Order Code IB94040
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Peacekeeping and Related Stability Operations:
Issues of U.S. Military Involvement
Updated March 27, 2006
Nina M. Serafino
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Definitional Problem
Current U.S. Military Participation in Peacekeeping and Related Stability Missions
Reduced Numbers Serve in Peacekeeping Missions
The Bush Administration’s Policy
Reductions in Bosnia and Kosovo
NATO Peacekeeping and U.S. Operations in Afghanistan
Airlift in Africa
The Extended U.S. Military “Stabilization” Presence in Iraq
Apportioning Responsibilities
Debate over U.S. Military Involvement in Nation-Building
Stability Operations Directive’s Mandates to Improve Military Capabilities
Military Personnel and Contractors
Stability Operations Curricula
Inter-Agency and International Participation in Education and Training
Training Other Nations’ Security Forces
Improving Coordination
Legislation to Improve Civilian Capabilities
Civilian Capabilities to Perform Nation Building Tasks
Improving International Capabilities
The Global Peace Operations Initiative
Other Support Urged
Greater U.S. Support of U.N. Missions Urged by Congressionally-Appointed
Panel
Military Capabilities Issue: Readiness vs. Adequacy
Assessing and Adjusting U.S. Forces for Stability Missions
Deployment Strains
Force Adjustments for Peacekeeping and Related Stability Operations
Debate Over Force Size
Debate over Army Force Structure and Restructuring Proposals
Army Active Duty and Reserve Component Restructuring
Related 2006 QDR report proposals


IB94040
03-27-06
Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement
SUMMARY
The second session of the 109th Congress
as a “stabilization and reconstruction” opera-
may well face decisions regarding the prepara-
tion (which manifests some characteristics of
tion of U.S. military forces for stability mis-
a peace operation), reinforced the argument.
sions, a broad doctrinal term of which a major
subset is peace operations. A November 28,
Thousands of U.S. military personnel
2005, Department of Defense (DOD) directive
currently serve in or support peacekeeping
that designates stability operations as “core
operations. The number of troops serving in
missions” of the U.S. military marks a major
U.N. operations has decreased dramatically
shift on the future necessity of performing
since the mid-1990s. About 29 U.S.
peacekeeping and related stability operations
servicemembers are serving in five operations
(also known as stabilization and reconstruc-
under U.N. control. In the Balkans, U.S.
tion operations).
troops were withdrawn from the NATO Stabi-
lization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia as a result of
For over a decade, some Members of
the December 2, 2004, end of that mission,
Congress expressed reservations about U.S.
but some 1,800 remained with the NATO
military involvement in peacekeeping opera-
Kosovo Force (KFOR). About 30,000 more
tions. The Bush Administration initially
serve in or support peacekeeping operations in
opposed such missions and took steps to
South Korea, and roughly 700 serve in the
reduce the commitment of U.S. troops to
Sinai. In Iraq, some U.S. troops are involved
international peacekeeping. This action re-
in low-intensity combat while at the same
flected a major concern of the 1990s: that
time performing “nation-building” tasks that
peacekeeping duties had overtaxed the shrink-
have been undertaken in some peacekeeping
ing U.S. military force and were detrimental to
operations, as are a few hundred U.S. troops
military “readiness” (i.e., the ability of U.S.
in Afghanistan. DOD refers to the latter two
troops to defend the nation). Many perceived
as “stabilization” or “stability” operations.
these tasks as an inefficient use of U.S. forces,
better left to other nations while the U.S.
With some policymakers and analysts
military concentrated on operations requiring
arguing that the uncertainties of the post-
high-intensity combat skills. Others thought
September 11 world demand a greater U.S.
that the United States should adjust force size
commitment to curbing ethnic instability, a
and structure to accommodate the missions.
major issue Congress continues to face is
what, if any, adjustments should be made in
The events of September 11, 2001,
order for the U.S. military to perform
brought new concerns to the fore and high-
peacekeeping and stability missions — in
lighted the value to U.S. national security of
Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere — with less
ensuring stability around the world. The 9/11
strain on the force, particularly the reserves.
