JSOU Press

Occasional Paper

September 2017

Unconventional Warfare as a Strategic 

Force Multiplier:

Task Force Viking in Northern Iraq, 2003

by Timothy D. Brown

Joint Special Operations University

Center for Strategic Studies
The views expressed in this publication are entirely those of the author and 

do not necessarily reflect the views, policy or position of the United States 

Government, Department of Defense, United States Special Operations 

Command, or the Joint Special Operations University.

Authors are granted academic freedom provided their work does not disclose 

classified information, jeopardize operations security, or misrepresent official 

U.S. policy. Such academic freedom empowers authors to offer new and 

sometimes controversial perspectives in the interest of furthering debate on 

key issues.

JSOU Press Publications are available for download at:

http://jsou.libguides.com/jsoupublications.

ISSN 2572-9020 (print)

ISSN 2572-9039 (online)

This work was cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited.

On the cover: Iraqi Kurd peshmerga fighters celebrate as they head to the frontline after a defensive restreat 

by Iraqi government forces on a road leading to the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, 3 April 2003. SOURCE: CAREN 

FIROUZ/REUTERS/NEWSCOM.
About the Author

Colonel Timothy D. Brown (U.S. Air Force, Retired) is currently a professor of operation and theater 

planning at the United States Army War College and was previously adjunct faculty of the Joint Special 

Operations University. Prior to retiring from the U.S. Air Force in 2014, Colonel Brown spent most of 

his 30-year career in various special operations units across the globe. Primarily an MH-53J/M Pave 

Low pilot, he commanded the 352nd Operations Support Squadron at Royal Air Force Mildenhall, 

United Kingdom; the 2nd Joint Special Operations Air Component at Camp Smith, Hawaii; and 

the 435th Contingency Response Group and 701st Air Expeditionary Group, Ramstein Air Base, 

Germany. He also completed staff assignments at Air Force Special Operations Command, United 

States Special Operations Command, Headquarters United States Air Force, and Special Operations 

Command-Pacific. In the four years preceding his retirement, he was a faculty instructor at the United 

States Army War College, where he taught several core and elective courses, including the special 

operations elective.

Colonel Brown holds a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering from the United States Air 

Force Academy, a master of aviation science degree from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, a 

master of military art and science degree from Air University, and a master of strategic studies degree 

from the United States Army War College.

A veteran of multiple combat and combat support operations throughout the world, he served 

as the director of operations and plans (J-3/5) of Joint Special Operations Air Detachment-North, 

in direct support of Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-North in the opening days of 

Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. In this role, he planned and conducted operations in northern Iraq 

from February 2002 to May 2003. Prior to deploying to Irbil, Colonel Brown led the team that opened 

the air base at Constanta, Romania, thus providing a key logistical node in the air bridge that helped 

coalition forces move into the Kurdish Autonomous Zone. Much of this paper reflects his personal 

experiences and observations while supporting Task Force Viking.

1

Unconventional Warfare as a

Strategic Force Multiplier:

Task Force Viking in Northern Iraq, 2003

In today’s dangerous, rapidly changing security environment, United States political and military 

leaders continue to wrestle with a supremely important, vexing question: For what type of warfare 

should America’s military be prepared? Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has maintained an 

unparalleled capability to wage traditional warfare.1 This approach has been appropriate, as America’s 

military might has dissuaded, deterred, and, when needed, defeated adversaries. However, the world 

is not static, and neither are the country’s adversaries, who Americans sometimes fall into the trap 

of believing are unimaginative people awed by the ‘might and right’ of the U.S. and who should 

dogmatically bend to its will. Such a situation would certainly make military planning and preparation 

relatively simple, especially as the country’s preference has long been to fight conventionally against 

traditional foes and avoid ‘messy’ wars whenever possible. Even a casual look at the emerging global 

security environment reveals such thinking is unrealistic, dangerous, and potentially catastrophic. 

Sometimes, and increasingly more often, adversaries do not play by the rules we observe, or they 

simply ignore rules altogether.

A fierce debate emerged following the Cold War regarding whether the U.S. military should prepare 

for irregular warfare (IW) over traditional warfare, or vice versa. One side of the debate says the U.S. 

should prepare for IW, loosely known over the years as small wars or as part of military operations 

other than war, among other monikers. According to this view, IW will be more prevalent, and there 

will be sufficient indicators and warning for traditional warfare to make adequate preparations. On the 

other side is the belief that the U.S. should prepare for traditional warfare, since it is more dangerous, 

and flex to IW if needed. Both arguments are based on a fundamentally flawed notion that the U.S. can 

maintain competence in either type of warfare while organizing, training, and equipping for only one.

To declare one type of warfare as more important than the other is precarious at best, and the 

arguments are unconvincing. Traditional warfare against the U.S. will not be common, as adversaries 

will be hesitant to challenge the might of its military prowess, but if it happens, the level of destruction 

could be ruinous. On the other hand, IW will be more likely, although the aftermath may be less 

consequential. According to the 2015 National Military Strategy (NMS):

In this complex strategic security environment, the U.S. military does not have the luxury 

of focusing on one challenge to the exclusion of others. It must provide a full range of 

military options for addressing threats including both revisionist states and VEOs [violent 

1. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, 25 March 2013, x. Traditional 

warfare is characterized as a violent struggle for domination between nation-states or coalitions and alliances of nationstates.
2

extremist organizations]. Failure to do so will result in great risk to our country and the 

international order.2

Thus, both types of warfare will continue to exist and are unavoidable, just as they have been since the 

advent of warfare. Preparing for both is essential, and competence in both can be complementary and 

symbiotic. Proficiency in one, backed by proper theory, doctrine, training, planning, and preparedness, 

can bolster proficiency in the other. This paper intends to show how unconventional warfare (UW),3

an activity of IW, is valuable to the nation and can, when properly applied in conjunction with a 

thoughtful plan, be a significant force multiplier. The example used is the UW campaign in northern 

Iraq in 2003, which, despite considerable and nearly crippling geographic and political obstacles, 

successfully aided the coalition advance to Baghdad. First, however, it is important to understand 

what an IW capability brings to the nation.

