Impact of Peace Operations
With Colonel Richard W. Roan (USMC-Ret.)
Senior Fellow, Peace Through Law Education Fund
Tuesday, March 19, 2002; 2 p.m. EST

As the possibility of a peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan looms in the near future, the public may well question who will lead it, who will participate, how long it will stay and what its mission will be. In its new report on the military's role in peace operations, the Peace Through Law Education Fund has received backing from former U.S. and Allied commanders including Gen. Wesley Clark (USA-Ret.), Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from 1997-2000, and MG William Nash (USA-Ret.), the first commander of U.S. forces in Bosnia. The former military leaders argue that peacekeeping can play a vital role in preventing future acts of terrorism.

Colonel Richard W. Roan, a senior fellow with the Peace Through Law Education Fund, was online Tuesday, March 19 at 2 p.m. EST, to discuss the recent report and the role of peacekeeping in military operations.

A transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Washington, D.C.: Isn't Wesley Clark's support of peace keeping missions a reversal for him?

Col. Richard W. Roan: I won't try to comment on General Clark's past views. Certainly, as a recent NATO Supreme Allied Commander, he supported robust U.S. involvement in NATO peace operations in both Bosnia and Kosovo. Now retired, General Clark has strongly advocated policies that promote engagement, including multinational peace opertions with U.S. military involvement when appropriate. General Clark 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." We recently had the privilege of interviewing over 30 top U.S. and Allied military leaders about their views on the participation of the U.S. military in peace operations. The overwhelming majority of our most seasoned military leaders totally agree with General Clark. They believe that engagement in multinational peace operations is in our national interests and will be a key ingrediant in the war against terrorism.

Arlington, Va.: What do you think of past U.S. efforts in Africa to train and provide equipment to military units as we did for Nigeria as part of Operation Focus Relief in Sierra Leone? It would seem that these efforts are low-cost (when compared to a U.S.-led mission) and still able to accomplish their stated goals.

Col. Richard W. Roan: Over the last several years, the United States has joined the French and British, among others, in sponsoring programs designed to enhance the capabilities of the militaries of African nations to conduct multinational peace operations. The training and equipment program, called The African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI), has been enthusiastically welcomed by many African nations (including Nigeria, as noted by the questioner), and, working side by side with African allies, has made a big difference in the peacekeeping capabilities of several key African nations, and has promoted bilateral relations between the U.S. and participating nations. ACRI and other similar programs sponsored by the U.S. State and Defense Departments received vigorous support from the senior military leaders we interviewed about peace operations. Our regional Commanders in Chief in particular stongly support programs that promote involvment of both U.S. and allied troops in multinational peace operations. They see such participation as keen tools of engagment, the kind of engagement more necessary than ever as we fight the multi-dimensional war on terrorism.

Arlington, Va.: Would the U.S. take the lead in a Afghanistan peacekeeping force? What other countries could we rely on for support?

Col. Richard W. Roan: The issue of U.S. military participation in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, now led by the British, is now a key issue of debate in Congress. As the warfighting in Afghanistan transitions to a peace operation, the ISAF will have an increasingly prominent and decisive role in determining whether or not Afghanistan will progress to the point where it is a productive member of the international community or revert to once again becoming a failed state that poses a continuing threat of terrorism to the U.S. and our allies. While the generals we interviewed didn't comment directly on the role of U.S. troops in peacekeeping in Afghanistan, they almost unaminously voiced the following view: While the U.S. doesn't have to lead every peace operation, it has to be a player, and to be most effective, the U.S. military must be a player on the ground. Major General Ricardo Sanchez, now the Commanding General of the 1st Armored Divison in Germany, and formerly the commander of the U.S. force in Kosovo, said it this way, "In order for us to have influence, we must be engaged...If you're not there on the ground..., you are not able to really ingluence what's happening on the ground."

Atlanta, Ga.: The Brahimi Report on U.N. Peace Operations noted many problems with peacekeeping and how to fix those problems -- a truly nuts and bolts approach. It addressed issues that many U.S. military commanders have noted as problems. Should the U.S. support implementation of these reforms?

Col. Richard W. Roan: We directly asked all the generals we interviewed about the Brahimi Report, a report recently released by the UN that calls for reforming and strengthening the UN's peacekeeping capabilities, while respecting the lessons we learned about the limitations of UN peacekeeping during the 1990s. While many of our nation's top military leaders continue to be very critical of the UN's effectiveness on the ground, they voiced their recognition of the UN as an indispensable partner both in peace operations and in the War on Terrorism. They strongly support the necessity for the U.S. to support the UN and equip it to be more effective and accountable. They believe that the U.S. should take the lead in helping reform the UN, including giving closer attention to the recommendations of the UN's Brahimi Report on Peace Operations. Clearly, the UN is an increasingly important partner in the War on Terrorism and its breeding grounds. As Admiral Dennis Blair, the Commander in Chief of the Pacific Command noted, "I think that if we didn't have the U.N., we would have to invent it."

