BLOG
SIGN UP
for our blog updates
Blog archive
Contributors
By month
WORLD BRIDGE BLOG
The American Military and Its Unrealized Peacekeeping Potential
March 16, 2010 | Ron Capps | Tagged as: Peacekeeping
The American military is stretched pretty thin these days. We're in two wars; we have lots of global commitments. On any given day, one third of our troops are actually involved in an operation, one third are getting ready to go and one third have just come back. Busy.
When the earthquake in Haiti happened, all of us looked up from whatever we were doing and held our breath for a moment. Priorities shifted, plans changed. Even for the military. Paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division who were slotted for an Afghanistan rotation changed gears and deployed on a humanitarian mission. U.S. Navy ships changed course for the Caribbean.
By all accounts, the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen who participated in the military's support for the humanitarian relief effort saved lives and set up the civilian relief effort for success. The American people can be proud of their military's prowess and professionalism.
Too often, we forget that our military's capabilities are dual-use. The drone that flies reconnaissance over the tribal regions of Pakistan can also be used over the devastated towns of Haiti. The doctors and nurses who treat combat wounded in Iraq can also mend a leg broken in a building collapse. The planners who sketch out the details of moving millions of tons of supplies into the war zone can also help move millions of tons of food and shelter materials into the earthquake zone. And they do when they are called on.
This could be happening in other parts of the world where there are ongoing crises. Our soldiers could help reduce violence against displaced women in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Our helicopter crews could fly peacekeeping sorties in Darfur. Our satellite communications teams and imagery analysts and strategic planners could be deployed on any of a dozen or more United Nations peacekeeping missions. If only they were called on to do so.
The United States doesn't participate to any notable degree in international peacekeeping. Granted, we pay for quite a bit - about 27% of the cost of UN peacekeeping missions. We also spend time and money training peacekeepers. Through the Global Peace Operations Initiative (run by our State Department) we have trained over 75,000 international peacekeepers in the past few years. But among the 115,000 or so international peacekeepers fewer than 250 are Americans, and most of those are civilian police on contract.
Why is that? Well, politicians tell us that the public doesn't believe in the United Nations and people don't support foreign intervention. Bunk. More than two-thirds (68%) of Americans polled in a Public Agenda survey believed that U.S. support to the UN was "important and worthwhile." A poll taken by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that a large majority (72%) of Americans favored the creation of a standing international peace force at the UN, and between 76 and 83 percent believed the United Nations Security Council should authorize the use of international force to "prevent severe human right violations such as genocide," to "defend a country that has been attacked," to "stop a country from supporting terrorist groups," or to "restore by force a democratic government that has been overthrown."
We should do more. We sometimes do provide transportation to peacekeepers deploying to mission, and we have provided logistic support as well. But much of the support comes in the form of civilian contractors rather than uniformed military. The United Nations has listed nine critical shortages in peacekeeping including enablers like airlift, helicopters, engineers, logistics, transportation, and intelligence. These are areas where the United States has a decided comparative advantage. This is where we should step up, and where we can make a difference in the lives of millions of refugees and displaced persons being protected by international peacekeepers.
When the earthquake in Haiti happened, all of us looked up from whatever we were doing and held our breath for a moment. Priorities shifted, plans changed. Even for the military. Paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division who were slotted for an Afghanistan rotation changed gears and deployed on a humanitarian mission. U.S. Navy ships changed course for the Caribbean.
By all accounts, the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen who participated in the military's support for the humanitarian relief effort saved lives and set up the civilian relief effort for success. The American people can be proud of their military's prowess and professionalism.
Too often, we forget that our military's capabilities are dual-use. The drone that flies reconnaissance over the tribal regions of Pakistan can also be used over the devastated towns of Haiti. The doctors and nurses who treat combat wounded in Iraq can also mend a leg broken in a building collapse. The planners who sketch out the details of moving millions of tons of supplies into the war zone can also help move millions of tons of food and shelter materials into the earthquake zone. And they do when they are called on.
This could be happening in other parts of the world where there are ongoing crises. Our soldiers could help reduce violence against displaced women in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Our helicopter crews could fly peacekeeping sorties in Darfur. Our satellite communications teams and imagery analysts and strategic planners could be deployed on any of a dozen or more United Nations peacekeeping missions. If only they were called on to do so.
The United States doesn't participate to any notable degree in international peacekeeping. Granted, we pay for quite a bit - about 27% of the cost of UN peacekeeping missions. We also spend time and money training peacekeepers. Through the Global Peace Operations Initiative (run by our State Department) we have trained over 75,000 international peacekeepers in the past few years. But among the 115,000 or so international peacekeepers fewer than 250 are Americans, and most of those are civilian police on contract.
Why is that? Well, politicians tell us that the public doesn't believe in the United Nations and people don't support foreign intervention. Bunk. More than two-thirds (68%) of Americans polled in a Public Agenda survey believed that U.S. support to the UN was "important and worthwhile." A poll taken by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that a large majority (72%) of Americans favored the creation of a standing international peace force at the UN, and between 76 and 83 percent believed the United Nations Security Council should authorize the use of international force to "prevent severe human right violations such as genocide," to "defend a country that has been attacked," to "stop a country from supporting terrorist groups," or to "restore by force a democratic government that has been overthrown."
We should do more. We sometimes do provide transportation to peacekeepers deploying to mission, and we have provided logistic support as well. But much of the support comes in the form of civilian contractors rather than uniformed military. The United Nations has listed nine critical shortages in peacekeeping including enablers like airlift, helicopters, engineers, logistics, transportation, and intelligence. These are areas where the United States has a decided comparative advantage. This is where we should step up, and where we can make a difference in the lives of millions of refugees and displaced persons being protected by international peacekeepers.