The Future Security Environment

The U.S.’ potential adversaries are changing at a rate that outpaces traditional warfare’s ability to keep 

up. The challenges will be diverse, requiring a multidimensional, multi-domain approach across the 

spectrum of conflict, with a variety of partners. IW will be a vital aspect of this approach. Nevertheless, 

state challenges will remain. In the event of state-on-state conflict, traditional warfare preparedness 

will be vital to national security. Increasingly, though, states employ tactics that fall outside the norms 

of traditional warfare, or perhaps they meld their capabilities with non-state actors, such as VEOs. 

Such scenarios are what the 2015 NMS refers to as ‘hybrid conflicts’:

Overlapping state and non-state violence, there exists an area of conflict where actors 

blend techniques, capabilities, and resources to achieve their objectives. Such “hybrid” 

conflicts may consist of military forces assuming a non-state identity, as Russia did in 

the Crimea, or involve a VEO fielding rudimentary combined arms capabilities, as ISIL4

has demonstrated in Iraq and Syria. Hybrid conflicts also may be comprised of state and 

non-state actors working together toward shared objectives, employing a wide range of 

weapons such as we have witnessed in eastern Ukraine. Hybrid conflicts serve to increase 

ambiguity, complicate decision-making, and slow the coordination of effective responses. 

2. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, The National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2015: The United States Military’s 

Contribution to National Security (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense, June 2015), 3.

3. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 3-05, Special Operations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense, 16 July 

2014), xi. UW includes “operations and activities that are conducted to enable a resistance movement or insurgency to 

coerce, disrupt, or overthrow a government or occupying power by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary, 

and guerrilla force in a denied area.” The doctrine for UW can be found in U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 3-05.1, 

Unconventional Warfare (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense, 15 September 2015). This document is For Official 

Use Only (FOUO) and not publicly released.

4. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, now officially referred to by the U.S. Government as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria 

(ISIS). Office of the Secretary of Defense, “Naming Convention for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria,” memorandum, 

13 February 2017.
3

Due to these advantages to the aggressor, it is likely that this form of conflict will persist 

well into the future.5

While this same description does not appear in the 2016 NMS, the concept of hybrid warfare, 

alternatively referred to as gray zone activity, remains valid and poses a significant challenge. The area 

of overlap between state and non-state conflict depicted in figure 1 is where this type of conflict is 

prominent and where adaptive adversaries can thrive.

An unclassified planning assumption from the Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF) 

warns, “Adversaries will attempt to employ non-traditional or asymmetric means and more ambiguous 

forms of coercion against the United States, its allies, and partners.”7 Such adversaries are increasingly 

lethal, unconstrained by the bounds of internationally accepted norms, imaginative in their methods, 

and capable of wreaking havoc to further their political aims. “This ‘gray zone’ activity has integrated 

cyber espionage, covert operations, psychological operations, promotion of insurgency elements, 

subtle military maneuvers, and political and economic subversion into a seamless whole,” suggests 

5. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, The National Military Strategy, 4.

6. Ibid.

7. Chuck Hagel, Guidance for Employment of the Force, 2015–2017 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense, February 

2015), 7.

Figure 1: The continuum of conflict. SOURCE: U.S. JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF.6
4

former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense John J. Hamre.8 However, activities of IW, when properly 

planned, resourced, and executed, may prove quite useful in exactly these types of situations and across 

the continuum, including in both ‘pure’ state and non-state conflict. As the GEF also notes, “Largescale conventional combat operations against other nation-states are less likely in the near term than 

irregular warfare operations,” especially in conflicts involving insurgencies, instability, and terrorism.9

When employing IW activities and acting within the bounds of international laws and conventions, 

the U.S. and its allies and partners can also thrive in conflicts that defy traditional definitions and 

descriptions.

Irregular Warfare: What Is It?

Joint doctrine describes IW as “a violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and 

influence over the relevant population(s).”10 When describing IW, there are several salient points to be 

aware of: (1) the goal of IW is to gain legitimacy and influence over the relevant population(s); (2) it 

is waged by both state and non-state actors, often at the same time; (3) IW favors, and likely requires, 

the use of indirect and asymmetric approaches; and (4) IW is, by its nature, a violent struggle, wherein 

all elements of military (and national) power may come to bear on the conflict.

In addition to UW, IW activities collectively consist of counterterrorism (CT),11 stability activities,12

foreign internal defense (FID),13 and counterinsurgency (COIN).14 An important note is while the 

‘five pillars’ of IW are five separate activities, as specified by objectives, authorities, funding, target 

audiences, etc., they may appear very similar in practice. They may overlap to the point where any or 

all of them are occurring at the same time in a given operation. Regardless, all share the common traits 

listed above, and all will require a concerted, synchronized effort among military forces, interagency 

partners, other governmental agencies, multinational and/or regional partners, private organizations, 

non-governmental organizations, or any combination thereof. The desired end state is “a selfsufficient partner with a supportive population able to sustain its self-defense capabilities and who is 

8. John J. Hamre, “What Are the Main National Security Challenges Facing the Trump Administration?” in Craig Cohen 

and Josiane Gabel, eds., 2017 Global Forecast (Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017), 7.

9. Hagel, Guidance for Employment of the Force, 7.

10. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 1, x.

11. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 3-26, Counterterrorism, 24 October 2014, vi. Counterterrorism: Actions taken 

directly against terrorist networks and indirectly to influence and render global and regional environments inhospitable to 

terrorist networks.

12. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations, 17 January 2017, GL-14. Stability activities: Various military 

missions, tasks, and activities conducted outside the United States in coordination with other instruments of national 

power to maintain or reestablish a safe and secure environment, provide essential governmental services, emergency 

infrastructure reconstruction, and humanitarian relief.

13. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 3-22, Foreign Internal Defense, 12 July 2010, ix. Foreign internal defense: 

Participation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by another government 

or other designated organization, to free and protect its society from subversion, lawlessness, insurgency, terrorism, and 

other threats to its security.

14. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 3-24, Counterinsurgency, 22 November 2013, ix. Counterinsurgency: 

Comprehensive civilian and military efforts taken to defeat an insurgency and to address any core grievances.
5

a trusted partner in regional security structures that support both HN [host nation] and U.S. national 

interests.”15 The intent is to enable the HN to address its problems, thereby furthering our security 

interests without major U.S. involvement.

