Peacekeeping Seen As Valuable Tool
 
 
By JOHN DIAMOND Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - As the United States deploys 7,000 troops to Kosovo, a study quotes senior U.S. military commanders who say such peacekeeping operations provide valuable field experience and are central to the military's future.

The officers, both retired and active duty, concede that peace operations can sap military readiness if they supersede combat training. But they say such operations also can give troops and commanders valuable real-world experience in chaotic post-Cold War trouble spots.

The report this month by a private group with both Republicans and Democrats on its board challenges oft-repeated Capitol Hill arguments that the Clinton administration's penchant for dispatching U.S. forces to far-flung trouble spots is reducing overall military capability. The study quotes high-profile retirees, including Gens. Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf, but is notable for the number of active-duty officers who expressed strong opinions on the record.

``American military involvement (is) essential if we are to maintain our own security, continue to hold a position of world leadership, and be involved in shaping world events,'' said Marine Corps Gen. Charles Wilhelm, head of the U.S. Southern Command, in charge of operations in Central and South America. ``One of the elements of power is the will to exert it.''

Wilhelm was one of 11 active-duty officers to participate in the study by the Peace Through Law Education Fund, a Washington-based nonprofit group that researches foreign policy issues. Retired Sens. Paul Simon, D-Ill., and Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., are among the fund's directors.

Gen. Charles Krulak, who retired last week as the Marine Corps' commandant, challenged the idea held by some on Capitol Hill that foreign officers should never command U.S. troops.

``In a period of chaos, you have to have foreign command,'' Krulak said. ``You either do this, or you are the world's policeman.''

Lt. Gen. George Fisher, U.S. 1st Army commander, said ground troops under his command in Haiti judged that ``they were generally a better force for having completed such missions if - and this is a very important reservation - if the deployment is of limited duration, and if there is time to recover.''

``The 1st Armored Division was a much better division when we came back (from Bosnia) than when we went,'' said retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, who led the U.S. peacekeepers in Bosnia and helped conduct interviews for the report. In a telephone interview Tuesday, Nash said that the pending deployment to Kosovo will not involve an intact U.S. division, removing an element that helped Nash's soldiers maintain unit cohesion.

Schwarzkopf said flatly, ``These deployments, in fact, probably help morale.''

These and other statements by senior officers and prominent military retirees run counter to an argument particularly prevalent among congressional Republicans that the military is being exhausted on relatively unimportant but costly peacekeeping operations.

``Our troops are overextended and operating at levels that simply cannot be sustained over time,'' Rep. Floyd Spence, R-S.C., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a recent floor debate. Opposing the deployment of U.S. troops to Kosovo, Spence said, ``Tying down a large U.S. ground force in the Balkans will cause our friends - and our enemies - to legitimately question our ability to protect and promote our interests and to remain a force for stability in other critical regions.''

This view is not confined to Congress.

Some military schools still hew to the doctrine that peace operations distract from the central military mission of fighting and winning major wars, according to retired Army Gen. George Joulwan.

``That is a bankrupt strategy,'' said Joulwan, NATO commander during the 1995 U.S. troop deployment to Bosnia.

The assumption that the military exists solely to fight ``the big one,'' Joulwan said, ``means we are strategically irrelevant. ... You are not shaping the environment. You're sitting here waiting for the big one to start.''

However, peacekeeping operations, deny-flight missions and short-term military actions can and often do harm military readiness by siphoning funds from combat training into noncombat patrol operations, several generals agreed.

And military success in peace operations will usually be less clear than in combat.

``The best the military will ever do for you is create an absence of war,'' Nash, the former Bosnia commander, said. ``Militaries do not achieve peace.''
 
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------