Order Code IB94040
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement
Updated September 6, 2002
Nina M. Serafino
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Context for the Debate
The Definitional Problem
Current U.S. Military Participation in Peacekeeping
PDD 25 and Clinton Administration Policy
The Bush Administration Policy
Administration Secured Reductions in Bosnia
Administration Reconsiders Peacekeeping in Afghanistan
Issues of U.S. Military Involvement
Executive Consultation and Congressional Approval
FY2003 Legislative Restrictions on U.S. Miliary Participation in U.N. Peacekeeping
Operations
Administration Secures Guarantee against ICC Prosecution
Funding Issues: Costs and Reimbursements
Costs
Transparency of Budgeting for Peacekeeping and Other Contingency Operations
U.N. Reimbursements
Suitability and Desirability as a U.S. Military Mission
The Readiness Controversy and Related Concerns
Training Effects
Deployment Strains
Debate Over Force Size and Structure
Use of the Reserves in Peacekeeping
QDR Promised to Address Issues Created by Peacekeeping
Bosnia and Kosovo Debates
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Reports

---

IB94040
09-06-02
Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement
SUMMARY
For almost a decade, Congress has
control declined steeply, the first concern
expressed reservations about many complex
became less pressing. Regarding the second,
and intertwined peacekeeping issues. The
Congress is currently informed through
Bush Administration’s desire to reduce the
regular monthly consultation between the
commitment of U.S. troops to international
armed services and foreign affairs committees
peacekeeping stems largely from the major
(usually at the staff level) and executive
concerns of recent Congresses: that peace-
branch officers. Other important concerns
keeping duties are detrimental to military
have been the high cost of and the appropriate
“readiness,” i.e., the ability of U.S. troops to
method for funding DOD peacekeeping activi-
defend the nations. Critics, however, are
ties, and how much of U.S. contributions to
concerned that withdrawals of U.S. troops
U.N. peacekeeping should be reimbursed.
from peacekeeping commitments will under-
mine U.S. leadership.
Currently, the most salient Congressional
peacekeeping concern is the military
Thousands of U.S. military personnel
“readiness” issue. Policymakers worry that
currently serve in or support peacekeeping
peacekeeping costs drain funds that DOD uses
operations, performing tasks ranging from
to prepare its forces to defend against a threat
providing humanitarian relief to monitoring
to U.S. vital interests, that peacekeeping
and enforcing cease-fires or other agreements
deployments stress a force whose size is
designed to separate parties in conflict. Of
inadequate to handle such operations, and that
these, 43 were serving in seven operations
deployed troops lose their facility for perform-
under U.N. control (as of October 31, 2001).
ing combat tasks. A related issue is the suit-
Others are serving full-time in operations run
ability and desirability of U.S. military partici-
unilaterally by the Department of Defense
pation in peacekeeping operations.
(DOD) or together with U.S. allies in support
of these operations, particularly the NATO
The Bush Administration has negotiated
Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and the
with allies to reduce U.S. military troops in
NATO Kosovo Force (KFOR). About 37,000
Bosnia, and has stated that it will not commit
more serve in or support peacekeeping opera-
U.S. troops to the peacekeeping operation in
tions in South Korea. These “peacekeeping”
Afghanistan. Still, with some policymakers
operations are undertaken to promote, main-
and analysts arguing that the uncertainties of
tain, enforce, or enhance the possibilities for
the post-September 11 world demand a greater
peace, and can sometimes be dangerous.
U.S. commitment to curbing ethnic instability,
one issue facing the 107th Congress is what, if
For Congress, two initial issues were (1)
any, adjustments should be made in order to
whether U.S. troops should be placed under
perform peacekeeping missions – in Afghani-
U.N. control and (2) when the President shou-
stan or elsewhere – with less strain on the
ld consult with and seek congressional ap-
force, or whether the United States should
proval to deploy U.S. troops on peacekeeping
participate in such missions at all.
missions. As the number of troops under U.N.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB94040
09-06-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
In early September 2002, the Bush Administration urged other nations to contribute the
resources and leadership necessary to expand the international peacekeeping force in
Afghanistan, but continued to rule out a U.S. peacekeeping presence there. On August 1,
2002, the Senate passed its version of the FY2003 DOD appropriations bill, H.R. 5010,
which was reported July 18 (S.Rept. 107-213).
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Many questions have been raised in debate over U.S. involvement in international
peacekeeping. These have ranged from the basic question of definition — what is
peacekeeping? — to the broad strategic question — how and when does it serve U.S.
interests? Some issues directly concern U.S. military involvement and are discussed here,
or in other CRS reports. For several Congresses, two primary issues were (1) when should
the President consult Congress and seek its approval to send U.S. troops on peacekeeping
missions; and (2) whether Congress should restrict the placement of U.S. troops under U.N.
control. The first issue is covered briefly below, and more completely in other CRS Reports.
Regarding the second, issues related to the International Criminal Court are covered below
in the section on Legislative Restrictions on U.S. Military Participation in U.N. Peacekeeping
Operations, and issues related to command and control are covered by CRS Report RL31120,
Peacekeeping: Military Command and Control Issues. Currently, Congressional attention
focuses on three issues: (1) the costs of peacekeeping, (2) peacekeeping operations’ effects
on the U.S. military’s warfighting capacity (“readiness”), and (3) the suitability and
desirability of deploying U.S. troops on peacekeeping missions. (See CRS Issue Brief
IB90103, United Nations Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress, for information on the costs
of U.N. operations and its capability to handle them.)
Debate over peacekeeping has been complicated by the difficult context in which the
demand for U.S. troops and funds for such operations takes place. At home, this has
included the downsizing of U.S. forces, and the press of U.S. domestic programs for funds
spent on the military and on foreign aid. Internationally, complicating factors have included
the sometimes fractious relationship between the United States as a world leader and its
allies, and the nature of current ethnic and regional conflicts.
Context for the Debate
The Definitional Problem
“Peacekeeping” is a broad, generic, and often imprecise term to describe the many
activities that the United Nations and other international organizations undertake to promote,
maintain, enforce, or enhance the possibilities for peace. These activities range from
providing observers to monitor elections, recreating police or civil defense forces for the new
governments of those countries, organizing humanitarian relief efforts, and monitoring and
CRS-1