Despite many similarities among the five IW activities, there is a significant difference setting 

UW apart from the other four. While FID, COIN, CT, and stability activities support a nation-state, 

typically against a resistance movement or insurgency, UW supports an insurgency or resistance 

movement against a nation-state, as depicted in figure 2. Usually, the insurgency or movement seeks 

to resist, overthrow, or gain political autonomy from a government, but it may also be designed to 

resist or expel a foreign occupying power. While UW incurs political and military risk, as do virtually all 

military operations, one of its major advantages is the ability to use fewer resources while supporting 

the insurgency or resistance movement in accomplishing the operation’s objectives. To conduct UW, 

unique forces with unique education, training, and employment techniques are required.

Policy objectives, sensitivities, key actors, methods used, and risk involved in UW will dictate 

who leads the effort. A typical UW operation led by the Department of Defense (DOD) may be 

secret but not necessarily covert. It supports a resistance movement or insurgency/opposition group 

during a major theater war or regional contingency and usually (but not always) facilitates the eventual 

introduction of conventional forces and/or diverts enemy resources away from other areas of the 

battlefield. U.S. Army special forces (SF) primarily conduct this type of UW, likely in conjunction 

with other agencies. The supported movement will have its own political objectives, which, although 

they may vary and diverge over time, will coincide to some extent with those of the U.S.17 This was 

the case in northern Iraq in 2003, a classic operation that yielded results far surpassing its level of 

15. U.S. Air Force, Air Force Doctrine Document 3-2, Irregular Warfare, 15 March 2013, 12.

16. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 3-05, II-2.

17. Ibid., II-8–II-10.

Figure 2. Relationships of the IW activities. SOURCE: U.S. JOINT CHIEFS 

OF STAFF.16
6

investment. It is an example of a U.S.-led coalition successfully conducting operations in the hybrid 

conflict area of figure 1. While the story of Task Force Viking has been told from a tactical standpoint 

elsewhere, it is important to recount the campaign from a strategic perspective to demonstrate its 

disproportionate political and military effect in aiding the coalition in its quest to overthrow Saddam 

Hussein’s government.

Task Force Viking

As the U.S. and its coalition partners prepared for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) in 2003, 

they faced a significant planning dilemma. Unlike Operation DESERT STORM 12 years before, in 

which the primary military objective was to eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait, this time it almost certainly 

would be necessary to capture and occupy Iraq’s 

capital city of Baghdad in order to topple Iraqi 

president Saddam Hussein’s regime. As a result, 

a mere DESERT STORM reprise would not be 

sufficient. Planners envisioned a two-pronged 

approach to the capital city. Ground forces 

on the southern front supported by air forces 

would advance from Kuwait along established 

highways paralleling the Tigris and Euphrates 

rivers, likely facing significant resistance. 

To divert the attention of at least some of 

Iraq’s mechanized forces, and thereby lessen 

resistance, an advance from the southwest from 

Jordan and from the north through Turkey and 

northern Iraq’s Kurdish Autonomous Zone 

(KAZ), then southward toward Baghdad, would 

be necessary.18

After Saddam tried (and failed) many times to eradicate a longtime nemesis—the Kurdish people 

of northern Iraq—he eventually established the KAZ, demarcated from the rest of Iraq by what 

became known as the Green Line.19 To protect the nearby oil fields from Kurdish occupation and 

exploitation, Saddam emplaced 3 army corps, comprised of 13 divisions, including 2 Republican 

Guard divisions, south of the Green Line. North of the line, the Kurds established governance and 

conducted their affairs with a fair degree of autonomy, although they were still technically part of Iraq. 

Saddam saw this arrangement as a means of placating the Kurds without empowering them. When 

establishing the Green Line, he was careful to ensure the major cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, Iraq’s 

18. Gregory Fontenot, E.J. Degen, and David Tohn, On Point: The United States Army in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (Fort 

Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2004), 46-47, 55.

19. Charles H. Briscoe et al., All Roads Lead to Baghdad: Army Special Operations Forces in Iraq (Fort Bragg, NC: U.S. Army 

Special Operations Command History Office, 2006), 117.

Task Force Viking logo. SOURCE: USASOC HISTORY 

OFFICE, HISTORY SUPPORT CENTER, FORT BRAGG, 

NC/RELEASED.
7

third- and fourth-largest cities, respectively, and their nearby oil fields remained south of the line and 

firmly in the regime’s control. To bolster the regime’s claim to these areas, Saddam embarked on an 

Arabification campaign in the cities, which drove out many Kurdish residents and replaced them with 

Iraqi Arabs. This action, along with atrocities Saddam committed against the Kurds, such as gassing 

them in the latter stages of the 1980–1988 Iran-Iraq war, furthered Kurdish animosity toward the 

regime.

As well as occupying the northern part of Iraq, the mainly Muslim, historically nomadic Kurdish 

people are also indigenous to eastern Turkey, eastern and northern Syria, western Iran, and parts of 

Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Kurds have long sought their own free Kurdistan. However, to 

create such an entity, one or more of these countries would be forced to make concessions to the 

Kurds—a repugnant idea to the ruling regimes. In addition to ceding land and associated resources, 

making concessions would also mean ceding authority, which would be perceived as a sign of weakness 

in a region of the world where prestige can underpin a ruling regime’s power. Additionally, Iraq, Syria, 

Turkey, and Iran in particular feared one or more of the other countries would grant independence 

or otherwise greater Kurdish autonomy that could lead to the creation of a Kurdistan, which could 

then embolden their own Kurdish populations, thus potentially destabilizing the political balance in 

their countries. As a result, despite occupying large swaths of land in many countries in their ancestral 

homelands, the Kurds were viewed as a troubling presence who were, and continue to be, largely 

unwelcome.

Perhaps no one outside Iraq feared the Kurds more than Turkey. Kurds occupy a large portion 

of eastern Turkey and are the majority ethnic group in Turkish territories bordering Iran and Iraq. 

