Order Code IB94040
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Peacekeeping: Issues of
U.S. Military Involvement
Updated March 14, 2003
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
Peacekeeping in Afghanistan
Peacekeeping in Iraq
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
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
IB94040
03-14-03
Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement
SUMMARY
For almost a decade, Congress has
through regular monthly consultations be-
expressed reservations about many complex
tween the armed services and foreign affairs
and intertwined peacekeeping issues. The
committees (usually at the staff level) and
Bush Administration’s desire to reduce the
executive branch officers. Other important
commitment of U.S. troops to international
concerns have been the high cost of and the
peacekeeping parallels the major concerns of
appropriate method for funding DOD peace-
recent Congresses: that peacekeeping duties
keeping activities.
are detrimental to military “readiness,” i.e.,
the ability of U.S. troops to defend the na-
In the 107th Congress, two issues were
tions. Critics, however, are concerned that
highly visible. One was the military
withdrawals of U.S. troops from peacekeeping
“readiness” issue. Some policymakers have
commitments will undermine U.S. leadership.
worried that peacekeeping costs drain funds
that DOD uses to prepare its forces to defend
Thousands of U.S. military personnel
against a threat to U.S. vital interests, that
currently serve in or support peacekeeping
peacekeeping deployments stress a force
operations, performing tasks ranging from
whose size is inadequate to handle such opera-
providing humanitarian relief to monitoring
tions, and that deployed troops lose their
and enforcing cease-fires or other agreements
facility for performing combat tasks. With the
designed to separate parties in conflict. Of
entry into force in July 2002 of the Treaty on
these, 43 were serving in seven operations
the International Criminal Court, another
under U.N. control (as of October 31, 2001).
concern was whether and how to protect U.S.
Others are serving full-time in operations run
servicemen against possible unwarranted
unilaterally by the Department of Defense
prosecutions. To that end, Congress adopted
(DOD) or together with U.S. allies in support
the American Servicemen’s Protection Act as
of these operations, particularly the NATO
part of the FY2002 supplemental appropria-
Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and the
tions act (P.L. 107-206).
NATO Kosovo Force (KFOR). About 37,000
more serve in or support peacekeeping opera-
The Bush Administration has negotiated
tions in South Korea. These “peacekeeping”
with allies to reduce U.S. military troops in
operations are undertaken to promote, main-
Bosnia, and has stated that it will not commit
tain, enforce, or enhance the possibilities for
U.S. troops to the peacekeeping operation in
peace, and can sometimes be dangerous.
Afghanistan. Still, with some policymakers
and analysts arguing that the uncertainties of
For Congress, two initial issues were (1)
the post-September 11 world demand a greater
whether U.S. troops should be placed under
U.S. commitment to curbing ethnic instability,
U.N. control and (2) when the President
one issue the Congress continues to face in the
should consult with Congress and seek its ap-
108th session is what, if any, adjustments
proval to deploy U.S. troops on peacekeeping
should be made in order to perform peace-
missions. As the number of troops under U.N.
keeping missions – in Afghanistan Iraq, or
control declined steeply, the first concern
elsewhere – with less strain on the force, or
became less pressing. Regarding the second,
whether the United States should participate
at the present time Congress is informed
in such missions at all.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
IB94040
03-14-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
With a U.S. military action against Iraq contemplated, some analysts have raised
questions about the mission, duration, and size of a possible follow-up U.S. peace
enforcement “occupation” force. On February 11, 2003, two Bush Administration officials
outlined plans for stabilizing a possible post-war Iraq in testimony before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. They specified goals for the post-conflict period and indicated that
U.S. troops might remain about two years, but did not discuss the possible size of a post-
conflict force. As is customary for contingency operations, which are not budgeted in
advance, the FY2004 budget submitted February 3, 2003, makes no provision for a possible
Iraq invasion or occupation force.
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 discussed 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,
CRS-1
IB94040
03-14-03
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
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 substituted the term “peace operations” for
“peacekeeping.” (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 September 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 September 15, 2002, some 1,897 U.S. troops were
participating in the NATO Bosnia Stabilization Force (SFOR), and 4,477 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. [Although
technically “peacekeeping,” this deployment has long been treated as a standard U.S. forward
presence mission.] Some 865 serve in the Sinai-based coalition Multilateral Force (MFO),
which has no U.N. affiliation.