---

IB94040
09-06-02
enforcing cease-fires and other arrangements designed to separate parties recently in conflict.
The use of the term “peacekeeping” gained currency in the late 1950s, when United Nations
peacekeeping efforts mostly fit a narrower definition: providing an “interpositional” force
to separate parties that had been in conflict and to supervise the keeping of a peace accord
they had signed. In 1992, the United Nations began to use a broader terminology to describe
the different types of peacekeeping activities. In particular, it created the term “peace
enforcement” to describe operations where peacekeepers are allowed to use force because
of a greater possibility of conflict or a threat to their safety. Subsequently, the
Administration and executive branch agencies replaced the term “peacekeeping” with “peace
operations.” (DOD categorizes peace operations among its “operations other than war”
[OOTW].) Congress has tended to use the term “peacekeeping,” as does this Issue Brief.
The definitional problem stems from a semantic dilemma: no single term currently in use
can accurately capture the broad and ambiguous nature of all these types of operations. Use
of any term with the word “peace” conveys the misleading impression that they are without
risk, when, in fact, “peace” operations can place soldiers in hostile situations resembling war.
Current U.S. Military Participation in Peacekeeping
Thousands of U.S. military personnel participate full-time in a variety of activities that
fall under the rubric of peacekeeping operations, most sponsored or otherwise endorsed by
the United Nations. As of July 30, 2002, 32 U.S. military personnel were serving in six U.N.
peacekeeping operations. These operations are located in the Middle East (14 in two
operations), the Western Sahara (7), Georgia (2), Kosovo (2), and Ethiopia/Eritrea (7). Other
U.S. forces are deployed in unilateral U.S. operations and coalition operations, most
undertaken with U.N. authority. As of July 15, 2002, some 2,500 U.S. troops were
participating in the NATO Bosnia Stabilization Force (SFOR), and 5,100 in the NATO
Kosovo Force (KFOR). Others in Macedonia provide support to KFOR. (Numbers have
fluctuated by the hundreds with troop rotations.) Over 37,000 U.S. troops serve in South
Korea under bilateral U.S.-Republic of Korea agreements and U.N. authority. Some 865
serve in the Sinai-based coalition Multilateral Force (MFO), which has no U.N. affiliation.
Approximately 20,000 (the numbers have fluctuated somewhat) U.S. troops — mostly
sailors and marines — usually have been involved in Southwest Asia around Iraq for the
past decade, enforcing maritime sanctions in the Arabian Sea and two no-fly zones over
northern and southern Iraq. (The Bush Administration budgeted for 18,000 during FY2002,
but the number actually serving has not been made public for some time, and may have
changed as a result of the events of September 11, 2001.) These tasks are among those
involved in “peace enforcement” efforts, i.e., the upper end of the peacekeeping spectrum
where unstable situations require the threat or application of military force, although the
Bush Administration is, as of FY2002, budgeting them as ongoing peacetime U.S. activities.
The air operations — Northern Watch and Southern Watch — are performed in coalition
with the United Kingdom. (See CRS Report 98-120, Iraq Crisis: U.S. and Allied Forces,
for information on U.S. activities around Iraq.) Several other nations contribute to operations
in the Arabian Sea.
PDD 25 and Clinton Administration Policy
On May 3, 1994, President Clinton signed a classified presidential decision directive
(PDD 25) that defined the scope and conditions of future U.S. participation in, and
CRS-2

---

IB94040
09-06-02
contributions to, multilateral (mostly United Nations) peacekeeping efforts. (References in
this Issue Brief are to a 15-page unclassified summary, “The Clinton Administration’s Policy
on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations,” Department of State Publication 10161, May
1994.) As the Clinton Administration’s statement of peacekeeping policy, which remains
in effect for the Bush Administration unless revoked or superseded by a subsequent directive,
it defined guidelines for U.S. support of and U.S. military participation in multilateral
peacekeeping operations that narrowed the broad, “assertive” multilateralist vision the
Administration expounded during its first year which had cast the United Nations, with U.S.
support, as a central player in ensuring world stability. PDD 25 delineated the more
restrained role for peacekeeping that Administration officials articulated after the deaths of
U.S. special operations forces in Somalia in 1993 made peacekeeping operations highly
controversial. (See CRS Report 94-260, Peacekeeping in Future U.S. Foreign Policy, for
a discussion of PDD 25 and a copy of the unclassified summary.)
Under PDD 25 guidelines, a primary consideration for U.S. support of multilateral
peacekeeping operations was to be whether “there is a threat to or breach of international
peace and security.” Basic considerations for political and financial support were whether
U.N. or other peacekeeping operations advanced U.S. interests and whether other countries
would commit adequate resources. In deciding whether to send U.S. troops, other factors to
consider were: whether the U.S. presence is essential to an operation’s success, the risks to
U.S. troops are acceptable, resources are available, and domestic and congressional support
“exists or can be marshaled.” Where U.S. troops might encounter combat, other factors
included whether there are: “a determination to commit sufficient forces to achieve clearly
defined objectives;” “a plan to achieve those objectives decisively;” and “a commitment to
reassess and adjust” as necessary the size, composition, and use of forces. Despite PDD 25
and its guidelines, or perhaps because of it, the debate over peacekeeping intensified.
The Bush Administration Policy
During his presidential campaign, President Bush expressed a dislike for open-ended
“nation-building” missions involving U.S. ground forces, but did not promise any specific
actions regarding peacekeeping operations. However, Condeleeza Rice, then his foreign
policy advisor and currently National Security Advisor, stated during the campaign that if
elected Bush would end U.S. participation in Balkans peacekeeping operations. Since the
election, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld urged a withdrawal of U.S. troops from
peacekeeping duties, with specific references to the Balkans and the Sinai, and from the
training of African troops for peacekeeping, although in early June he acknowledged that
U.S. troops must be present in Kosovo. Secretary of State Colin Powell (who as an active-
duty army general was known for deep reservations regarding peacekeeping) has emphasized
that the United States must respect its commitments abroad. (There are also signs that others
in the Bush Administration were willing to maintain peacekeeping in its military tool kit to
help deter aggression in selected circumstances and areas. See the section on the QDR of
September 30, 2001, below.) Critics of reducing or withdrawing U.S. commitments have
argued, however, that relatively few U.S. troops are involved in peacekeeping operations
compared to the large forward presence of the U.S. elsewhere, including some 37,000 troops
(technically involved in peacekeeping) in Korea and some 40,000 in Japan.
Administration Secured Reductions in Bosnia. Bush Administration actions
are consistent with President-elect Bush’s remarks in early 2001 that he was “in consultation
CRS-3