An emboldened Kurdish population has long been an unacceptable proposition for Turkey, not just 

within its borders, but within its neighbors’ borders as well. Turkey, at the time the only primarily 

Muslim member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was usually a stalwart and 

reliable ally of the U.S. and had supported Operations PROVIDE COMFORT and NORTHERN 

WATCH in the post–DESERT STORM years by allowing coalition air forces to base from its airfields 

to enforce the no-fly zone over northern Iraq. While the U.S. primarily intended those operations 

as a means to protect the Kurdish population of northern Iraq from the same type of massacres 

Iraq’s Shiite population suffered after Saddam’s humiliating defeat in 1991, Turkey perhaps viewed 

them differently. Throughout their lifespan, Operations PROVIDE COMFORT and NORTHERN 

WATCH were domestic political hot potatoes for the Turkish government. Rather than casting the 

operations as a means to protect the Kurds, and the separatist groups Turkey claimed they harbored, 

the Turks portrayed them as a means to subdue Saddam and prevent his re-emergence as a strong 

and destabilizing presence in the region. They also provided an avenue for Turkey to keep an eye on 

developments in Kurdish-inhabited lands.20

The U.S., on the other hand, has maintained a long, friendly relationship with the Kurds, which 

was bolstered even more during the PROVIDE COMFORT and NORTHERN WATCH years. The 

Kurds, suffering some degree of persecution everywhere they lived and lacking a unifying political 

20. Ibid., 11.
8

leadership to overcome their plight, were proud of and valued their relationship with the U.S. When 

approached with the proposition of participating in operations leading to the overthrow of Saddam’s 

regime, the Kurds eagerly accepted and readily prepared. Outwardly, they proclaimed ridding Iraq of 

Saddam would be good for Kurds and Iraq as a whole. Inwardly, they may have viewed the operation as 

an opportunity to settle old scores with Arabs who displaced them from what they claimed as ancestral 

lands, primarily Mosul and Kirkuk, and subsequently attempt to resettle those lands. This action, 

though, might also bring the oil fields under Kurdish control, which would bring them great riches, 

but which could severely undermine the fragile economic stability of post-Saddam Iraq. Kurdish 

occupation of the oil fields also posed an unacceptable outcome for Turkey.21

Kurdish governance fell to two main parties: the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic 

Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The KDP, the larger of the two, mostly considered the northwestern 

part of the KAZ its power base. The PUK, a leftist-leaning splinter party of the KDP, regarded 

the southeastern portion 

of the KAZ as its territory. 

The two organizations 

were rivals and viewed each 

other with suspicion. Each 

had its own indigenous 

militia, known collectively 

as peshmerga, who were 

competent, battle-hardened 

veterans on whom the 

Kurds relied for protection 

from outside threats, 

and from each other. 

However, the rival Kurdish 

organizations represented an 

existing, in-place resistance 

movement the coalition 

could leverage to achieve its 

objectives while reducing 

its footprint in the north, thus allowing it to concentrate more forces on the southern approach 

to Baghdad. For purposes of OIF, the two rival organizations agreed to set aside their differences 

and cooperate with the U.S. It was a shaky alliance—one that required nurturing and quick thinking 

to preserve.22

21. Isaac J. Peltier, U.S. Army, Surrogate Warfare: The Role of U.S. Army Special Forces (Fort Leavenworth, KS: School of 

Advanced Military Studies, 2005), 25.

22. “Kurdish Peshmerga,” The Kurdish Project, accessed 13 March 2017, http://thekurdishproject.org/history-and-culture/

kurdish-nationalism/kurdish-peshmerga/.

Kurdish peshmerga in Iraq. SOURCE: USASOC HISTORY OFFICE, HISTORY 

SUPPORT CENTER, FORT BRAGG, NC/RELEASED.
9

In 2003, when the U.S.-led coalition proposed an approach to Baghdad from the north through 

Turkey for OIF, Turkey was presented with a major political quandary. Internationally, Turkey wanted 

to continue to be perceived as a reliable ally and help rid the region of the destabilizing presence of 

Saddam Hussein. However, Turkey suspiciously eyed the coalition’s claim of Saddam’s purported 

weapons of mass destruction program, and fretted over the possibility that Kurdish participation in 

the coalition operation would embolden, empower, and potentially enrich the Kurdish population 

and perhaps reinvigorate their desire for an independent Kurdistan. Additionally, Turkey felt the need 

to protect its ethnic cousins, the minority Turkmen of northern Iraq, from the Kurds. The question 

became: Could Turkey join the coalition and sell its participation domestically without causing a major 

political upheaval by being perceived as aiding and assisting the Kurds?

The coalition attack from the north was to be led by the U.S. 4th Infantry Division, which would 

disembark in Turkey’s seaports and infiltrate the KAZ overland 

through Turkey. U.S. SF and their Kurdish peshmerga partners 

would support the 4th Infantry Division’s advance by gathering 

intelligence, fixing Iraqi forces (pinning them down in one 

location), and participating in their defeat or capitulation. At a 

minimum, this action would prevent Iraqi forces from turning 

to oppose the coalition’s southern invasion route. Otherwise, after defeating Iraqi forces in the north, 

the 4th Infantry Division would continue its attack southward toward the capital, further placing the 

regime in peril.23

The U.S. Army’s 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne) (SFG [A]) received the task to plan and 

conduct operations in northern Iraq in support of United States Central Command’s (USCENTCOM’s) 

plan to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Based at Ft. Carson, Colorado, 10th SFG (A) was 

apportioned to United States European Command (USEUCOM) and maintained a permanently based 

battalion in Germany to support USEUCOM. Although USCENTCOM has responsibility for Iraq, 

its dedicated and apportioned 5th SFG (A) was heavily involved in Afghanistan and was otherwise 

planned for operations in western Iraq during OIF. Since the northern Iraq operation would require 

close planning and cooperation with Turkey, in USEUCOM’s area of responsibility, 10th SFG (A) was 

a logical choice. Additionally, the group had participated in operations PROVIDE COMFORT and 

NORTHERN WATCH for a number of years, as had its air partner, the U.S. Air Force’s 352nd Special 

Operations Group (SOG). Those operations had not only afforded 10th SFG (A) and 352nd SOG an 

opportunity to develop a lasting working relationship with each other, but also provided an avenue for 

each to develop and maintain relationships with Kurdish leadership, which would pay great dividends 

in planning and conducting OIF.24

The plan called for 10th SFG (A), with a small contingent of coalition Special Operations Forces 

(SOF), to form Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-North (CJSOTF-N), which nicknamed 

itself Task Force Viking, paying homage to the Group’s European roots. CJSOTF-N would base in 

23. Fontenot, Degen, and Tohn, On Point, 78.

24. Author’s personal experience; Briscoe et al., All Roads Lead to Baghdad, 33–35.

At a minimum, this action would 

prevent the Iraqi forces from 

turning to oppose the coalition’s 

southern invasion route.
10

Turkey, from which it would infiltrate the KAZ overland and by air, with the assistance of the colocated 352nd SOG. The 352nd SOG would form Joint Special Operations Air Detachment-North 

(JSOAD-N) and be in a direct support relationship to CJSOTF-N. The 2nd and 3rd Battalions of 10th 

SFG (A) would be the nucleus of the SF presence in the KAZ and would stand up Forward Operating 

Bases (FOBs) 102 and 103, respectively. FOB 102 would team with the KDP, and FOB 103 would do 

likewise with the PUK. This proved to be a shrewd move, as it placed the rival Kurdish organizations 

on equal footing and avoided showing favoritism to either, which would be vital to gaining trust and 

maintaining the fragile alliance. Since USEUCOM chose to retain 1st Battalion, 10th SFG (A), for its 

theater missions, FOBs 102 and 103 would be supported by 3rd Battalion, 3rd SFG (A).25

Well before the commencement of hostilities against Iraq, SF would infiltrate the KAZ to begin 

planning, organizing, and training to operate with their peshmerga partners in classic UW fashion. 