Until the recent military build-up for a possible U.S. action against Iraq, approximately
20,000 (the numbers have fluctuated) U.S. troops — mostly sailors and marines — usually
were involved in Southwest Asia around Iraq during the 1990s, enforcing maritime sanctions
in the Arabian Sea and two no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. (The number
actually serving has not been made public for some time.) 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 with the United
Kingdom. (See CRS Report 98-120, Iraq Crisis: U.S. and Allied Forces.) Several other
nations contribute to operations in the Arabian Sea.
CRS-2
IB94040
03-14-03
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
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.) This policy statement remains in effect for the Bush Administration unless revoked
or superseded by a subsequent directive.
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.
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. After the
election, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld repeatedly urged the 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. Secretary of State 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
in Korea (technically involved in peacekeeping) 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
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
CRS-3
IB94040
03-14-03
reduce the U.S. presence through established NATO procedures, an approach that has been
quietly effective. The U.S. presence in Bosnia has dropped steadily during the Bush
Administration from some 4,200 at the beginning of 2001 to about 1,900 as of mid-
September 2002. (Similarly, the U.S. presence in Kosovo has dropped from some 5,600 to
about 4,500 for the same time period.) (For more on Bush Administration statements and
policy regarding U.S. troops in Bosnia, see CRS Report RL30906, Bosnia-Hercegovina and
U . S . P o l i c y . F o r U . S . m i l i t a r y c o m m i t m e n t s a b r o a d , s e e
[http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm].)
Peacekeeping in Afghanistan. Currently, the United States has some 7,000
soldiers deployed in Afghanistan in a combat role. For some time, the Bush Administration
maintained that no U.S. troops would participate in peacekeeping operations in the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) of 4,500-5,000 troops, and opposed the
expansion of that force’s activities beyond Kabul. With troop contributions from 18 - 22
countries (the number has fluctuated), ISAF has patrolled Kabul and its immediate
surrounding areas under a United Nations Chapter VII authorization since January 2002.
(ISAF is not, however, a U.N.-commanded or U.N.-funded operation. It was initially
commanded by the United Kingdom until June 2002, then by Turkey, and as of February
2003 by Germany and the Netherlands.) U.S. troops provide some assistance to the ISAF,
i.e., logistical, intelligence, and quick reaction force support, 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.
In late summer 2002, as terrorist threats against the new Afghan government increased
and many policymakers argued for expansion, the Bush Administration indicated that it had
reconsidered its position on expanding ISAF. (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 argued that
a larger force that would operate throughout the country was 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, some also argued, in order to provide the necessary leadership to accomplish
such a mission. 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.)
As of early 2003, some analysts argued that NATO should assume command of the
operation. Also, with the build-up for possible military action in Iraq, ISAF reports increased
threats against it, and concerns have arisen whether force protection, especially for the lead
nations, is adequate.
CRS-4
IB94040
03-14-03
On December 4, 2002, the President signed into law the Afghanistan Freedom Support
Act of 2002 (S. 2712), authorizing $500 million each for FY2003 and FY2004 to support the
International Security Force (or the establishment of a similar force) in Afghanistan. The bill
also authorizes the provision of U.S. defense articles and services, and other assistance to
the government of Afghanistan, and to countries or organizations participating in military,
peacekeeping, or policing operations in Afghanistan. The law contains a Sense of Congress
statement urging the President to sponsor a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing an
ISAF expansion, or the establishment of a similar force, and to encourage European and
other allies to provide forces for the expanded ISAF or for a similar force.
William Durch of the Stimson Center, a Washington-based private think tank, has
outlined a rationale and proposals for an expanded peacekeeping force that would operate
throughout Afghanistan.. See Security and Peace Support in Afghanistan: Analysis and
Short-to-Medium-Term Options, [http://www.stimson.org/fopo/pubs.cfm?ID=58], revised
July 8, 2002; and Durch’s op-ed, “A Realistic Plan to Save Afghanistan,” The Washington
Post, July 30, 2002.
After a preliminary survey of 16 20th century U.S. military operations, the U.S. Army
Center of Military History estimated that some 300,000 troops would be needed for a
peacekeeping force in Afghanistan if the peacekeepers were to carry out the full range of
tasks of an occupation force throughout the country. These tasks would include providing
emergency humanitarian relief, rebuilding Afghanistan, and administering it on an interim
basis. The survey was presented in a July 2002 briefing to the Army’s director of
transformation. (“Study: New Demands Could Tax Military.” The Washington Post,
September 23, 2002.)
