The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Gen. Henry H. “Hugh”
Shelton, has advised against forming specialized peacekeeping units within the military, arguing that traditional combat training for U.S. forces would serve soldiers better in war or on volatile peacekeeping missions.
Writing in the Summer 2000 issue of
National Security Studies
Quarterly, Shelton — the chief military advisor to the president — emphasized the need for U.S. armed forces to be prepared for any contingency, from peace to war. He argues that combat-ready troops “are the international community’s best option in the dynamic environments where peace operations take place.”
Gen. Henry H. “Hugh” Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff |
Besides acting as the nation’s highest-ranking military officer and advising the president, Shelton’s duties include serving as primary military adviser to the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council.
“As we enter the Quadrennial Defense Review this coming year, we must not lose sight of the primary purpose of our armed forces,” Shelton wrote, which is “to fight and win the nation’s wars.”
Shelton noted that the frequency of peacekeeping missions imposed on all branches of the military during the Clinton administration has led some to suggest the creation of specialized peacekeeping units within the services. But, Shelton said, to do so would inevitably drain scarce funding from the Pentagon’s budget to train soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen for combat operations and, hence, downgrade the overall effectiveness of the nation’s 1.3 million-member armed forces.
The Joint Chiefs chairman said to divert funds away from combat units to pour money into training new peacekeeping units would diminish the overall effectiveness and full-spectrum capability of U.S. forces.
Rep. J. C. Watts, R-Okla. |
“We’re against the entire concept of peacekeeping missions,” said Bill Shapard, a spokesman for Rep. J. C. Watts, R-Okla., a member of the House Armed Services Committee. “It’s contrary to what our military should be; they should be peacemakers, not peacekeepers.”
Shelton said he believes that if the U.S. is committed to inserting forces abroad in a peacekeeping mission, combat units would better serve the nation’s needs.
“The most effective peacekeepers are those highly trained in war-fighting skills,” Shelton wrote.
To underscore his position, the general noted an incident involving U.N. peacekeepers who were abducted by rebels in Sierra Leone. Given the tasks a peacekeeping force must perform, often under hostile conditions, Shelton concludes that “professional soldiers, trained for combat operations, clearly provide the best type of manpower for peace operations.”
Shapard agreed, adding that the Clinton administration has routinely committed U.S. forces to peacekeeping missions but has failed “to give them the tools and resources” to complete assignments.
“These peacekeeping missions that the president has already engaged this country in — at the same time cutting the defense budget — has drained a lot of resources from our national defense,” Shapard said. “If we’re going to commit them to these missions — because he is the president — then he should ensure that we give our troops, at the same time, the funds, equipment and technology to win.”
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo. |
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., told WorldNetDaily the creation of specialized peacekeeping units would also drain personnel from combat units, since raising the congressionally mandated troop levels is not being considered in conjunction with the proposal.
“There was testimony several years ago, when the U.S. sent troops to Bosnia the first time, by the then-head of Army personnel, Lt. Gen. Ted Stroupe, that the Army should be 520,000” instead of its current level of 480,000, Skelton said. “Since that time, we’ve picked up additional missions, including Kosovo.”
Agreeing with Shelton’s assessment, the ranking minority member of the House Armed Services Committee said the current “operational tempo” of peacekeeping and other missions undertaken by the U.S. “is so high, we don’t have enough troops to go around.” Also, “if you have troops with anything less than combat experience, you’re going to be taking troops away from those [units] that might be needed for conflict,” he said.
Finally, Skelton pointed out, “if you take troops away from traditional combat capability, you appear — and correctly so — weaker to foreign countries.”
Skelton said many of the peacekeeping missions the U.S. has accepted “couldn’t be helped.” But, he added that the strain on American forces has been exacerbated by the level of missions and falling military recruitment — something that would ultimately hurt any prospective peacekeeping units and a phenomenon currently plaguing regular combat units as well.
“We need to increase the number of soldiers, period, because of the operational tempo,” he said. But, “if you created separate peacekeeping units, you’d actually be creating two armies — one that couldn’t fight, and one where that’s all they did.
“If you train people for combat, they can certainly do the secondary duty of peacekeeping — or peacemaking, whichever you assigned them to do.”
Staff members of Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif. — one of a handful of women serving on the Armed Services Committee — did not return phone calls for comment.
WATCH: Tucker Carlson: Nobody in the media ever mentions this about Kamala
Tucker Carlson