Simultaneously, SF would conduct operational and intelligence preparation of the environment, building 

on what began with engagement in Operations PROVIDE COMFORT and NORTHERN WATCH. 

Meanwhile, 4th Infantry Division would accomplish reception, staging, onward movement, and 

integration in Turkey in preparation for movement into the KAZ and employment against Iraqi forces.

How the Plan Unfolded

The plan stumbled almost at the gate. Feeling domestic political pressure, the Turkish government began 

to indicate it would not support coalition operations from its soil. Nearly as bad, Turkey hinted that if 

it granted permission, it likely would be at such a late stage as to hinder CJSOTF-N’s timely infiltration 

into the KAZ to begin its mission. Yet the timeline for OIF to commence marched onward. Despite 

multiple high-level delegation visits and military-to-military engagements to arrange Turkish permission 

and potential coalition participation, the delay dangerously paralyzed the plan for northern Iraq.

Realizing the chances of basing in Turkey were eroding, CJSOTF-N and JSOAD-N leadership 

began looking for alternatives. Ultimately, with the help of USEUCOM, Romania agreed to the use 

of Mihail Kogalniceanu (MK) Air Base near the Black Sea city of Constanta. Hoping Turkey might 

eventually relent and allow the use of its bases and airfields, JSOAD-N sent a small contingent to 

Romania to open the air base in February 2003. This proved to be a fortuitous decision, as Turkey 

continued to balk. Feeling the need to get its forces staged closer to the KAZ, CJSOTF-N later 

that month moved from Germany, where it had stood up in January, to MK Air Base. JSOAD-N 

followed suit, relocating from England. Constanta was not an ideal location, but the infrastructure 

was adequate. Romania, aspiring to join NATO, was eager to cooperate and demonstrate its value as 

a potential NATO member. Thus, the decision to base at MK Air Base was both military and political 

in nature. Besides, it increased the distance to infiltrate forces into the KAZ by only a couple of hours, 

assuming Turkish overflight permission was granted.26

25. United States Special Operations Command History and Research Office, United States Special Operations Command 

History, 6th ed. (Tampa, FL: U.S. Special Operations Command, March 2008), 121.

26. Author’s personal experience in leading the team who opened and operated Mihail Kogalniceanu (MK) Air Base, 

February–March 2003.
11

Permission was not forthcoming. Eventually, the Turkish Parliament voted against basing coalition 

forces on its soil, and effectively prohibited transit of its territory and the use of its airspace for 

coalition operations. The effects of this vote were enormous and manifold. The 4th Infantry Division, 

awaiting disembarkation in Turkey, would not be available in northern Iraq and had to be rerouted to 

Kuwait to be of use at all in OIF.27 Thus, the task of fixing and/or defeating Iraqi forces in the north 

fell entirely to CJSOTF-N and its peshmerga partners. But CJSOTF-N forces were stuck in Romania, 

and the potential for getting to the KAZ in time, if at all, was slim at best and receding each day. If 

SF couldn’t get to the KAZ, the peshmerga would be alone. Feeling slighted and abandoned by the 

promise of U.S. cooperation failing to materialize, the Kurds would be left by themselves and faced 

the prospect of having to suffer yet again as a result.

This scenario posed several problems, all with potentially devastating outcomes. First, perceiving 

the Kurds as weak and unprotected, Saddam could unleash his forces before the coalition could act 

and move north to crush them in an attempt to ‘solve’ his Kurdish 

problem forever. Such action would create a regional humanitarian 

problem on a massive scale. Not only would the Kurds suffer 

greatly, but the flow of refugees into surrounding countries could 

pose threats to their political stability. Or, believing he could keep 

the Kurds in check with minimal effort, Saddam could instead turn 

his northern-based mechanized forces to oppose the southern 

advance from Kuwait, thus greatly slowing the pace of operations and increasing the potential for 

coalition casualties tremendously, and perhaps even endangering the overall success of OIF.

On the other hand, Turkey, perceiving the Kurds as unprotected, might make a military move to 

‘solve’ its Kurdish problem and take control of the northern oil fields. This scenario, though unlikely, 

would put Turkey in a politically adversarial position to its NATO allies, namely the U.S., which would 

seriously jeopardize not only the OIF coalition but the future of the NATO alliance as well. An 

unraveling NATO could have geopolitical consequences far exceeding the regional scale where the 

coalition hoped to keep everything contained.28

Another potentially deadly situation could also materialize: the Kurds, feeling unrestrained by the 

U.S. absence and sensing the impending fall of Saddam’s regime, could unleash their own offensive 

in the north to reclaim their ancestral lands and the oil fields.29 In turn, such a Kurdish action could 

trigger any of the other unwelcome scenarios. The rival KDP and PUK, vying for pre-eminence in 

Kurdish politics, could even attempt to eliminate each other through military means.

In yet another scenario, Saddam, sensing his defeat and removal from power to be imminent, 

could order his forces to sabotage oil fields, including the northern ones, to prevent their falling into 

27. Fontenot, Degen, and Tohn, On Point, 78.

28. Ibid., 90–91; Briscoe et al., All Roads Lead to Baghdad, 368; author’s personal experience while planning with the Turkish 

General Staff. While not overtly stated, and unlikely in the context of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, a possible Turkish 

move into northern Iraq was strongly implied, assuming the absence of American forces.

