Special Operations & Intelligence—A Strategic Convergence
🎙️Day 4, Episode 5, Spycast Podcast, April 2021.
🔍 Breaking the Fourth Wall: Why This Conversation, Why Now?
Ep 517 | 12.14.21
Dear readers,
Before we dive into this essay, let me offer you a moment of transparency—what in theater or film we’d call a “break the fourth wall.” Because this entry in our 10-part series is a little different. It’s not just an analysis—it’s a reflection on a conversation. One that I was honored to have with the team at the SpyCast podcast, hosted by Andrew Hammond and produced by the International Spy Museum in Washington, DC.
❓Who was in the room?
I was. Isaiah “Ike” Wilson III—former President of the Joint Special Operations University, former SOF Education Executive for U.S. Special Operations Command, and longtime practitioner-scholar in the national security enterprise. Across from me: Andrew Hammond, a sharp and intellectually curious interviewer with a passion for bringing classified history and strategy to life for a wide audience.
📍Where and when did this happen?
The conversation was recorded and released as Episode 517 of SpyCast in April 2021. You can find the episode here.
🧠 What did we talk about?
Everything from the evolution of SOF to the ethics of elite power; from compound security dilemmas to the education of the modern warrior-scholar. We explored not just operations, but the identity of special operations forces in this emerging Fourth Age—a world where conflict is ambient, and boundaries between statecraft and warcraft collapse.
💡 Why does it matter for this series?
Because this conversation embodies what this entire Substack effort is about: rethinking special operations as more than tactics and tools—as a way of thinking, a strategic posture, and a reflection of national values under pressure. The SpyCast format allowed us to unpack these ideas in a fresh way, and what follows here is a written extension—anchored in the dialogue, enriched with excerpts, and expanded through the lens of this series.
So now, let’s dive into what this conversation revealed.
🧭 Introduction: Bridging the Gap Between Special Operations and Intelligence
In the evolving security landscape of the 21st century, one of the most vital—and yet under-theorized—relationships is that between Special Operations Forces (SOF) and the intelligence community. These two arms of national power have long worked in tandem, often in the shadows. But in this Fourth Age of compound threats and converging domains, their integration is no longer optional—it’s strategic destiny.
The SpyCast episode gave us a platform to explore that convergence—through history, theory, and lived experience.
🤝 The Genesis of a Synergistic Relationship
Historically, SOF and the IC operated in proximity but not always in synchronization. That changed in the aftermath of 9/11, as counterterrorism demanded a new form of precision-integrated campaigning. The mission sets began to merge, and so too did the cultures—operational tempo, global reach, deep discretion.
“When you're in, or working with and for, special operations, you're really in the ambiguity business. And that's what intelligence is about too—making sense of what no one else is paying attention to.”
— SpyCast Interview, Dr. Ike Wilson
This was the seed of what I’ve come to call the polycentric architecture of modern security—where the dividing lines between kinetic and non-kinetic, between soldier and strategist, are increasingly artificial.
The OSS Legacy and the Call for a 21st-Century Analog
To fully appreciate today’s convergence of SOF and intelligence, we must understand that this is not a novel phenomenon—it is a return to roots.
The Office of Strategic Services (OSS), formed during World War II under the leadership of William J. Donovan, was the progenitor of both the CIA and U.S. Army Special Forces. It fused unconventional warfare, espionage, sabotage, and psychological operations into a single, integrated entity. In its brief but impactful existence from 1942 to 1945, OSS operatives worked behind enemy lines, partnered with resistance forces, and ran missions that blurred every line between strategy and tactics, diplomacy and insurgency.
“The OSS was, in many ways, the spiritual and operational birthplace of both modern special operations and strategic intelligence. It was the original 'Think-Do Tank.'”
— SpyCast Interview, Dr. Ike Wilson
For over 75 years, the ghost of the OSS has lingered—in doctrine, in mythos, and in moments of necessity. Yet since its disbandment, the institutional logic that made it so effective has rarely been replicated at scale.
