four primary lines of effort:
1. Synchronization: USSOCOM should synchronize LREC opportunities across the service components. This involves assessing current programs to identify gaps and strengths and integrating LREC to reduce often redundant service-specific programs.
2. Customization of Language Programs: Develop tailored language programs that match the specific operational needs of deploying units, focusing on the languages and dialects relevant to current and potential areas of operation.
3. Embracing Technological Solutions: To bridge the immediate communication gap, aggressively field and integrate cutting-edge translation technologies. Portable, real-time translation devices and applications can provide on-demand linguistic support, enabling communication in environments where no team member possesses language proficiency.
4. Accountability: Centralized oversight can track progress and ensure that all LREC training, whether focused on language, regional studies, or technology, directly supports mission readiness.
Conclusion
The success of SOF in a complex global environment hinges on its ability to understand and influence that environment. While language can be a powerful tool, it is only one component of the LREC puzzle. For decades, SOF has demonstrated its ability to operate effectively with or without specific language skills, relying instead on a strong foundation of cultural acumen and regional expertise.
By fostering an agile and adaptive system built on synchronization, needs-based training, technological adoption, and proper accountability, USSOCOM can cultivate a force that is culturally adept and fully prepared for the demands of modern strategic deterrence. The future of SOF effectiveness lies not in rigid adherence to requirements that are disconnected from operational reality, but in redefining language as a mission-essential capability.
Author’s Note: Sergeant Major Michael Dean is a regular Army Psychological Operations noncommissioned officer with more than 24 years of service. He has served more than 18 years in various Psychological Operations formations, and he wrote this as part of the Joint Special Operations Forces Senior Enlisted Academy graduation requirements. The views, opinions, and analysis expressed do not represent the position of the U.S. Army or the Department of War.
References
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (n.d.) National military strategy 2022: Strategic discipline. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Clarke, R. D. (2019). SOCOM commander’s guidance and priorities. U.S. Special Operations Command.
Department of the Army. (2023). Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Command Plan (CPLAN) Guidance.
Department of Defense. (2020). Defense language, regional expertise, and culture (LREC) Program. (DOD Directive 5160.41E).
Department of Defense. (2023). Special operations forces foreign language, regional expertise, and cultural policy. (DOD Instruction 3902.02).
Department of the Navy. (2013). Naval Special Warfare (NWP 3-05).
Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2018a). Foreign internal defense (JP 3-22).
Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2018b). Joint operations (JP 3-0).
Maier, C. P. & Clarke, R. D. (2022). Special operations forces vision & strategy. United States Special Operations Command.
Office of the Inspector General. (1991). Audit Report: Army special forces foreign language program (Report number 91-123). Department of Defense.
Rodriguez, H. (2023). War of the words: MARSOC language training with USASOC personnel. Marine Forces Special Operations Command.
United States Government Accountability Office. (2023). Special operations forces: Enhanced training, analysis, and monitoring could improve foreign language proficiency (GAO-24-105849).
U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. (1993). Annual History Report. United States Army Special Operations Command.
U.S. Army Special Operations Command History Office (n.d.). U.S. Army Special Operations Forces timeline. A Timeline of U.S. Army Special Operations Forces.
U.S. Department of Defense. (2022). 2022 National defense strategy of the United States of America including the 2022 nuclear posture review and the 2022 missile defense review.