O.K. I want to respond to this because… something is wrong here…
The article contends-- without very good warrants-- other than //UW missions are strategic in nature, and SF operate at the tactical and operational levels; therefore, UW doesn't belong to SF exclusively because SF don't span to the strategic level of war.//
UW does BELONG to SF in a very important way-- the way that amphibious landings to establish a beachhead from the sea BELONGS to the Marines, or keeping the sea lanes free for international trade BELONGS to the Navy, or seizing and holding ground belongs to the Army.
As the author mentions, the special role and SF plays in UW is even codified in US Title 10.
He also suggests that UW can belong to an enemy as well as a friendly force, and that perhaps we've been using the term insurgency where we should be using the term UW?
I don't think so. Here's why, and it may also explain why we don't teach and preach UW more widely.
First, UW is essentially a synonym for revolution with the qualification that it entails external support or even the fomenting of a revolution.
UW, as an activity to usurp another's government, suggests illegitimacy on its face. Usurping or overthrowing a government outside one's own is essentially establishing a policy of regime change.
UW and regime change are not traditionally legitimate causes for war such as self defense, mutual defense and the redress of past violence. UW actions are agitations to peace in general and specifically violations of the UN Charter-- in which aggression toward other countries is not in the common interest.
Nor does UW reflect our national principles. UW is the stuff of the Bay of Pigs, and the usurpation of Mosaddegh. UW is dangerous art-- stuff that we shouldn't break the glass on very readily.