Commission report, which cited Afghanistan,
Of particular interest is whether the size and
where the Administration has limited U.S.
configuration of U.S. forces, especially the
involvement in peacekeeping and nation-
Army, should be further modified. Additional
building, as a sanctuary for terrorists, pointed
issues are whether to augment civilian and
to the dangers of allowing actual and potential
international capabilities in order to take on
terrorist sanctuaries to exist. In 2003, the
more of the burden.
U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, often referred to
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB94040
03-27-06
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On November 28, 2005, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a directive setting
forth a new DOD policy regarding stability operations, particularly peacekeeping and related
post-conflict operations. In line with the directive, the Administration announced plans on
January 18, 2006, to eliminate six National Guard combat brigades in order to create more
of the support forces deemed necessary for stability operations.
Two more recent documents make no mention of any further steps to enhance DOD
capabilities for such operations. The DOD 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review report (QDR),
released on February 6, 2006, did not specifically address the issue of post-conflict
operations. The newly released March 2006 National Security Strategy mentions the
development of U.S. civilian and international military capabilities to carry out post-conflict
operations, but does not mention augmenting U.S. military capabilities.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 3000.05, issued November 28, 2005, sets forth
a radically new policy regarding missions known as “stability” operations, a major subset of
which are peacekeeping and other peace operations. The Directive on Military Support for
Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations
designates stability
operations as “a core U.S. military mission.” By elevating stability missions to the same
priority level as combat missions, DOD seems to acknowledge expectations that future
operations will regularly include missions to stabilize areas during transitions from war to
peace and to assist with reconstruction during those transitions. For several years, some
military officers and defense analysts have argued that such efforts required the systematic
development of doctrine, training, education, exercises, and planning capabilities to enable
the armed forces to perform those operations proficiently, as well as the reconfiguration and
acquisition of organizations, personnel, facilities, and materiél to support them. The
directive catalogues such needs and calls for the development of specific recommendations
to fulfill them.
The February 2006 QDR, the document in which senior DOD civilian and military
leaders identify the capabilities and resources needed to carry out a comprehensive defense
strategy, does not specifically mention peacekeeping and post-conflict operations. It does,
however, endorse the continued changes to “rebalance” active and reserve forces and to
create a “modular” Army, discussed below, that are viewed as facilitating such operations.
It also cites a need for quick preventive actions to deal with conflict and for DOD to be given
the authorities and resources to enhance “partnership capacity” (i.e., the ability of other
nations’ forces to carry out such operations), and makes a few force structure proposals
which may be related to conflict transitions and post-conflict stability operations (see end of
this report). The QDR 2006 report also states that it is “not an end state in itself” but an
interim report which will be subject to “continuous reassessment and improvement with
periodic updates in coming years....” (pp. 1-2)
CRS-1

IB94040
03-27-06
The U.S. military, particularly the Army, has made many adjustments over the past
several years to enable troops to perform more effectively in peacekeeping operations in
places such as Bosnia and Kosovo. Nevertheless, events in Iraq since the United States
invaded in 2003 have reinforced arguments that still greater efforts must be made to raise the
possibilities for successful transitions. The directive provides the basis for instituting
significant changes and dedicating substantial resources to prepare troops to perform
proficiently in such missions, although the eventual effect on armed services is not known.
The directive calls for changes in a wide variety of areas, some of which could be
implemented in short order, others of which would take considerable time. There are still
areas where the directive lays out policy, but DOD currently is unsure of the steps that it will
take to implement it. DOD may bring to Congress during 2006 and 2007 several requests for
changes in laws, authorities, and regulations necessary to implement the directive and the
QDR, as well as for additional funding.