Washington, D.C.: Is the U.S. currently involved in any peacekeeping operations around the world?

Col. Richard W. Roan: The U.S. in involved in peace operations throughout the world. For example, there are major U.S. military contingents in the NATO peace operations in Bosnia and Kosovo, and a major U.S. Army contingent serves in the Multinational Force of Observers in the Sinai. The U.S. also provides very small numbers of military observers to several of the UN's peacekeeping operations. The key question is how important is it for the U.S. to continue to be involved in peace operations in the future. The more than 30 senior U.S. and Allied military commanders we interviewed about peace operations gave us an answer that was loud and clear. These experienced military leaders report that peace operations are a key element of our larger strategy of engagement and participation of the U.S. military serves U.S. interests. Interestingly, our military leaders also report that participation in peace operations actually increases the morale, retention and combat readiness of U.S. Marines and soldiers and that 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. As General Joeph Ralston, the current Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, said, "The reenlistment numbers are far higher in units in Bosnia and Kosovo thatn they are in units in the U.S. Army overall." General Ralston also reports, "The training that the young NCO and younger officer gets in Kosovo is far superior to what he or she would be getting if they were in Germany."

Arlington, Va.: Do you think a peacekeeping operation would be an option for curbing Mideast violence?

Col. Richard W. Roan: I think it is too early to talk about the specifics of a peace operation in the Middle East, or about the involvement of U.S. troops. But, judging from the wisdom shared by the more than 30 senior U.S. and Allied military leaders we interviewed about peace operations, an intelligently tailored peacekeeping force could make an enormous contribution as a confidence building measure, once a Middle East peace agreement is reached. If such a peacekeeping force including U.S. troops, its confidence building value would be particularly strong. Both Israel and Egypt give major credit to the large U.S. commitment to and participation in the Multinational Force of Observers (MFO) in the Sinai for contributing to the success of their long-standing peace agreement. Likewise, both Israel and Egypt have voiced their strong opposition to views held by some in the Pentagon that the U.S. should dramatically reduce U.S. troop participation in the MFO.

Washington, D.C.: How would you make the case to the current administration that it benefits the U.S. to participate in and fully fund peace operations, particularly those run through the UN which is often criticized for its ability to run effective operations?

Col. Richard W. Roan: The more than 30 senior U.S. and Allied military leaders we interviewed make a strong case that U.S. participation in multinational peace is very much in the interests of the United States, that peace operations are a key tool of engagment and a key tool in our fight against terrorism, and that peace operations are highly effective "leadership laboratories" for our troops. They advocate studying the lessons of 1990's peace operations, lessons that instruct us to carefully chose which peace operations are best tackled by non-UN multinational forces (like Bosnia and Kosovo) and which are best suited for UN peacekeeping forces (like Eritrea-Ethiopia). They say that when the mission is truly keeping the peace, not warfighting, the UN is the best possible tool, and that the U.S. should strongly support the employment of UN peacekeeping forces in these cases. When appropriate, the use of UN peacekeeping forces represents an important burden-sharing mechanism (both in money and troops) for the U.S. and brings the total legitimacy of the international community. Our generals clearly understand that the U.N. must be an important partner for the U.S. as we seek a more secure and stable world. As noted before, many of the generals think that we need to take the lead in shaping the UN up, so that it can be the truly effective partner we need. General Tommy Franks said, "I think it's important to do everything we and other nations cad no to make U.N. peacekeeping as useful as possible, to maximize its utility." And Admiral Dennis Blair, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Command, states, "I think U.N. peacekeeping capability ought to be strengthened."

Washington, D.C.: Afghan leaders, our European allies, humanitarian organizations, and the U.N. are all calling for a larger ISAF. If the U.S. military commanders largely support peacekeeping, why is the U.S. holding back on this?

Col. Richard W. Roan: The Bush Administration and the Congress may be holding back in committing U.S. troops to the ISAF in Afghanistan because of, by some, a long-held and perhaps out of date bias against peacekeeping. I would urge them to carefully read the views of our senior military leaders in "A Force for Peace and Security: U.S. and Allied Commanders' Views of the Military's Role in Peace Operations and the Impact on Terrorism of States in Conflict," released last Thursday by the Peace Through Law Education Fund (www.ptlef.org). The arguments our military leaders make in favor of peace operations are quite convincing.

   |      |