United States participation in multinational conflict management operations

Military Intervention and Peacekeeping

At different phases of a conflict the multiple strategies of conflict management respond to barriers in the process in different ways: Conflict Prevention is an approach that seeks to resolve disputes before violence breaks out; Peacemaking transforms the conflict from violent to spoken, and further, toward the definition of a common peaceful solution; Peacekeeping missions are often required to halt violence and preserve peace once it is obtained. If successful, those missions can strengthen the opportunity for post-conflict Peacebuilding, which should function to prevent the recurrence of violence by addressing the root causes of conflict and creating a stable and durable peace. Finally, Statebuilding is the process of reconstructing weak or collapsed infrastructure and institutions of a society - political, economic and civil - in order for civil society and politics to begin to function normally (the Conflict Management Toolkit).

During 2008 the UN fielded 18 multinational conflict management missions utilizing more than 112,000 troops, police, and civilians, with a total budget of more than $7 billion. These operations ranged from providing support to political processes in places such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Haiti, and Lebanon to supplying comprehensive support to efforts to demilitarize conflict areas and reestablish judicial, police, security, and good governance capabilities in war-torn areas (United Nations ).

The concept of conflict management among nations is complicated enough on a unilateral basis as we can see by the several levels of management and peacekeeping necessary. but, when the multi-national tag is applied to these efforts, of course the coordination, cooperation, and effectivity all may be impacted. Nonetheless, we will forge ahead with our debate.

The U.S. Should Participate

Referring to conflict management and peacekeeping efforts in various regions of the world, General Wesley Clark, former NATO Allied Supreme Commander, has said, "If you want to exercise political leadership and you're the political leader, you pretty much have to engage in the leadership on the ground. You can't ask other nations to take risks that you won't take yourself" and "If the United States doesn't participate, the United States can't lead" (Washington Post).

The Peace Through Law Education Fund interviewed over 30 top U.S. And Allied military leaders about their views on the participation of the U.S. military in conflict management and peace operations. The overwhelming majority of our most seasoned military leaders totally agreed with General Clark. They believe that engagement in multinational peace operations is in our national interests and will be a key ingredient in the war against terrorism (Washington Post).

The key question is how important is it for the U.S. To continue to be involved in conflict management operations in the future. Those same senior U.S. And Allied military commanders interviewed about peace operations gave an answer that was loud and clear. These experienced military leaders report that multi-national conflict management operations are a key element of our larger strategy of engagement, and that participation of the U.S. military serves U.S. interests.

"Interestingly, our military leaders also report that participation in multinational conflict management operations actually increases the morale, retention and combat readiness of U.S. Marines and soldiers," says Colonel Richard W. Roan, a senior fellow with the Peace Through Law Education Fund. He added that all of the military leaders feel that the skills learned while serving in peace operations, especially by junior NCOs and officers, are the very skills our military will need in the multidimensional war on terrorism. Peace and conflict management operations are highly effective 'leadership laboratories' for our troops (Washington Post).

Another reason the U.S. should be involved in this process is that conflict management operations are a good investment in future security. Unstable nations are breeding grounds for terrorism and other forms of lawlessness. Even if the initial cost of stationing troops in a war zone is high, the potential long-term benefits might far outweigh the initial costs (Debate: U.N. Peacekeepers and the U.S.A.).

Involvement in international peacekeeping efforts also softens America's image abroad. America has developed an increasingly negative image abroad as a result of unilateral actions in Iraq and U.S.-led NATO actions in the Balkans. In other contexts, America has developed a reputation for intervening only in situations where its immediate political or economic interests are threatened. AU.S. commitment to an international peacekeeping regime, without demands for unilateral or dominant control, improves America's image as a fair and cooperative player on the world stage (Debate: U.N. Peacekeepers and the U.S.A.).

US technology and logistical expertise is uniquely valuable to these operations. For example, without the mobility given by transport planes, helicopters, troop transporters, armored vehicles, etc., the African Union force in Sudan would be unable to do an effective job.

