Peacekeeping And Related Stability Operations

One of the most crucial and difficult tasks in peacekeeping and related stability operations is creating a secure and stable environment, both for the foreign peacekeepers and for the indigenous population. During the past decade, the United States and the international community have tried various approaches to providing that security. Most of these approaches have included the use of United Nations International Civilian Police (UNCIVPOL), whose forces are contributed on a case by case basis by UN member states. (While other countries usually contribute police personnel from their own national forces, the United States contracts those it contributes through a private corporation). In a few cases, such as Afghanistan and Iraq at this time, coalition and US military forces, and not the United Nation, train and work with indigenous police forces to provide security. This book presents an up-to-date evaluation of current issues in peacekeeping.

The 110th Congress may well face several decisions regarding the preparation of U.S. military forces for stability missions, a major subset of which is peace operations. A November 28, 2005, Department of Defense (DOD) directive that designates stability operations as "core missions" of the U.S. military marks a major shift in attitudes regarding peacekeeping and related stability operations (also known as stabilization and reconstruction operations). Since then, DOD has worked to define specific changes that must be made to better accomplish such missions, some of which the U.S. military could implement on its own, while others would require Congressional approval. For well over a decade, some Members of Congress expressed reservations about U.S. military involvement in peacekeeping operations. The Bush Administration initially opposed such missions and took steps to reduce the commitment of U.S. troops to international peacekeeping. This action reflected a major concern of the 1990s: that peacekeeping duties had overtaxed the shrinking U.S. military force and were detrimental to military "readiness" (i.e., the ability of U.S. troops to defend the nation). Many perceived these tasks as an inefficient use of U.S. forces, better left to other nations while the U.S. military concentrated on operations requiring high-intensity combat skills. Others thought that the United States should adjust force size and structure to accommodate the missions.

The second session of the 109th Congress has begun to face decisions regarding the preparation of U.S. military forces for stability missions, a major subset of which is peace operations. The involvement of U.S. military in peacekeeping operations has been opposed by Members of Congress and the Bush Administration. A major issue Congress continues to face is what, if any, adjustments should be made in order for the U.S. military to perform peacekeeping and stability missions -- in Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere -- with less strain on the force, particularly the reserves.

As the international political climate grows increasingly volatile, peacekeeping operations have become a mainstay in troubled regions. The alternative to military occupation is either to train indigenous police forces or to hire security corporations. Policy makers are worried that these forces are not capable of maintaining peace. In addition, moral and legal issues are factors for policy makers that are debating the extent to which peacekeeping forces should be allowed to infiltrate societies in turmoil. Other issues of concern that this book examines are the United States relationship with the U.N. and the World Bank as all three pursue their different responsibilities in peacekeeping.

"This guide examines the role of restoration of public services within the broader context of stability operations. The extent to which public service reconstruction takes place depends on the mission, the level of resources, and the host country context. This paper provides guidance helpful to U.S. peacekeeping personnel in planning and executing stability operations tasks related to restoration of public sector services and infrastructure. It is designed to supplement existing and emerging guidance, and is specifically relevant to addressing the needs of public sector rebuilding in a post-conflict situation by peacekeeping forces. The material presented here draws both from theory and analytic frameworks and from on-the-ground experience of practitioners."--Page [v].

This edited volume explores stability, security, transition and reconstruction operations (SSTR), highlighting the challenges and opportunities they create for the US Navy. The book argues that SSTR operations are challenging because they create new missions and basing modes, and signal a return to traditional naval methods of operation. Mission accomplishment requires collaboration with a wide range of actors representing governmental, non-governmental and commercial organizations, which often creates politically and bureaucratically charged issues for those involved. However, although from a traditional warfighting perspective, stability operations might be viewed as having little to do with preparing for high-intensity conventional combat, these kinds of operations in fact correspond to traditional missions related to diplomacy, engagement, maritime domain awareness, piracy and smuggling, and intervention to quell civil disturbances. SSTR operations can be therefore depicted as a return to traditional naval operations, albeit operations that might not be universally welcomed in all quarters.

This book aims to provide for a path-breaking cross-regional comparison of the capabilities and readiness of Asia-Pacific countries to contribute to peace support missions, with an eye to identifying emerging trends and policy implications.