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."
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.
"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., 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.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I think that Shelton has been and continues to be one of the worst Chairmen of the JCS. A perfect symbol of his term will be his playing the game Battleship with that poor excuse for a human being the Coward in Chief, in that self love video he made for the White House correspondents dinner.
Whatever happened to patriots in uniform?
Semper Fi Teufelhunde
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