---

IB94040
09-06-02
with our allies” concerning his desire to reduce the U.S. peacekeeping presence in the
Balkans. Denying that he intended to precipitously withdraw U.S. troops, the President-elect
nonetheless stated that “we’d like for them [the allies] to be the peacekeepers....And it’s
going to take a while.” (New York Times, January 14, 2001) After that, the de facto Bush
Administration policy, at least towards Bosnia, appeared to be to quietly seek to minimize
forces through negotiations with U.S. allies. For Bosnia, the Bush administration sought to
reduce the U.S. presence through established NATO procedures, bringing the U.S. presence
down by about 500 from some 3,600 to 3,100; that approach seems to have been quietly
effective. (For more on Bush Administration statements and policy regarding U.S. troops
in Bosnia, see CRS Report RL30906, Bosnia-Hercegovina and U.S. Policy. For U.S.
military commitments abroad, see [http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm].)
Administration Reconsiders Peacekeeping in Afghanistan. Currently, the
United States has some 7,000 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan in a combat role. Until
recently, the Bush Administration consistently maintained that no U.S. troops would
participate in peacekeeping operations in the British-led International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF) of 4,500-5,000 troops, and has opposed the expansion of that force’s activities
beyond Kabul. With troop contributions from 18 countries, ISAF patrols Kabul and its
immediate surrounding areas under a United Nations Chapter VII authorization. (It is not,
however, a U.N.-commanded or U.N.-funded operation.) U.S. troops provide some
assistance to the ISAF, i.e., logistical, intelligence, and quick reaction force support,
according to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, but they do not engage in peacekeeping. (They
do, however, provide training and assistance for the formation of an Afghani national
military, an activity which some analysts label “nation-building.”) Secretary Rumsfeld
argued that the long-term stability of Afghanistan depends on whether Afghanis can
themselves develop the mechanisms to govern peacefully. This process, he argued, would
be impeded by an intrusive foreign peacekeeping presence. (See “U.S.: Afghan Security
Void Useful,” Washington Times, April 24, 2002.) Other Administration officials also
argued that other countries would be unwilling to commit to an expanded force.
In late summer 2002, the Bush Administration indicated that it had reconsidered at least
part of its position, as increasing threats to the new Afghan government from terrorist actions
in Kabul gave credence to the arguments of proponents of an expanded international
peacekeeping force. In April 2002, statements by several interested parties – the ranking
Afghani diplomat to the United States, the Pakistani Ambassador to the United States, and
the head of an international relief organization – were reported, all urging the Administration
to reconsider its position. Proponents of an expanded force and of U.S. military participation
in Afghanistan peacekeeping argue that a larger force that operates throughout the country
is necessary to control a dangerous and deteriorating security situation in the countryside as
warlords compete for power, and to prevent that situation from impeding the consolidation
of a central government and the delivery of humanitarian aid. The United States must
commit its own forces to peacekeeping, they say, in order to provide the necessary leadership
to accomplish such a mission. (See “U.S. Urged to Expand Presence in Afghanistan,”
Washington Post, April 22, 2002; “Expanded Peacekeeper Role Sought,” Washington Times,
April 25, 2002; and “Top Lawmakers Urge Bush to Expand Afghan Force Beyond Kabul,”
New York Times, June 27, 2002.) Some U.S. officials outside the Pentagon were also
reported to favor at least a temporary U.S. peacekeeping role, most prominent among them
was, reportedly, Secretary of State Powell. (See “U.S. Resists Putting GIs Among
Warlords,” Washington Times, March 11, 2002.)
CRS-4

---

IB94040
09-06-02
In early September, 2002, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz reportedly
endorsed an expansion of ISAF and the use of its peacekeepers to patrol beyond Kabul,
calling on other nations to provide the necessary leadership and resources. Another
Administration official, however, ruled out contributing U.S. forces to expand the force.
(See: U.S. Seeks to Broaden Peacekeeping. Washington Post, September 6, 2002.)
The Stimson Center’s William Durch has outlined a rationale and proposal for an
expanded peacekeeping force that would operate throughout Afghanistan.. He sets forth two
potential force levels: a “light” option of 18,000 troops, which would be 13,500 more than
are currently deployed with the ISAF in and around Kabul, or a “medium” option of about
40,000 troops. Cost estimates for the light option range from $2-$4 billion. He envisions
a U.S. commitment, to include at least logistics support and air components, that would
signal to other nations a significant U.S. interest and long-term involvement in an expanded
force. Air components could provide aerial reconnaissance and transport helicopters that
could provide lift for response forces and also patrol highways. See Security and Peace
Support in Afghanistan: Analysis and Short-to-Medium-Term Options, revised July 8, 2002
[http://www.stimson.org/fopo/pubs.cfm?ID=58]; and Durch’s op-ed, “A Realistic Plan to
Save Afghanistan,” The Washington Post, July 30, 2002.
Issues of U.S. Military Involvement
Executive Consultation and Congressional Approval
A primary concern of Congress is that it be consulted about the commitment of U.S.
forces in peacekeeping operations; many Members also want Congress’ approval sought if
and when U.S. forces are to be placed at risk. Debate over the type of consultation and
approval that the executive branch must seek is a continuation of the ongoing dispute
regarding powers under the Constitution to deploy U.S. troops abroad into hostilities. The
War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148), a 1973 legislative attempt to clarify that dispute,
requires the President to consult with and report to Congress any introduction of U.S. forces
into hostilities or imminent hostilities. The War Powers Resolution also requires that troops
usually be withdrawn after 60 days if Congress does not approve a continued stay. It does
not provide a mechanism for Congress to disapprove the initial deployment of troops.
Congress’ primary power to exercise control over peacekeeping deployments and
expenditures is the power of the purse, but many consider this insufficient. Not all Members
wish to change this situation, preferring not to take a position on uses of force abroad.
The first session of the 104th Congress rejected attempts to repeal the War Powers Act
and substitute another mechanism. Since then, several Congress’ have debated placing
conditions on peacekeeping deployments, although most such efforts have been defeated.
The Bush Administration is continuing the practice, adopted during the Clinton years, of
informing Congress of ongoing and/or planned operations through monthly meetings with
staff of the armed services and foreign affairs committees.
CRS-5