29. Briscoe et al., All Roads Lead to Baghdad, 81.

Not only would the Kurds 

suffer greatly, but the flow 

of refugees into surrounding 

countries could pose threats 

to their political stability.
12

the hands of his rivals such as the Kurds or the Iraqi Shiite majority. As troubling as an empowered 

Kurdish population was for Saddam, an empowered Shiite population would likely invite internal 

meddling from his eastern neighbor and greatest external enemy, Shiite-dominated Iran. Plus, a postSaddam Iraq in which Iran or its operatives/clients wielded too much power was unacceptable to the 

coalition, particularly the U.S.

Essentially, the need and urgency for CJSOTF-N’s mission was growing exponentially. A lack 

of U.S. or coalition presence in northern Iraq could have catastrophic consequences, which grew 

in likelihood each day. Perhaps, somehow, infiltrating SF, with their unique training and abilities and 

despite their small footprint, into the KAZ could prevent a calamity. Yet the ability of SF to influence 

events from their base in Romania was marginal. Leaders and staff brainstormed ideas to get forces 

into the KAZ. One such opportunity presented itself through a USCENTCOM tasking to CJSOTF-N 

for a personal security detail mission for a high-level U.S. dignitary to meet with Kurdish leaders in the 

KAZ in late February 2003. Through creative planning and execution, 37 CJSOTF-N SF members 

assigned to the personal security detail got ‘lost’ somewhere between entry to the KAZ from Turkey 

through the Habur Gate and the mission’s return to Turkey. In reality, the ‘Lost 37’ had linked up with 

their Kurdish counterparts to begin planning and training.30

However, the coalition would have great difficulty achieving its objectives in the north with only 37 

operators on the ground. Although it appeared having all of CJSOTF-N in place might not really help, 

it had to get its forces moving. At the 

time, CJSOTF-N numbered only 

a few hundred; it would eventually 

grow to more than 5,000 personnel, 

including JSOAD-N and all attached 

units. When OIF commenced on 

19 March 2003, CJSOTF-N was 

still at Constanta. Ordinarily, and 

doctrinally, SF should have been 

in the KAZ weeks, if not months, 

before combat operations started.

Looking for creative solutions, 

JSOAD-N air planners proposed 

a route from Constanta into the 

KAZ that, instead of overflying 

Turkey, would bypass it. Three MC130H Combat Talon II airplanes 

would depart Constanta with SF 

and equipment aboard and move 

to a forward staging base to await 

30. Ibid., 83.

The flight route into northern Iraq, dubbed ‘Ugly Baby,’ was used 

for infiltrating CJSOTF-N personnel in preparation for OIF in 2003. 

SOURCE: USASOC HISTORY OFFICE, HISTORY SUPPORT CENTER, 

FORT BRAGG, NC/RELEASED.
13

diplomatic approval and coordination to enter Iraq from the southwest. Once in Iraq, the aircraft 

would fly a route that essentially paralleled the Syrian border while maintaining a safe distance from 

Syrian air defenses. But the Syrian air defenses were not their greatest worry: the aircraft would have 

to fly some 4.5 hours at a low level over Iraq and avoid its defenses until they could reach the more 

permissive airspace of the KAZ, where they would fly separately and offload SF at the airfields at 

Bashur and As Sulamaniyah to link up with KDP and PUK peshmerga, respectively. Then they would 

have to reverse their route upon departure.

It was a daring plan, fraught with risk. On top of that, it was a one-time operation. Assuming 

the aircraft could safely ingress and egress once, the element of surprise would then be lost, and no 

other flights could move along that route without being at even greater risk. Barring a diplomatic 

development regarding Turkish overflight, whatever personnel and equipment could infiltrate in three 

Combat Talon II aircraft is all CJSOTF-N would have in the KAZ for the foreseeable future. Admiring 

its audacity and knowing it might be the only way to get his forces into the fight, the CJSOTF-N 

commander approved the plan and dubbed it ‘Ugly Baby,’ because it was so ugly only its parents could 

love it. After more detailed planning and preparation, three heavily loaded aircraft departed Constanta 

on 22 March to a forward staging base.

The flight into Iraq on 23 March was even more eventful than expected. All aircraft came under 

heavy enemy fire. One was so badly damaged it had to divert to a Turkish airfield prior to infiltrating 

its forces. Now CJSOTF-N 

was down to two MC-130H 

loads of forces in the KAZ, 

and the third aircraft, with its 

crew and passengers, was in 

a diplomatic no-man’s land. 

But, careful planning and 

cross-loading of the aircraft 

minimized the impact of 

losing a third of the force. 

Upon arrival at the designated 

airfields, the SF met their 

peshmerga counterparts, and 

the fight was on.31

Not only did the 

Ugly Baby operation get 

desperately needed coalition 

forces into the fight in the 

31. Based on author’s personal experience. For a more in-depth study of ‘Ugly Baby,’ refer to: Robert W. Jones, Jr., 

“Getting There Is Half the Battle: Operation UGLY BABY,” Veritas: The Journal of ARSOF History, PB 31-05-1 (Winter 

2005): 10–14.

An MC-130H pilot’s windshield showing post-mission battle damage after flying 

the ‘Ugly Baby’ route to northern Iraq. SOURCE: USASOC HISTORY OFFICE, 

HISTORY SUPPORT CENTER, FORT BRAGG, NC/RELEASED
14

north, it had a significant side effect. The diverted MC-130H in Turkey essentially became the epicenter 

of a diplomatic brouhaha between the U.S., which needed its aircraft and personnel back, and Turkey, 

which wanted to continue to flex its muscle and appear strong for its domestic audience. Eventually, 

through much high-level negotiation, the U.S. got its aircraft back, and Turkey even relented on the use 

of its airspace, although it placed a restriction on the number of flights and added the stipulation that 

missions intended for combat in Iraq could not emanate from within its borders.32 Thus, the muchneeded air bridge from Europe to the KAZ was now open, and forces could begin flowing. The tide 

of the war in the north was turning.

Forces moving into the KAZ faced numerous problems, not the least of which was their severely 

late arrival. They were also grossly outnumbered and outgunned. Although the peshmerga, by some 

counts, numbered as many as 50,000 fighters, they were only lightly armed. The three battalions of 

SF who eventually infiltrated via the new air bridge over Turkey were not much more heavily armed, 

counting only Javelin anti-tank missiles and 81mm mortars among their heaviest weapons. On paper at 

least, the SF and peshmerga were no match for Iraqi mechanized units south of the Green Line. But 

they were ready to fight. Both partners were enthusiastic and relied on creativity to overcome odds. 