Questions for the second session of the 109th Congress range from basic (i.e., what is
“peacekeeping” and how does it relate to “stability operations,” “stabilization and
reconstruction,” and “nation-building”?) to strategic (how and when do such efforts serve
U.S. interests?). Practical questions include: What tasks must be performed by the U.S.
military in such operations and which can be delegated to other entities? How should the
U.S. armed forces be resized, reorganized, educated, trained and equipped to perform these
operations effectively without detracting from its ability to perform combat missions? This
issue brief will provide an overview of these issues and references to other sources which
explore them.1
The Definitional Problem
Over the past decade and a half, there has been an evolution in the vocabulary used to
refer to activities that are undertaken to maintain, enforce, promote and enhance the
possibilities for peace in unstable environments. “Peacekeeping” has been the traditional
generic term for the operations undertaken for those purposes by the United Nations and
other international organizations, and sometimes ad hoc coalitions of nations or individual
nations. More recently, in an attempt to capture their ambiguity and complexity, and perhaps
also to avoid the stigma of failure attached to peacekeeping, they have become known as
“stabilization and reconstruction” operations, or, more simply, “stability” operations. Use
of any term with the world “peace” created a semantic dilemma, conveying the misleading
impression that an operation is without risk, when in fact, peacekeeping operations can place
1 Although the costs of peacekeeping assistance and participation are not as salient an issue as in
the 1990s, when the United States participated in or provided substantial military assistance to
several U.N. peacekeeping operations, the incremental costs (i.e., costs over and above the cost of
maintaining, training, and equipping the U.S. military in peacetime) of the larger stability operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan are a continuing concern. This issue brief does not address cost issues. For
more information on incremental costs and attempts to create more efficient methods of funding such
operations, see CRS Report 98-823, Military Contingency Funding for Bosnia, Southwest Asia, and
Other Operations: Questions and Answers
, by Nina M. Serafino; and CRS Report RL32141,
Funding for Military and Peacekeeping Operations: Recent History and Precedents, by Jeffrey
Chamberlin. For information on the cost of U.N. operations, see CRS Issue Brief IB90103, United
Nations Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress
, by Marjorie Ann Browne.
CRS-2

IB94040
03-27-06
soldiers in hostile situations resembling war. As knowledge increased about the conditions
needed to establish peace, operations increasingly included extensive nation-building (or
state-building as some prefer to call it) components to build or reform government structures.
The term “peacekeeping” gained currency in the late 1950s, when U.N. peacekeeping
mostly fit a narrow definition: providing an “interpositional” force to supervise the keeping
of a cease-fire or peace accord that parties in conflict had signed, but it continued to be used
as the range of activities grew. In 1992, the U.N. began to use a broader terminology to
describe the different types of activities in securing and keeping peace. It created the term
“peace enforcement” to describe operations in unstable situations where peacekeepers are
allowed to use force to maintain peace because of a greater possibility of conflict or a threat
to their safety.2 “Peacebuilding” was adopted as a term for activities that are designed to
prevent the resumption or spread of conflict, including disarmament and demobilization of
warring parties, repatriation of refugees, reform and strengthening of government institutions
(including re-creating police or civil defense forces), election-monitoring, and promotion of
political participation and human rights. Organizing and providing security for humanitarian
relief efforts can be a part of peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations.
During the 1990s and early 2000s, the United States participated with significant forces
in several such operations either as part of a U.N. or NATO force or leading a multilateral
coalition force: Bosnia (from 1992-2004), Haiti (1994-1996 and again in 2004), and Somalia
(1992-1994). These were generally referred to by the generic term of “peacekeeping” by
Congress, even though U.S. executive branch agencies replaced “peacekeeping” with “peace
operations” as the generic term.
Recently, such operations have been referred to by an Army doctrinal term “stability
operations” that also encompasses the diverse missions of operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq. This may be a more precise terms for such operations, as many include not only peace
operations (i.e., peacekeeping and peace enforcement), but also related missions such as
humanitarian and civic assistance, counterterrorism, counter-drug, and counter-insurgency
(i.e., foreign internal defense) efforts, all of which also are included under the term “stability
operations.”3 Stability operations are sometimes referred to “Phase IV” or “post-conflict”
operations, although reoccurrences of conflict are often possible.