---

IB94040
09-06-02
FY2003 Legislative Restrictions on U.S. Miliary Participation in U.N.
Peacekeeping Operations
The treaty creating the International Criminal Court, which has the power to prosecute
alleged war criminals, entered into force July 1, 2002. This court’s creation prompted U.S.
policymakers to debate the necessity of protecting U.S. citizens from prosecution by the
court, and, if so, how. One concern has been the possible risk that U.S. soldiers serving in
international peacekeeping operations would be accused of and prosecuted for war crimes.
Although the treaty creating the court was signed by a U.S. official on behalf of former
President Clinton, President Clinton said that he would not forward it to the Senate for
ratification, and recommended that his successor also not forward it, until specific U.S.
concerns were met. In early May 2002, the Bush Administration renounced its support for
the court, and on May 16, 2002, the Washington Post reported that the Bush Administration
is seeking U.N. assurances that all personnel serving in the U.N.’s East Timor operation will
be protected against prosecution for war crimes by a local court or international tribunal.
Some policymakers argue that U.S. citizens can be subject to the Court’s jurisdiction
if they are operating in a country that has joined the treaty, even though the United States has
not. Others dismiss the idea that the United States runs a serious risk that its innocent service
members will be prosecuted, arguing that the Court was established to prosecute war
criminals, and not service members involved in peacekeeping duties. (For more information
on the issues involved in the establishment and operation of the ICC, see CRS Report
RL30020, The International Criminal Court Treaty: Description, Policy Issues, and
Congressional Concerns, and CRS Report RL30091, The Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court: Selected Legal and Constitutional Issues.)
Several bills have been introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses regarding the ICC.
Congress adopted a provision regarding the ICC in the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act (H.R. 4775); the conference report (H.Rept. 107-593) was passed by the
House on July 23 and the Senate on July 24, 2002. The DOD FY2003 authorization bill,
H.R. 4546 (H.Rept. 107-436), as passed by the House on May 10, contains a Sense Of
Congress declaration (Section 1034) stating that none of the funds authorized by the act
should be used to assist, support, or cooperate with the ICC.
As signed into law (P.L. 107-206, August 2, 2002) The “American Servicemembers’
Protection Act” provisions in the FY2002 supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 4775)
requires the President to take precautions that protect U.S. service members from ICC
actions. U.S. military forces may not participate in a U.N. peace operation after the date that
the Rome Statute enters into effect unless the President has certified that they “are able to
participate...without risk of criminal prosecution or other assertion of jurisdiction by the
International Criminal Court” because (1) the U.N. Security Council has provided such an
exemption, (2) because each country in which the operation is conducted is not a party to the
ICC and has not invoked its jurisdiction, (3) because each country has entered into an
agreement from proceeding against members of the U.S. armed forces, or (4) because U.S.
national interests justify such participation. The law also requires the President to ensure that
each resolution of the Security Council authorizing any Chapter VI or Chapter VII U.N.
peace operation would permanently exempt, “at a minimum, members of the Armed Forces
of the United States participating in such operation from criminal prosecution or other
assertion of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court for actions undertaken by such
CRS-6

---

IB94040
09-06-02
personnel in connection with the operation.” It provides the President waiver authority for
successive periods of one year if he reports to Congress that the ICC is a party to a binding
agreement not to exercise jurisdiction over covered U.S. and allied persons, and related
assurances.
Language in H.R. 1646, the FY2002-FY2003 foreign relations authorization act as
approved by the House, contains similar provisions to that of the FY2002 supplemental. It
does not, however, contain a national interest exception (point 4, above).
Administration Secures Guarantee against ICC Prosecution. The Bush
Administration’s attempts to secure a U.N. Security Council guarantee against any
investigation or prosecution of U.S. citizens involved in peacekeeping by the International
Criminal Court of U.S. citizens embroiled it in a dispute with the United States’ closest
allies, including Great Britain, and ended in a compromise in mid-July 2002. Reportedly,
the European Union nations, Mexico, and Canada resisted providing special privileges to
U.S. peacekeepers.
On July 12, after the United States withheld its approval for the extension of U.N.
peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Croatia, the Security Council adopted the compromise,
Security Council Resolution 1422 (2002). That resolution requests that the ICC “not
commence or proceed with investigation or prosecution” of any case against “current or
former officials or personnel from a contributing State not a Party to the Rome Statute [i.e.,
the treaty which creates the ICC] over acts or omissions relating to a United Nations
Established or authorized operation.” It also expressed the Security Council’s intention to
renew this request annually. The compromise reportedly was based on Article 16 of the ICC
treaty, which provides that “no investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded
with” for one year if the Security Council should so request under Chapter VII of the U.N.
Charter.
At least one U.S. ally, Canada, was displeased with the outcome, arguing that the
Security Council does not have the authority to interpret an international treaty negotiated
outside the U.N. (The matter subject to interpretation apparently was whether the Article 16
could be invoked as a blanket prohibition on action, before any specific investigation or
prosecution was contemplated.) Others questioned whether such a resolution was necessary
at all, as the ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to “the most serious crimes of concern to the
international community as a whole,” that is, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes,
and the crime of aggression. (See “U.S. Peacekeepers Given Year’s Immunity From New
Court.” New York Times, July 13, 2002.) For Congressional action regarding the ICC, see
the section on FY2003 Legislative Restrictions on U.S. Military Participation in U.N.
peacekeeping, below.
Funding Issues: Costs and Reimbursements
Costs. Until the 1990s, DOD did not keep a central accounting of figures on
peacekeeping because these “incremental” costs (i.e., the amount spent on peacekeeping
over that which would have been normally spent on regular salaries, and on routine training,
equipment repairs and replacements) were minimal. But, as U.S. spending on U.S. and U.N.
peacekeeping activities soared in the early to mid-1990s, Congress became increasingly
concerned about the costs of those operations. Because the “incremental” costs of
CRS-7