There are a number of myths about U.S. involvement in multinational conflict management (peacekeeping) operations that need to be answered, including the following (Wilson):

Myth: Peacekeeping puts too much strain on the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Reality: The U.S. portion of the highly successful allied peacekeeping force in Bosnia and Herzegovina consisted of 3,116 men and women, according to Pentagon figures. Of the Bosnia total, 3,100 were U.S. Army. This is only about six-tenths of 1% of the Army's active duty strength of 481,000. U.S. peacekeepers in Kosovo totaled 5,679, with all but four of them Army. These soldiers in Kosovo represented just a little more than I percent of the service's active duty force.

Myth: Multinational conflict management costs too much.

Reality: The Pentagon calculates peacekeeping operations in "incremental" costs -- the extra money it spends on a troops patrolling neighborhoods in Bosnia and Kosovo over the amount it would normally spend on that trooper at his or her home base. Those annual peacekeeping costs approximate the price of one $2 billion B-2 bomber. Right now, the U.S. is spending about $1.8 billion a week in Iraq (Wilson).

Myth: Troopers lose their fighting skills when turned into peacekeepers.

Reality: We have discussed this previously in this paper, and 30 top military leaders disagree.

Which Way Should the U.S. Go?

There is little doubt, in my mind, which way the only superpower on earth should go. We need to not only be involved in multinational conflict management forces and efforts, but we should lead them. It is in our vital interests to do so.

President Obama has clearly stated his views on the importance of peacekeepers. He contends, "UN peacekeepers can help prevent and end conflict while enhancing international peace and security." More importantly, he understands the role the U.S. needs to play to make such missions successful. Barack Obama supports renewed U.S. leadership in support of effective United Nations and regional peace operations.

The Clinton and Bush administrations moved to enhance, if not deeply embrace, such missions as an operational tool to serve U.S. interests. Both administrations cited multinational conflict management operations as supporting national security and humanitarian goals, rather than one or the other (Holt and McKinnon).

The United States remains poised between viewing peacekeeping as a humanitarian exercise

(e.g., Darfur, Sudan) and as serving U.S. Or international security interests.

The U.S. boasts the world's most powerful military, advanced and capable beyond the dreams of most worlds' leaders. It is also home to the most powerful economy in the world. This constitutes considerable hard power and provides the U.S. with many options for achieving its policies. The U.S. is also known as the leader of the free world and as an icon of liberties, freedoms and opportunity.

The U.S. will continue to lead the way in addressing global conflicts but it highlights that, "history has shown that only when we do our part will others do theirs." The obvious implication in this is that unilateral U.S. action is not a snub towards multilateralism but rather a drive to force multilateral participation (Valid Reasons for the U.S. To be or Not to be...).

This is the time and place for the U.S. To step up to its international obligations. We cannot be isolationist in this day and age of terrorism, instant world-wide communication, third-world countries who can't feed their children and need help, disease-racked continents that can only turn to the U.S. For relief from HIV, and conflict around the globe.

Those who argue that multilateral conflict management forces cost too much, are ineffective, or are not a fit for our armed forces who are trained to "win," need only look at the successes -- the ones that made our world a safer place -- instead of focusing on the failures.

Most people don't realize just how frequently the multinational conflict management forces (peacekeeping) of the U.N. put themselves between trigger-happy combatants around the globe: Lebanon, Cyprus, the Golan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, Namibia, Angola, El Salvador, Cambodia, Somalia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Georgia, Liberia, Haiti, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslavia, Guatemala, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Cote d'Ivoire, the Congo, India and Pakistan and East Timor, just in the last 20 years.

Which ones of these do most people associate with the United Nations? The ones in which U.N. troops failed to prevent disaster: Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia. That is only because it's the negative stories that make the news, and draw viewers and readers.

And what kind of world would we now live in had it not been for those victories for peace?