Peacekeeping in Iraq. As part of the debate over the wisdom of military action to
oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, several issues are emerging concerning a possible post-
occupation force in Iraq. Although various proposals for peacekeeping in post-conflict Iraq
have been advanced, there is little consensus about the precise mission, duration, and size
of a U.S. force, and about the participation of other forces.
The Bush Administration’s plans for governing a post-conflict Iraq are still evolving.
In statements before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) in February 2003,
Administration officials cited five goals for a U.S. military occupation of Iraq. Of these, the
first is to demonstrate to Iraqis that the United States “aspires to liberate them, not occupy
or control their economic resources;” another is to “begin the process of economic and
political reconstruction.” The last three involve security: (1) to eliminate the weapons of
mass destruction; (2) destroy Iraq’s terrorist infrastructure; and (3) to safeguard territorial
integrity (which may include securing oilfields). Administration officials outlined a plan for
administering the Iraqi government, but provided virtually no information on plans for how
U.S., and perhaps other forces, would provide security. In previous peacekeeping
operations, security tasks such as patrolling and policing have been sources of the
controversy over the involvement of U.S. troops in peacekeeping operations.
Although some details were not clear from the February testimony, Administration
plans seem to envision the following. The U.S. military and coalition partners would provide
an occupation government, with the “cooperation of Iraqis.” Control of government
ministries would gradually be transferred from military and civilian administrators to Iraqis
CRS-5
IB94040
03-14-03
during a transition period that might last two years. During the transition, Iraqis would draft
and ratify a new constitution, which would provide the basis for free elections. The
occupation would be headed by U.S. General Tommy Franks, Commander-in-Chief of the
U.S. Central Command. Later news articles indicated that plans contemplate that
administration of the Iraqi government would soon be transferred to a U.S. civilian, who
some have named as retired U.S. General Jay Garner.
Some military analysts point out that the size and functions of an “occupation” force
will depend heavily on the conduct of the war, particularly the degree of destruction inflicted,
and on the degree to which various Iraqi groups and institutions decide to cooperate with the
United States. Some believe that an extensive force will be needed to perform a wide
spectrum of tasks, from “peace enforcement” duties such as providing basic security if the
Iraqi police and military institutions fall apart or if the United States decides that many levels
of leadership cannot be trusted, through recreation of a judiciary and a prison system, through
reconstructing basic infrastructure such as water supplies, communications networks, and
sanitation services. Others believe, however, that once the United States removes the top
leadership, i.e., those who are personally loyal to Hussein, Iraqi institutions will be able to
perform their usual functions. Further, they discount the need for a large reconstruction
effort because, they believe, war damage will be minimal. Even with minimal damage,
however, many analysts argue that the Iraqi population is likely to require substantial
humanitarian assistance after the war. Such aid may require a great number of soldiers to
either deliver it or to protect those who do.
Two prominent retired U.S. general have discussed post-occupation needs and relevant
problems for U.S. forces. General (retired) Wesley Clark, former supreme allied commander
in Europe, believes that the United States could, in a best case scenario, quickly defeat Iraqi
forces. He argues that even such a best case scenario could, however, create extensive
humanitarian needs, from a need for security caused by widespread revenge killings, to
problems with health care and food distribution. He speculates that it is possible that
Hussein could release biological and chemical warfare stocks as Americans enter Iraq,
presenting an obstacle to U.S. troops and leaving the United States with many million of sick
and dying Iraqis to care for. (Wesley Clark. A Quick War, Then Lots of Trouble. Los
Angeles Times Syndicate International. October 9, 2002.) In testimony before the SFRC on
February 11, General (retired) Anthony Zinni, former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S.
Central Command, extensively detailed needs, cautions, and problems. He stated that the
military couldn’t be “saddled” with all the functions that a post-conflict occupation force
would need to carry out. He also stated that “we should do everything under international
institutions if at all possible.... Our motives will always be suspect in this endeavor...but the
cover of international organizations will make this easier. International organizations,
private volunteer agencies, non-governmental agencies are critical to success.”
Several organizations have published reports outlining plans for a post-war Iraq, which,
among other things, discuss appropriate tasks for U.S. military forces. (Such plans have been
put forth by the Center for International and Strategic Studies, the Council of Foreign
Relations, and the Heritage Foundation.) The U.S. Army Center of Military History survey,
mentioned above, estimated the number of troops needed to constitute a post-Saddam
Hussein occupation force at 100,000, although officers at the Center point out that this was
a preliminary estimate, and may change with further study.