---

IB94040
09-06-02
peacekeeping and other military contingency operations generally have been funded through
supplemental appropriations, for many years DOD had to postpone and cancel training and
maintenance and to rescind funds from weapons modernizations and other accounts.
Supplemental appropriations designated as “emergency” funding do not disrupt DOD
activities and plans, but they can be controversial as they can raise overall spending above
the budget caps set by Congress. During the second session of the 104th Congress, Members
sought to resolve the problem by budgeting funding for ongoing missions in an “Overseas
Contingency Operations Transfer Fund,” (OCOTF) in the annual DOD measures. This
mechanism was included in legislation of the 105th and 106th Congresses, but the President
still sought supplemental funding for Bosnia, and then Kosovo, in subsequent years.
The costs of such operation became relatively uncontroversial in the 107th Congress,
however, as the Bush Administration sought reductions in Balkans peacekeeping, and the
operations in Southwest Asia became more accepted as ongoing operations. This led to a
change in the budgeting mechanisms for such operations, as discussed in the section on
transparency, below. For more information on the concept of incremental costs, and on
legislative and executive attempts to create more efficient methods of funding contingency
operations see CRS Report 98-823, Military Contingency Funding for Bosnia, Southwest
Asia, and Other Operations: Questions and Answers. Incremental costs in constant FY2002
dollars though FY2000 are available in CRS Report RS21013, Costs of Major U.S. Wars and
Recent U.S. Overseas Military Operations.
Transparency of Budgeting for Peacekeeping and Other Contingency
Operations. As a result of decisions by the Bush Administration and the Congress
concerning the FY2002 budget, as of that fiscal year the costs of the Balkans and Southwest
Asia contingency operations are being budgeted within the services’ accounts as ongoing
peacetime operations. A July 2001 GAO defense budget report (GAO-01-829) warned that
such a budgeting practice could have both positive and negative effects: while this funding
method “could provide an incentive to better control costs,” it could also mean that Congress
will no longer be able to track the expenditure of those funds and know of their possible
diversion to other uses. The GAO suggested that Congress could require (1) written
notification if funds intended for SWA were obligated for other purposes and (2) that DOD
continue to report monthly on the costs of SWA operations.
For FY2002, the conference version of the DOD appropriations bill, H.R. 3338, placed
only some $50 million in the OCOTF, which was to be used as a “central response fund” for
addressing unanticipated and unknown overseas continency costs, according to the statement
of the managers (H.Rept. 107-350). The statement broke down the total amount for Balkans
operations – some $2.144 billion or about $650 million less than the President’s request –
among the services in the operations and maintenance, and the military personnel accounts,
but did not specify the amounts for SWA operations. The conference report was approved
by the House and Senate on December 20, 2001, and signed into law (P.L. 107-117) on
January 10, 2002. Section 8097 of H.R. 3338/P.L. 107-117 requires that the FY2003 and all
future budget requests include separate budget justification documents for costs of United
States Armed Forces’ participation in contingency operations for the OCOTF, and the
military personnel, operation and maintenance, and procurement accounts.
In keeping with the provisions of 2001 which mandated that Balkans and SWA
operations be considered ongoing, not contingency, operations, the FY2003 budget request
CRS-8

---

IB94040
09-06-02
and supporting budget justification documents do not break out information on these costs.
The OCOTF request for FY2003, which does not include these operations, is $50 million.
Another $50 million remains in the fund from unexpended FY2002 balances. The FY2003
DOD authorization bills, H.R. 4546 and S. 2514, follow this protocol, funding the OCOTF
at $50 million; the House FY2003 DOD appropriations bill, H.R. 5010, deletes the OCOTF.
U.N. Reimbursements. Some Members argue that the costs of U.S. direct or
indirect support for U.N. and U.N.-sanctioned operations, including DOD incremental costs,
should be credited towards the payment of U.S. assessments for U.N. peacekeeping
operations and other payments to the U.N. (See CRS Issue Brief IB90103 for more on U.N.
assessments.) (In the 104th Congress, provisions to credit such support towards U.S.
assessments for U.N. peacekeeping were included in “Contract with America” legislation –
S. 5 and H.R. 7 – but did not become law.) Currently, the United States is reimbursed only
for the troops which it contributes to actual U.N. operations, and for assistance provided
under Letters of Assist where the U.N. specifically pledges reimbursement. A little under
one-third of U.N. reimbursements for troop contributions is credited to DOD to cover DOD’s
incremental costs in deploying troops; the remainder is credited to the State Department.
Policymakers who object to provisions requiring reimbursement for all costs to the
United States of supporting U.N. operations note that such assistance is voluntary and would
not be provided if it were not in the U.S. interest. Also, many other countries provide
voluntary support that is not reimbursed or credited to their assessments by the United
Nations. A State Department compilation of the 1995 voluntary contributions of the United
States and 13 other countries to support U.N. peacekeeping operations (excluding economic
and humanitarian aid), shows that the United States provided 57%, 11 NATO countries and
Australia some 42%, and Japan slightly under one percent. (The contributions are
incremental costs for either FY1995 or calendar year 1995.) Subsequently, the State
Department questioned whether these figures, because of the different methods used to
compile them, presented a valid comparison, and did not update them. (An exhaustive CRS
attempt in 1999 to gather information on NATO contributions to Kosovo found no single,
definitive source of consistent data on military and non-military contributions, and at best
could provide an approximate idea of relative costs. See CRS Report RL30398, NATO
Burdensharing and Kosovo, A Preliminary Report.)
The FY2001 and FY2002 DOD appropriations acts do not follow DOD appropriations
acts for FY1998-FY2000 in requiring quarterly reports from the Defense Secretary on all
DOD costs to support U.N. peacekeeping and U.N. Security Council resolutions, and an
accounting of efforts to seek credit against past U.N. expenditures and U.N. compensation
for DOD costs in supporting of U.N. activities. They do repeat provisions from those acts
requiring DOD to notify specified committees 15 days before obligating or spending funds
to transfer defense articles or services (other than intelligence) to another nation or
international organization for use in any U.N. or other international peacekeeping,
peace-enforcement or humanitarian operation. (Section 8072 in the FY2002 version.)
Suitability and Desirability as a U.S. Military Mission
Some analysts question whether military forces in general and U.S. military forces in
particular are, by character, doctrine, and training, suited to carry out peacekeeping
operations. One reason given is that military forces cultivate the instincts and skills to be
CRS-9