And, SF could bring to bear an asset that the Kurds greatly admired and the Iraqis could not counter: 

airpower. Although the southern advance to Baghdad received the bulk of the air support, planning 

allowed the SF to capitalize on airpower effects in the north, as would become evident in follow-on 

operations.33

Before beginning operations along the Green Line, the partners needed to neutralize Ansar alIslam (AI), a U.S.-declared terrorist group. Approximately 700 AI fighters posed a direct threat to the 

Kurdish rear from their entrenched positions in the mountains on the Iranian border in the vicinity of 

Halabja in the southeastern KAZ. Additionally, a suspected chemical weapons facility near the village 

of Sargat needed to be captured, investigated, and exploited, and was key to coalition OIF objectives. 

Less than a week after infiltration via Ugly Baby, FOB 103 and PUK peshmerga engaged in Operation 

VIKING HAMMER, designed to eradicate AI and capture the facility at Sargat.

Airpower began softening up the entrenchments on 21 March when 64 Tomahawk Land Attack 

Missiles (TLAMs) were launched. Unfortunately, the TLAM attack occurred before the arrival of the 

main SF body into the KAZ, owing to the Turkish delay, and allowed some AI fighters to escape into 

Iran. However, when FOB 103 and approximately 6,500 peshmerga, supported by AC-130 gunships 

and other air platforms, began a six-pronged attack on 28 March, plenty of resistance remained. Over 

the next two days, the partners engaged in intense ground combat, often having to clear caves. It was 

difficult fighting, but resulted in a resounding defeat of AI. Noting the tenacity of the attack, those 

AI members who escaped chose to sit out the rest of the war. VIKING HAMMER became the first 

major success of the U.S.-Kurdish OIF partnership. It secured the Kurdish rear from threats that might 

hinder operations along the Green Line, eliminated the Sargat facility, cemented the trust between the 

32. United States Special Operations Command History and Research Office, United States Special Operations Command 

History, 123.

33. Briscoe et al., All Roads Lead to Baghdad, 196.
15

SF and peshmerga, and demonstrated U.S. resolve to engage in the fight.34 These developments would 

be important in later operations.35

Retaking Mosul and Kirkuk

As important as VIKING HAMMER was in preparing the environment for Green Line operations, 

it paled in comparison to what remained in fixing and/or defeating the Iraqi forces, protecting the 

infrastructure, discouraging adverse Turkish action, keeping the Kurds under control, and holding 

together the KDP-PUK alliance. Perceiving that Saddam had not necessarily placed his best forces in 

the north, except possibly the two Republican Guard divisions, the battle-tested partners believed a 

demonstration of determination and firepower would weaken Iraqi resolve and lead to their defeat or 

capitulation. Thus, FOB 102 and the KDP began operations to retake Mosul, while FOB 103 and the 

PUK would capture Kirkuk.

Neither would be an easy fight. The best available way to take the cities seemed to be an 

encircling method, whereby friendly forces would capture key lines of communication (LOCs) while 

simultaneously pounding 

the Iraqis with airpower, 

thereby cutting them off 

and impressing upon them 

the hopelessness of their 

plight. However, other fights 

would be necessary to open 

avenues of approach to the 

cities and protect friendly 

LOCs. In the ensuing days, 

FOB 102 fought a significant 

engagement at Ayn Sifni, 

located on a major road 

north of Mosul. Its capture 

by determined SF and 

peshmerga, again supported 

by airpower, opened the 

road to Mosul and aided in 

its eventual capture. Likewise, the battle of Debecka Pass was designed to secure the LOC linking 

Kirkuk and Mosul and to protect Irbil, the Kurdish capital city and new home to the CJSOTF-N and 

JSOAD-N headquarters, which had relocated from Constanta.36 Both fights demonstrated the steely 

34. Ibid., 194–198.

35. Fontenot, Degen, and Tohn, On Point, 250; Kenn Finlayson, “Operation VIKING HAMMER: 3/10 SFG against the 

Ansar Al-Islam,” Veritas: The Journal of ARSOF History, PB 31-05-1 (Winter 2005): 15–19.

36. Briscoe et al., All Roads Lead to Baghdad, 252, 261.

Members of FOB 103 attack northwest to Kirkuk. SOURCE: USASOC HISTORY 

OFFICE, HISTORY SUPPORT CENTER, FORT BRAGG, NC/RELEASED.
16

resolve of the SF-peshmerga partnership. Their success was a direct result of trust born in combat. 

But this trust would be tested in the eventual capture of Mosul and Kirkuk.

Capturing the cities was essentially a multi-sided operation to drive the demoralized Iraqi forces 

from the cities while causing as little infrastructure damage as possible. If defeating the forces 

was not practical, it was important to encourage the units to capitulate, thereby allowing coalition 

forces to dictate the terms and identify and account for the Iraqi soldiers involved. Otherwise, units 

could simply disintegrate as soldiers deserted and attempted to blend back in with the population. 

Unfortunately, as the coalition later discovered throughout Iraq, many of these former soldiers felt 

disenfranchised when the Iraqi army crumbled and was subsequently disbanded. The lack of former 

soldier accountability and proper reintegration with the population then provided fertile ground from 

which an ensuing insurgency against the new Iraqi government recruited fighters. In the north, while 

some units surrendered, an unknown number of Iraqi soldiers simply ‘evaporated,’ in many cases 

because there were just not enough coalition forces to control the situation.

It was important for U.S. forces to reach Mosul and Kirkuk first, before Kurds could rush 

back to the cities, attempt to resettle their long-abandoned lands, and cause a potentially violent, 

destabilizing situation. This 

was especially problematic in 

Mosul, in which a small SF 

contingent had to race ahead 

of the Kurdish ‘Million Man 

March’ to enter the city 

first. Additionally, SF had 

to balance the desires and 

interests of the KDP and 

PUK. Suspicion between the 

groups heightened as each 

eyed the prizes of Mosul 

and Kirkuk.37 If either group 

laid claim to one or both of 

the cities, the fragile alliance 

could shatter, and post-war 

stability in Kurdish territory 

would be in danger.

