The use of special operations forces has increased over the last decades. But the theories on how special operation forces best will be used to conduct special operations does not keep up with the development in the field. There are theories in the field of special operations, among them are Robert G. Spulak and William H McRaven. According to McRavens theory there are six principles that are to be met to be successful in a special operation. Robert G. Spulaks theory says that the personal attributes of the soldiers are essential for success. These two theoretical frameworks are used to examine one operation where special operations forces were used, Operation Neptune Spear. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the operation to see which of the theories that can explain the outcome. The operation is examined through a qualitative case study. The results of the study indicate that McRavens six principles can explain the outcome of the operation. The result also indicate that Spulaks theory can explain the outcome. Despite the differences in the theories both manage to explain the outcome of a special operation.

The aim of this study was to investigate how the small state Norway could use special operations in cooperation with allies against the great power Germany during World War 2. According to Clausewitz, defense favors the defender, but how could a small state manage to create friction for the German defensive bases in Norway? Can a theory of special operations help us understand this phenomenon? Scholars have found a lack of empirical studies of special operations and small states which this study aims to remedy. This study used a qualitative approach and examined two special operations in Norway, Operation Archery 1941 and Musketoon 1942. The study uses Spulaks theory of special operations to enhance the understanding of the outcomes. The study concludes that both operations were considered successful at the operational level but Musketoon failed on the tactical level due to lack of integrated operations and maintaining relative superiority. The integration of the Norwegians was considered important for the completion of the missions due to knowledge of terrain and interaction with civilians. This study has given an empirical contribution to the research gap of special operations and small states.

No description available.

Recent studies have shown an increased relevancy for special operations warfare. Special operations have been acclaimed as a cost beneficial means of achieving strategic ends. Although this is the case there is a significant lack in the realm of contemporary special operations theory. Operation Barrasin 2000 and Operation Neptune Spear in 2011 have both been renowned for being daring, well conducted but foremost successful. Nevertheless, thorough research of these operations signals their absence. This study contributes to the field by examining these two successful special operations through the lens of a theoretical framework, based on prominent special operations theorists, in order to determine what principles led to their prosperity. Although a majority of the theoretical principles could be recognised in both operations, not all of these were beneficial to the outcome. The results have shown that the principles of strategic and political comprehension, technology, practice, intelligence, personal commitment and speed mainly contributed to success. Conclusions also show that the principle of intelligence could be considered superior to the other principles. This conclusion is drawn due to the fact that accurate intelligence enabled several of the other principles, for example practice and strategic and political comprehension.