---

IB94040
09-06-02
fighters, while the skills and instincts needed for peacekeeping are those inculcated by law
enforcement training. (In some peacekeeping operations, however, the military’s training to
work in units and employ higher levels of force are seen as necessary.) Another reason is
that peacekeeping requires a different approach than combat operations. Many senior U.S.
military planners hold that successful military action requires “overwhelming” force. U.S.
troops are taught to apply “decisive” force to defeat an enemy. Most peacekeeping tasks,
however, require restraint, not an “overwhelming” or “decisive” use of force.
As the military has gained more experience with peacekeeping missions and analyzed
their requirements, and as some officers and analysts have begun to look more favorably on
peacekeeping as a mission, many assert that to be a good peacekeeper, one must first be a
good soldier. (“Peacekeeping is not a job for soldiers, but only soldiers can do it,” states the
Army field manual outlining doctrine on Peace Operations, FM 100-23, in a quote attributed
to former U.N. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold.) In part this argument is based on the
growing recognition that troops in peacekeeping operations need military and combat skills
to respond to unanticipated risks, in part it is based on the judgment that part of the task of
a peacekeeping operation is to provide a deterrent to the continued use of force and that the
most credible deterrent is a soldier well-trained for combat. U.S. military participation in
peacekeeping has become regarded more favorably by some military officers who argue that
although combat skills deteriorate (“degrade”) during peace operations, many other skills
necessary for military operations are enhanced. (See section on Training Effects, below.)
Questions also arise as to whether peacekeeping is a desirable mission for U.S. forces.
On the one hand, some point out that as representatives of the sole world “superpower,” U.S.
troops are particularly vulnerable to attempts to sabotage peacekeeping operations by those
who want to convince potential followers of their power by successfully engaging U.S.
forces. On the other, analysts note that other countries are often reluctant to commit forces
if the United States does not, and that U.S. participation in peacekeeping is an important part
of “shaping” the world environment to decrease the possibilities of future conflict and war.
In recent years, the military services made several changes to adjust for peacekeeping
missions. In particular, the U.S. military has been increasing special training for
peacekeeping functions. Most of the training is for units who are deployed, or expect to be
deployed, for peace operations: the Army norm is that units should receive four to six weeks
of special training. The unified commands have developed exercise programs involving staff
planning, command and control, simulated deployments, and training with non-governmental
organizations and foreign militaries. Units that are drawn upon for peacekeeping operations
have also incorporated training for peace operations in their normal training routines.
Some analysts argue that U.S. combat forces should not be used for peacekeeping.
Instead, they suggest two options: establish a separate peacekeeping force, distinct from the
current military service branches, or create special units dedicated solely to peacekeeping
within the current services. (In PDD 25, the Administration stated that it did not support the
concept of a standing U.N. army, nor would it earmark military units for participation in
U.N. peacekeeping operations.) The military has resisted the concept of dedicated units.
On June 12, 2001, DOD sponsored a briefing on an Institute of Defense Analysis
defense transformation study commissioned by the Secretary of Defense that recommended
the creation of a standing humanitarian joint task force, “with a joint command and control
CRS-10

---

IB94040
09-06-02
capability similar to our war-fighting capability...with some immediately [sic] airlift and
security capabilities” to respond to humanitarian crises. According to the briefing transcript
([http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2001/t06122001_t612tran.html]), the task force
would precede civilian contractors to the field as a stop-gap measure in a benign environment
and for a limited time in a more troubled environment where “the circumstances required a
military response.” These do not appear to be the type of dedicated peacekeeping units
envisioned by some, but questions might be raised as to whether they eventually engage in
humanitarian interventions that could require a longer than anticipated military presence.
The Readiness Controversy and Related Concerns
“Readiness” issues have been a driving force in congressional debate over the extent to
which the U.S. military should engage in peacekeeping. Readiness is a subjective and
ambiguous concept referring to the degree to which the armed forces are “prepared” — i.e.,
currently in training and well-equipped — to defend the nation. As the U.S. military has
been increasingly called upon to perform peacekeeping and other non-combat missions —
at the same time as it has downsized significantly — Members have questioned whether U.S.
military forces can perform their “core” mission, i.e., national defense where U.S. vital
interests are threatened, if they engage extensively in other activities. Readiness, as related
to peacekeeping, depends on several factors: the size of the force, the numbers of troops
devoted to specific tasks (force structure), the size, length, and frequency of deployments
(operational tempo), and opportunities for training in combat skills during a peace operation.
There is some difference of opinion concerning the importance of the readiness issue.
Peacekeeping (and all other operations other than war) is directly related to the readiness
problem, if one is looking strictly at the results of the readiness ratings that are calculated
periodically. That is because all the standards – all the factors and tests – that are used to
measure “readiness” only measure the military’s combat preparedness, that is, its ability to
fight and win wars. These standards measure the availability of a unit’s personnel, the state
of a unit’s equipment, and the performance of a unit’s members on tests of their wartime
skills. When the military deploys large numbers of personnel to peacekeeping operations,
scores on these measures can decline, and they have declined in some cases.
This happens for several reasons. For one, people are transferred from units that are not
deployed to peace operations to take part in peacekeeping. Second, funds for training and
equipment have been diverted in the past to fund peacekeeping operations. Third, military
personnel cannot continue to practice all their combat skills when participating in peace
operations; and fourth, the U.S. military has been deployed for peacekeeping operations at
the same time that the size of the force, particularly the army, has been reduced substantially.
Whether a potential or actual “degradation” of readiness ratings is important depends
on one’s perspective on the utility of readiness measures. The standard of readiness ratings
rests on the concept that the U.S. military must be prepared to fight two nearly simultaneous
major regional conflicts (MRCs). Those who believe that in holding the military to that
standard when there are many other necessary military missions see the measures as flawed.
They argue that peacekeeping is a significant mission and therefore readiness standards
should also measure, or otherwise account for, performance of peacekeeping tasks.