Occupying the cities would prove tricky, as well, testing the mettle and political acumen of the 

SF leaders. They had to find a way to control the situation without Kurds and Arabs taking out their 

animosities on each other or trying to seize power. In both cities, they cleverly established patrols and 

conducted information operations that made it appear there were more than a handful of U.S. forces 

in the city, thereby putting an American, rather than a Kurdish, face on the occupation. Astutely, SF 

37. Ibid.

The ‘Million Man March’ to Mosul. SOURCE: USASOC HISTORY OFFICE, 

HISTORY SUPPORT CENTER, FORT BRAGG, NC/RELEASED.
17

leaders encouraged the peshmerga to move back north of the Green Line and brokered an agreement 

between the KDP and PUK, lessening their rivalry while also easing Turkish anxiety. SF leaders 

quickly met with tribal and city leaders to establish governance and restore basic services. A robust 

information operations campaign, including televised messages by SF leaders, continued and helped 

reassure the population.38 Within days, the SF were able to leave the cities, handing over responsibility 

to larger and better-equipped U.S. conventional units that eventually made their way into northern 

Iraq. The 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations-Capable), 173rd Airborne Brigade, 

and others, received tasking to support CJSOTF-N and were placed under its tactical control.39 It 

was an unusual command structure at the time, but a harbinger of future command arrangements in 

subsequent operations.

The war in the north appeared to be winding down, but a major task remained. An Iranian dissident 

group and (at the time) U.S.-designated terrorist organization, the Mujahedin-e Khalk (MEK), operated 

north of Baghdad and was a possible threat to coalition units and operations in that area. MEK’s 

origins date to 1979, when members fled Iran following the revolution. They not only oppose the 

Iranian regime, they hate it. But Saddam found a valuable use for the enemy of his enemy: providing 

internal security for his regime and keeping an eye on the Republican Guard, much in the same way 

the Republican Guard kept tabs on other military units. The MEK are generally very well-educated 

and reliable, so Saddam equipped and trained them well.40 If hostile to coalition forces, they posed a 

formidable foe.

The coalition was unsure of the MEK’s intentions, so to ensure the safety of coalition forces, the 

MEK had to be subdued in one way or another. Fortunately, on 13 April, MEK members contacted 

SF leaders and indicated they had no desire to fight the coalition. The FOB 103 commander began 

negotiations with the MEK. Eventually, they reached a ceasefire agreement, whereby the MEK 

fighters confined themselves to five camps northeast of Baghdad, under the watchful eye of SF. 

This development defused another possible threat to coalition forces. Interestingly, after SF began 

providing medical care to the MEK in their camps, the MEK reciprocated by providing valuable 

intelligence on the Iranian regime.41 Because of the MEK’s cooperation with the coalition, begun with 

the SF-brokered ceasefire, and its subsequent renouncement of violence, the U.S. several years later 

removed the MEK from its list of foreign terrorist organizations.42

Thus, one of the most successful UW operations in U.S. military history began to draw to a 

close. In barely two months, while overcoming what at times appeared to be insurmountable odds, 

three battalions of SF and their capable Kurdish peshmerga partners, supported by airpower and 

conventional units, defeated three Iraqi corps of 13 divisions, soundly defeated one known terrorist 

38. Ibid., 343, 365–371, 380–381.

39. United States Special Operations Command History and Research Office, United States Special Operations Command 

History, 124; Fontenot, Degen, and Tohn, On Point, 224, 230.

40. “Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization,” GlobalSecurity.org, accessed 13 March 2017, http://www.globalsecurity.org/

military/world/para/mek.htm.

41. Briscoe et al., All Roads Lead to Baghdad, 383–385.

42. “Mujahedin-e Khalq,” GlobalSecurity.org.
18

group, and negotiated a ceasefire with another. In doing so, CJSOTF-N diverted Iraqi forces that could 

have otherwise opposed the main coalition advance from the south, while simultaneously preserving 

the infrastructure in the north, discouraging a Turkish military incursion in northern Iraq, preventing 

atrocities and a potentially massive humanitarian situation, and subduing, at least temporarily, the 

political ambitions of rival Kurdish factions. The relative peace that subsequently prevailed in northern 

Iraq, even in the darkest days of the violent unrest that later embroiled the rest of the country, is a 

direct testament to a successful UW operation prosecuted by a small group of highly trained, welleducated, and politically astute American warriors.

Conclusion

IW will continue to be an important military competency for the foreseeable future and must benefit 

from an appropriate level of investment. While IW and all its activities are aimed at gaining some form 

of control over affected, relevant populations, UW is perhaps the most unique IW activity in that 

instead of supporting an HN government, it works against a government or occupying power. The 

intent may be to overthrow that entity, coerce it into taking action(s) favorable to U.S. political or military 

objectives, or prevent it from taking adverse actions. Regardless, UW can prove to be a significant force 

multiplier, but it requires a dedicated force educated, trained, and prepared to conduct it.

Generally speaking, prevalent thought tends to indicate IW is a form of warfare the U.S. military 

will prosecute in response to how our adversaries fight. While that is often the case, it cedes the 

initiative to the adversary and puts the U.S. in reactionary mode. However, with the proper investment 

in forces to conduct IW, coupled with prudent planning, the U.S. can seize the initiative in IW and 

prosecute a successful campaign that is either the main effort or supports the main effort. Such was 

the case in Iraq, when SF teamed with an irregular force to defeat not only conventional forces, but 

also irregular forces of known terrorist organizations, with the goal of toppling the government of a 

nation-state.

Coalition planners did not foresee a small force of SOF shouldering the load for the entire Iraqi 

northern front in 2003. However, in conjunction with tenacious, battle-hardened Kurdish peshmerga, 

supported by special operations and conventional airpower, 

and complemented by various conventional units, a Groupequivalent of SF orchestrated a campaign that met or exceeded 

all its military objectives in a short period of time, despite 

several significant obstacles that delayed the beginning of the 

operation by weeks, if not months. In so doing, the campaign 

proved the value of UW as a force multiplier even if, as in this case, it was essentially an economyof-force mission. It was made possible by capitalizing on years of trust and respect among leaders 

on all sides. Its enormous success had tremendous political consequences, as it aided the toppling 

of Saddam Hussein, potentially reduced friendly casualties by minimizing the physical footprint of 

forces, and simultaneously, through astute maneuvering, held the coalition together in the north. In 

short, Task Force Viking lived up to its motto: Concede nothing!

Coalition planners did not foresee 

a small force of SOF shouldering 

the load for the entire Iraqi 

northern front in 2003. 

Joint Special Operations University

Center for Strategic Studies

7701 Tampa Point Blvd.

MacDill AFB, FL 33621