CRS-6
IB94040
03-14-03
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. Subsequent Congresses have debated placing conditions
on peacekeeping deployments. Most such efforts have been defeated. The Bush
Administration continues the practice, adopted during the Clinton years, of informing
Congress of ongoing and planned operations through monthly meetings with staff of the
armed services and foreign affairs committees.
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, among others, CRS
CRS-7
IB94040
03-14-03
Report RL31495, U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court, and CRS Report
RL31437, International Criminal Court: Overview and Selected Legal Issues.)
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. As signed into law (P.L.
107-206, August 2, 2002), the “American Servicemembers’ Protection Act” provisions in
the FY2002 supplemental (H.R. 4775) require the President to take precautions that protect
U.S. service members from ICC actions. Under this law, 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,” or that
U.S. national interests justify such participation. One of three conditions must exist for the
President to certify the absence of such risk: either (1) the U.N. Security Council has
provided an exemption from such prosecution or assertion of jurisdiction, or (2) each country
in which the operation is conducted is not a party to the ICC and has not invoked its
jurisdiction, or (3) each country has entered into an agreement from proceeding against
members of the U.S. armed forces.
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 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.
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 embroiled it in a dispute with the United States’ closest allies, including
Great Britain, and ended in a compromise in mid-July 2002. The European Union nations,
Mexico, and Canada resisted providing exceptions for 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 stated 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.
CRS-8
IB94040
03-14-03
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
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 annual funding for ongoing missions in a DOD
“Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund,” (OCOTF). 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 much less controversial in the 107th Congress 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 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 (P.L.
107-117), 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). (FY2004 budget documents
show none of that was obligated in FY2002). The statement explained that the amount for
Balkans operations – some $2.144 billion or about $650 million less than the President’s
request – had been distributed among the services in the operations and maintenance, and the
military personnel accounts. It did not specify the amount for SWA operations, which had
CRS-9
IB94040
03-14-03
similarly been distributed among service accounts. In prior years, the amounts requested for
the Balkans and SWA operations were each specified. Section 8097 required 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 and FY2004
budget requests and supporting budget justification documents did not break out information
on these costs. The OCOTF request for FY2003, which did not include these operations, was
$50 million. The conference version of the FY2003 DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 5010,
P.L. 107-248, signed into law October 23, 2002) contained $5 million in new FY2003 budget
authority for the OCOTF. The FY2004 budget documents show that an additional $32
million in funds appropriated prior to FY2003 as available for obligation in FY2003. The
FY2004 budget request for the OCOTF is $50 million. The request also proposes deleting
the provision requiring a breakdown of OCOTF funding.
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
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 highly-disciplined 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.
CRS-10
IB94040
03-14-03
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
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” war-fighting mission to protect U.S. vital interests
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
CRS-11
IB94040
03-14-03
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.
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,
according to some analysts. They argue that 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. 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”
CRS-12
IB94040
03-14-03
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
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
CRS-13
IB94040
03-14-03
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 sought to raise active duty end strength.
Although related to the war on terrorism and not to peacekeeping operations, such proposals
could have implications for peacekeeping. The President’s budget request had asked for an
increase in end strength of 2,400 for the Marine Corps and 200 for the Air Force, and a
decrease of 300 for the Navy. However, the FY2003 Department of Defense Appropriations
Act (H.R. 5010, P.L. 107-248), signed into law October 23, 2002, left end strengths
unchanged from FY2002 levels. It did, however, provide for slightly 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, although it holds overall reserve and
guard force end strengths at previous levels. The President’s proposed budget for FY2004
estimates total active forces for FY2004 below actual 2002 levels for the Army (480,000
compared to 486,542 troops), Navy (373,800 compared to 383,108), and Air Force (359,300
compared to 368,251), while slightly higher than FY2002 (but at FY2003 estimated levels,
for the Marine Corps (175,000 compared to 173,733).
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 alternated with active duty divisions in commanding the U.S. SFOR
contingent. Then, the Army planned for U.S. SFOR to be led through 2005 by Guardsmen.
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.