CRS-11

---

IB94040
09-06-02
If one looks at the larger “readiness” problem, that is the perception that U.S. military
personnel are in general overworked and underpaid, that military equipment is in poor shape,
that there are rampant shortages of spare parts, and that the military forces cannot recruit and
retain needed personnel, the relationship of peacekeeping to readiness is less pronounced.
Peacekeeping is responsible to some extent for this larger readiness problem, but there are
many other contributing factors. The strong economy is frequently cited as impairing the
military’s ability to recruit and retain personnel. Equipment is deteriorating and spare parts
are increasingly in demand not only because of peacekeeping deployments, but also in many
cases because the equipment was old and deteriorating. The area in which peacekeeping
most affects readiness is the stress that frequent deployments have placed on certain troops
– the so-called increase in Operational tempo (optempo) and personnel tempo (perstempo).
Training Effects. The effects of peace operations on a soldier’s ability to maintain
military and combat skills through training has been a source of concern; military analysts
and personnel have noticed mixed effects on soldiers’ skills, and thus on readiness. For
some types of military activities and skills, participation in peacekeeping operations is
considered to be a good substitute for normal training activities. This is true for many
activities short of high-intensity combat skills, e.g., support functions, such as intelligence,
medical, logistics, transportation and engineering, where units deployed in peacekeeping
perform tasks that are quite similar to their wartime tasks, and in an environment that
approaches a wartime environment. Many military officers and analysts state that
peacekeeping operations provide far superior opportunities for small unit commanders to
develop leadership skills than do normal training exercises. Nevertheless, for combat
personnel, it is indisputable that some combat skills may deteriorate and the “warrior” spirit
may be taxed by the mundane tasks performed and the restraint required by peacekeeping.
All acknowledge that participation in peacekeeping operations significantly “degrades”
crucial combat skills such as shooting (“live firepower”) skills, coordination of the use of
weapons and equipment (combined arms skills), and large unit maneuver ability, which
cannot be practiced in a peace operation. (The longer the deployment, the greater the
deterioration of skills, according to some analysts.) To reduce such deterioration, efforts are
made for troops to continue some level of combat training during peacekeeping deployments.
For instance, the Army provides opportunities for those deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo to
practice wartime skills while on duty.
Deployment Strains. The increased “optempo” demanded by peacekeeping takes
time from necessary maintenance, repairs, and combat training, and can shorten the useful
life of equipment. The “perstempo” problem is regarded as particularly severe for the Army.
For several years, the Army was deploying the same units over and over to peacekeeping
operations, and the pace of deployment was viewed as too demanding, affecting morale by
keeping personnel away from families for too long, and, some argue, affecting recruitment.
In one of the first publicly-available studies of the stresses caused by peacekeeping, a March
1995 GAO report (GAO/NSIAD-95-51) found that the increasing “op tempo,” deployments
due to peacekeeping, and reduced force structure taxed certain Navy and Marine Corps units,
and “heavily” stressed certain Army support forces, such as quartermaster and transportation
units, and specialized Air Force aircraft critical to the early stages of a MRC, to an extent that
could endanger DOD’s ability to respond quickly to MRCs. DOD disagreed at the time, but
the pace of operations subsequently became a source of concern throughout the services and
DOD, as well as in Congress. A July 2000 GAO report (GAO/NSIAD-00-164) found several
shortages in forces needed for contingency operations, including an inadequate number of
CRS-12

---

IB94040
09-06-02
active-duty civil affairs personnel, Navy/Marine Corps land-based EA-6B squadrons, fully
trained and available Air Force AWACs aircraft crews, and fully-trained U-2 pilots.
The Army has also taken steps to deal with some of its problems by the realignment
and better management of its resources, as has the Air Force. In recent years, the army has
addressed perstempo strains by limiting deployments to 6 months, and including national
guard and reserve units among those on the roster to serve in Bosnia, thus attempting to
reduce the optempo of combat duty units. The Air Force, since 1999, has established Air
Expeditionary Units that deploy under a predictable rotation system in an attempt to reduce
the stresses of deployment to enforce no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq and to
meet other disaster and humanitarian assistance demands as they arise. Nevertheless, in July
2000, the GAO issued a report noting that the Air Force was unable to meet the demand for
aerial surveillance with AWAC aircraft because of a shortage of AWAC crews. In some
cases, however, these solutions may generate other problems. For instance, the Army’s
attempts to relieve the stresses of frequent deployments on its active forces by instead
deploying reservists may, some analysts worry, affect guard and reserve personnel
recruitment and retention. Some analysts suggest, however, that continued improvements
in resource management could ease stresses. Others prefer to change force size or structure.
Debate Over Force Size and Structure. Many defense analysts and military
officers have questioned whether the military is appropriately sized and structured to fight
two MRCs and also take on peacekeeping and other so-called “non-combat” missions. For
several years, many Members have expressed concern that the U.S. military is too small and
too stretched to take on peacekeeping operations. Since the mid-1990s, several policymakers
and military experts have suggested that 540,000 would be an appropriate size for the army
to prepare for two MRCs while undertaking peacekeeping missions, i.e., considerably more
than the current 480,000 troop army end strength.
Through FY2003 legislation, some members are seeking to raise active duty end
strength. Although related to the war on terrorism and not to peacekeeping operations, such
proposals may in the long run have implications for peacekeeping. The President’s budget
request had asked only for an increase in end strength of 2,400 for the Marine Corps.
! The House version of the FY2003 Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 4546),
passed May 10, 2002, would increase the end strength of the Army by 1.1%
to 484,800, as well as increasing the other services’ end strengths. In all, the
bill would increase active duty force strength by 10,352 over the President’s
request, and 12,652 over FY2002 authorized strengths. There are also
increases in the end strengths of active duty army reserve and active duty
army national guard forces. The House Armed Services Committee report
stated that the “committee’s concerns about the inadequacy of active
component manning levels extend back for at least five years prior to the
commencement of the worldwide war on terrorism on September 11, 2001.
Since that date, new military force requirements have emerged and the
operations tempo has increased.” (H.Rept. 107-436, p. 302) The House bill
provides funding for the increase.
! The House Appropriations committee report of the FY2003 defense
appropriations bill (H.R. 5010, H.Rept. 107-532), passed by the House June
CRS-13