Today, as we confront compound security dilemmas and battles that unfold in the seams between domains, many of us are asking: Do we need an updated version of the OSS?
Not just to centralize functions—but to synchronize minds and missions, under a design that matches the velocity and ambiguity of our age.
“What OSS did right was recognize that cognition, culture, and capability all had to be designed into the same force structure. We’ve unbundled that over the years—and maybe it’s time to rebundle it.”
— SpyCast Interview, Dr. Ike Wilson
A 21st-century OSS wouldn’t simply be a wartime contingency. It would be a standing capability—one built on the fusion of SOF, IC, and interagency innovation, capable of addressing not just traditional threats but gray zone conflicts, digital influence operations, and sub-threshold strategic competition.
Such an entity would need to be agile, ethically governed, strategically aligned—and fully enabled by both operational authorities and strategic trust.
We don’t need nostalgia for OSS. We need evolution from it.
The time may be ripe—not for a resurrection, but for a reinvention.
🧠 The Fourth Age: A Strategic Inflection Point
We discussed how SOF, like intelligence, is evolving from a kinetic force to an epistemic one—a community that doesn’t just act but understands; that doesn’t just execute, but interprets.
“I don’t think of SOF anymore just as operators. I think of them as strategic translators. They interpret ambiguity at speed.”
In this Fourth Age, threats do not announce themselves with tanks at borders. They manifest in data breaches, drone swarms, proxy militias, viral disinformation, and climate-instigated migration crises. Understanding these demands a mindset as much as a mission set.
🎓 JSOU and the "Think-Do Tank" Imperative
Much of the conversation turned to education—especially during my tenure leading the transformation of JSOU under the JNEXT initiative. We reframed JSOU as more than a professional military education center. We made it a Think-Do Tank—where strategic insight and operational utility reinforce one another.
“At JSOU, we didn’t just teach people how to win. We taught them how to think about what winning even means in a world where victory is ambiguous.”
This matters because knowledge is now a form of deterrence. And the SOF of the future must be as intellectually agile as they are physically elite.
⚔️ Compound Threats, Compound Campaigning
We explored how the modern battlespace is no longer defined by geography, but by convergence—what I’ve called the Compound Security Dilemma. In this context, SOF and intelligence must not merely cohabitate. They must co-design strategy.
“Campaigning today means shaping perception, altering adversary decision cycles, and managing risk across domains. It’s not about lines on a map. It’s about moving minds and markets.”
In the Fourth Age, the tools of SOF and the tradecraft of the IC are two halves of a necessary whole.
⚖️ The Ethical Load of Elite Power
Another thread we unpacked was the moral burden carried by SOF and intelligence professionals.
“The danger of being elite is that you start to believe you exist above the fray. But in fact, you're the first one accountable—to your mission, your nation, and your conscience.”
This is the paradox of the warrior-scholar in the modern age: to be lethal but discerning; silent but transparent to the republic; flexible without being unmoored from principle.
🔄 Toward a Unified Strategic Vision
So where do we go from here?
The conversation concluded with a call—not just for better integration of SOF and the IC—but for a shared vision of national power in an era of systemic uncertainty. That means institutional design. It means cultural literacy. And above all, it means redefining what it means to win.
“In the end, the fight is not just on the outside—it’s a fight for strategic coherence on the inside. And that’s the kind of fight that SOF and intelligence must wage together.”
🧭 Final Word: From Reflection to Reckoning
This SpyCast episode was not a retrospective—it was a strategic provocation. It asked: Are we ready for the world that’s already here? Are we building SOF not just for missions—but for meaning? Are we fusing intelligence and operations in ways that reflect the nature of power in this compound age?
These questions echo across this series.
If you haven’t yet listened to the full episode, I invite you to do so here. Then join me back here as we continue the journey—through education, identity, and power—in the Fourth Age of Special Operations.
Stay sharp. Stay strategic.
— Ike.