Prior to the call-ups for homeland after Sept. 11, 2001, many defense experts feared that
repeated call-ups for the Guard and Reserves are affecting their recruitment and retention,
thus depleting the pool available for such operations and for deployment to a major regional
CRS-14
IB94040
03-14-03
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, however, displeased some reservists who desire longer tours for
promotion and other career reasons. The recent call-ups for duty related to possible U.S.
military action in Iraq is likely to have implications for the use of reservists as peacekeepers
in the near future.
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 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 DOD 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 would 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
to deprive U.S. troops of the means to perform their mission.
CRS-15
IB94040
11-13-02
DOD Incremental Costs of U.S. International Peace and Security Commitments, FY1991-FY2002
(Budget authority in millions of current year dollars)
Operation
FY1991
FY1992
FY1993
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
TOTALS
AREAS OF ONGOING OPERATIONS
Southwest Asia/Iraq
Provide Comfort/Northern Watch
325.0
101.5
116.6
91.8
138.2
88.9
93.1
136.0
156.4
143.7
148.6
NA
1,372.4
Southern Watch/Air Expeditionary Force
–
–
715.9
333.0
468.4
576.3
597.3
1,497.2
954.8
755.4
963.5
NA
Desert Strike/Intrinsic Action/Desert Spring
–
–
–
–
–
–
102.7
5.6
13.8
239.8
261.6
NA
Vigilant
Warrior
– – – –
257.7
– – – – – –
–
257.7
Desert Thunder (Force Buildup 11/98)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
43.5
–
–
–
43.5
Desert Fox (Air Strikes, 12/98)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
92.9
–
–
–
92.9
UNIKOM (UN/Iraq Observer Group)
21.5
4.9
6.0
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
32.4
Total Southwest Asia/Iraq
346.5
106.4
838.5
424.8
864.3
665.2
793.1
1,638.8
1,261.4
1,138.9
1,373.6
1,372.4
10,823.9
Former Yugoslavia (Bosnia)
IFOR/SFOR/Joint Forge
–
–
–
–
–
2,231.7
2,087.5
1,792.8
1,431.2
1,381.8
1,213.4
NA
1,019.4
Other Former Yugoslavia Operations*
–
5.8
138.8
292.0
347.4
288.3
195.0
169.9
155.4
101.3
79.4
NA
Total Bosnia
–
5.8
138.8
292.0
347.4
2,520.0
2,282.5
1,962.7
1,586.6
1,483.1
1,292.8
1,019.4
12,931.1
Former Yugoslavia (Kosovo)
Balkan Calm (Observer Mission, Pre-Air War)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
34.6
–
–
–
34.6
Eagle Eye (Air Verification, 10/98-03/99)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
20.3
–
–
–
20.3
Noble Anvil (Air War)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1,891.4
–
–
–
1,891.4
Joint Guardian (KFOR)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1,044.5
1,803.1
1,384.0
1,002.3
5,233.9
Sustain Hope (Refugee Assistance)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
141.6
–
–
–
141.6
Total Kosovo
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
3,132.4
1,803.1
1,384.0
1,002.3
7,321.8
Korea Readiness*
–
–
–
69.7
90.9
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
160.6
COMPLETED OPERATIONS (Includes Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, Angola, Cambodia, Western Sahara, and East Timor)
Subtotal Completed Operations
–
12.8
947.8
906.4
591.2
86.9
–
–
1.5
56.8
–
–
2,603.4
GRAND TOTALS
346.5
125.0
1,925.1
1,692.9
1,893.8
3,272.1
3,075.6
3,601.5
5,981.9
4,481.8
4,050.4
3,394.1
33,840.8
Source: Defense Finance and Accounting System data. As of this date, data by operation for FY2002 has not been available to CRS.
Notes: This chart consists of DOD incremental costs involved in U.S. support for and participation in peacekeeping and in related humanitarian and security operations, including U.S. unilateral operations,
NATO operations, U.N. operations, and ad hoc coalition operations. U.N. reimbursements are not deducted. Some totals do not add due to rounding. Other Former Yugoslavia operations include Able
Sentry (Macedonia), Deny Flight/Decisive Edge, UNCRO (Zagreb), Sharp Guard (Adriatic). Provide Promise (Humanitarian assistance), Deliberate Forge. Because Korea Readiness has long been
considered an on-going peacetime function of U.S. troops, DOD only counts above-normal levels of activity there as incremental costs. For figures in constant FY2002 dollars, and for a breakdown of
completed operations, see CRS Report RS21013, Costs of Major U.S. Wars and Recent U.S. Overseas Military Operations.
CRS-16