---

IB94040
09-06-02
27, 2002, states that the committee recommends appropriations for the end
strength levels requested by the President, but “without prejudice” to the
higher levels in the House-passed authorization bill. The committee
mandated, however, higher end strength levels for active guard and reserve
positions in the Army Reserve, the Air Force Reserve, the Army National
Guard, and the Air National Guard.
! The Senate Appropriations Committee report for the FY2003 defense
appropriations bill (S.Rept. 107-213) states that the committee recommends
the active duty end strength levels requested by the President for the four
services’ active duty forces and the overall reserve and guard forces.
However, it recommended increases in active guard and reserve end
strengths for the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard.
! The Senate version of the FY2003 authorization bill, (S. 2514, incorporated
into H.R. 4546, passed June 27, 2002) incorporates a floor amendment
raising the end strengths for active duty military personnel by 14,400 over
those of FY2002 and 12,000 over the President’s budget request, including
an end strength of 485,000 for the Army. Unlike the House, the Senate did
not fund the increase. The Senate version of the defense authorization bill
includes the same increases in active guard and reserve end strengths for the
Army Reserve and the Army National Guard as the Senate version of the
defense appropriations bill.
There are also proposals to restructure U.S. forces. These include proposals to increase
the total number of personnel most heavily taxed by peacekeeping, and to establish special
dedicated units for peacekeeping. Some military analysts suggest that the overall force might
be restructured to include more of the types of specialities needed for peacekeeping, and in
units sized appropriately for peace operations. For instance, civil affairs, psychological
operations (PSYOPS), and military police units are specialties that are particularly needed
in peace operations, but are in short supply in the active military. This could entail
increasing the number of such specialties in the active force and reserve, or altering the
current requirement that the military be prepared to engage in two nearly simultaneous
MRCs. Some analysts have suggested that structuring the forces to engage in one MRC and
a few small-scale contingencies such as peace operations might be more appropriate to
current world conditions; others argue that this would leave the United States too vulnerable
to military challenges from states such as Iraq and North Korea.
Use of the Reserves in Peacekeeping. Increasing use of Army reservists and
National Guardsmen in peacekeeping operations culminated in the Texas Army National
Guard’s 49th Armored Division’s assumption of command of the U.S. Bosnia SFOR
contingent on March 7, 2000. Some 1,200 Texas guardsmen were in charge until October
2000, when they were replaced by the active duty Third Infantry Division. Reportedly, it was
the first time since World War II that a National Guard General had commanded active duty
Army troops, of which there were some 3,000. Through October 2002, Army National
Guard divisions will alternate with active duty divisions in commanding the U.S. SFOR
contingent. After that, the Army plans for that contingent to be commanded through 2005
by National Guardsmen.
CRS-14

---

IB94040
09-06-02
Two areas of concern have been the cost of their use and the effect on recruitment and
retention. The costs of increasing the use of the Reserves and Guard for peacekeeping could
vary substantially, depending on the size of the active duty force and on the “tempo” of
operations, i.e., the size, length, and frequency of deployments, according to defense experts.
While Reservists and Guardsmen are less expensive to maintain on a daily basis than active
duty soldiers, who are paid year round, once deployed they temporarily increase the number
of active duty personnel and thus the overall cost of the force. They also add more to the
incremental cost of an operation than do active duty soldiers. GAO/NSIAD-00-162 states
that the “integration of Guard forces in peacekeeping missions such as Bosnia significantly
increases the cost of these missions...” Many defense experts fear that repeated call-ups for
reservists and guards are affecting their recruitment and retention, thus depleting the pool
available for such operations and for deployment to a major regional conflict. To mitigate
that prospect, the Army announced on March 6, 2000, that future deployments of active and
reserve components for operations other than war would be limited to 179 days. This has
displeased some reservists who desire longer tours for promotion and other career reasons.
QDR Promised to Address Issues Created by Peacekeeping. The September
30, 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) suggested that the Bush Administration was
willing to maintain peacekeeping in its military tool kit to help deter aggression in selected
circumstances and areas. The QDR stated that the United States must, together with its allies
and friends, “maintain and prepare” its forces for peacetime “smaller-scale contingency
operations;” smaller-scale contingency operations is a category which includes support for
humanitarian operations and disaster relief, peace accord implementation and other forms
of peacekeeping, maritime sanction and “no fly” zone enforcement, shows of force,
counterdrug operations, noncombatant evacuation operations, and strikes and other limited
intervention. The document (available through the Department of Defense website) also
stated that “DoD will explicitly plan to provide a rotational base – a larger base of forces
from which to provide forward deployed forces – to support long-standing contingency
commitments in the critical areas of interest....Moreover, DoD will ensure that it has
sufficient numbers of specialized forces and capabilities to ensure that it does not overstress
elements of the force when it is involved in smaller-scale contingency operations.”
In short, the document promised that DOD will address the stresses created by current
policies for deploying forces to contingency operations such as peacekeeping (see sections
on the readiness controversy, below) and by the current mix of U.S. forces that many view
as inappropriate to handle the current range of operations. The document also stated that the
new planning construct to be employed by DOD “explicitly calls for the force to be sized for
defending the homeland, forward deterrence, warfighting missions, and the conduct of
smaller-scale contingency operations.” It did not address an increase in force size.
Bosnia and Kosovo Debates
Since 1993, the Balkans debates have reflected many of the above issues. On the issue
of presidential authority to deploy troops on a NATO peacekeeping mission to Bosnia,
Congress in effect deferred to President Clinton, leaving unchallenged his initial decision to
seek congressional support, but not authorization, for the deployment. Despite continuing
reservations about the Bosnia mission, Congress has continued to fund U.S. military actions
there. Even Members who have opposed the deployment have stated that they did not wish
CRS-15

---

IB94040
09-06-02
to deprive U.S. troops of the means to perform their mission. For additional information, see
products listed in the For Additional Reading section, below.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
U.S. General Accounting Office. Contingency Operations: Providing Critical Capabilities
Poses Challenges. [Washington] GAO/NSIAD-00-164. July 2000.
—— Defense Budget: Fiscal Year 2000 Contingency Operations Costs and Funding
[Washington] GAO/NSIAD-00-168. June 2000.
—— Defense Budget: Need for Continued Visibility over Use of Contingency Funds.
[Washington] GAO-01-829. July 2001.
—— Force Structure: Army Is Integrating Active and Reserve Combat Forces, but
Challenges Remain. [Washington] GAO/NSIAD-00-102. July 2000.
—— Military Operations: Impact of Operations Other Than War on the Services Varies.
[Washington] GAO/NSIAD-99-69. May 1999.
—— Quality of Life for U.S. Soldiers Deployed in the Balkans. [Washington] GAO-01-
201R. December 14, 2000.
—— Reserve Forces: Cost, Funding, and Use of Army Reserve Components in
Peacekeeping Operations. [Washington] GAO/T-NSIAD-98-126, March 20, 1998.
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief IB93056. Bosnia: U.S. Military Operations.
CRS Issue Brief IB10027. Kosovo and Macedonia: U.S. and Allied Military Operations.
CRS Issue Brief IB81050. War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL30906. Bosnia-Hercegovina and U.S. Policy.
CRS Report RL30172. Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-1999.
CRS Report RL31053. Kosovo and U.S. Policy.
CRS Report RL30384. Military Interventions by U.S. Forces from Vietnam to Bosnia:
Background, Outcomes, and “Lessons Learned” for Kosovo.
CRS-16

---