The November 2005 DOD stability operations directive cites the specific tasks of
rebuilding indigenous institutions (including various types of security forces, correctional
facilities, and judicial systems) necessary to stabilize a situation; reviving or building the
private sector, including bottom-up economic activity and constructing necessary
infrastructure, and developing representative government institutions as among those tasks
that are performed in stability operations. These tasks are also part of the continuum of
2 (For some analysts, there is virtually no difference between peace enforcement operations and low-
intensity conflict, save the existence of a peace plan or agreement that has a degree of local consent.
3 The other types of operations are security assistance, support to insurgencies, noncombatant
evacuations, arms control and shows of force. For further information on the activities which fall
under each of these types of operations, see Army Field Manual FM-307, Stability Operations and
Support Operations
, February 2003.
CRS-3

IB94040
03-27-06
activities that fall under the term “stabilization and reconstruction” (S&R) which also has
been used to describe these complex operations.
Current U.S. Military Participation in Peacekeeping
and Related Stability Missions
Reduced Numbers Serve in Peacekeeping Missions
The level of U.S. military participation in peacekeeping is much reduced from the
1990s, if the occupation force in Iraq is excluded. Still, thousands of U.S. military personnel
participate full-time in a variety of activities that fall under the rubric of peacekeeping
operations, most endorsed by the U.N. Very few U.S. military personnel currently serve
under U.N. command. As of November 30, 2005, 29 U.S. military personnel were serving
in five U.N. peacekeeping or related operations. These operations are located in the Middle
East (3 U.S. military observers or “milobs” in the Sinai operation), Georgia (2 milobs),
Ethiopia/Eritrea (7 milobs), Liberia (7 milobs and 6 troops), and Haiti (4 troops). Other U.S.
forces are deployed in unilateral U.S. operations and coalition operations, most undertaken
with U.N. authority. As of the end of 2004, U.S. troops were withdrawn from Bosnia with
the December 2 end of the NATO operation there, but some 1,500 remained with the NATO
operation in Kosovo, with others supporting them from Macedonia. (Numbers have
fluctuated by the hundreds with troop rotations.) Roughly 700 serve in the Sinai-based
coalition Multilateral Force (MFO), which has no U.N. affiliation. Less than 100 are
attached to the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.
The United States has other troops abroad in operations that are related to, but not
counted as, peacekeeping. Roughly some 30,000 U.S. troops have been serving 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.) On June 7, 2004, South Korean officials announced that the United
States intended to withdraw about a third of the 37,000 troops serving at that time by the end
of 2005. Less than 100 U.S. troops are attached to the NATO peacekeeping operation in
Afghanistan, providing various forms of U.S. assistance for ISAF peacekeeping. (Some
11,000 U.S. troops are present in Afghanistan in other roles, however, including a few
hundred involved in nation-building activities. See section on Afghanistan, below.)
The Bush Administration’s Policy
Despite President Bush’s stated dislike for open-ended “nation-building” missions
involving U.S. ground forces during his first presidential campaign, as President he has been
willing to maintain troops in peacekeeping missions to the extent he deems necessary. (For
a discussion of candidate and President Bush’s statements on peacekeeping, see CRS Report
RL31109, NATO: Issues for Congress.) During his Administration, Bush has sought and
achieved substantial reductions in Bosnia and Kosovo and thus far has resisted calls to
provide U.S. troops for the international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan.
In the wake of the coalition invasion of Iraq, the debate over the appropriate role for the
United States military in activities encompassed by the term peacekeeping has again moved
to the forefront. Although the current military occupation of Iraq falls in a gray area that
CRS-4

IB94040
03-27-06
defies easy definition, with a level of instability that many define as low-intensity conflict
rather than peace enforcement, many of the activities that the U.S. military has undertaken
there also have been undertaken in past peacekeeping operations. Critics of the Bush
Administration have charged that its disdain for peacekeeping has led it to ignore the lessons
of past operations and to err in its judgment of the number and type of forces necessary in
Iraq, putting the United States and its allies at risk of “losing the peace” there.
Reductions in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Bush Administration sought to minimize
forces in the two NATO Balkans peacekeeping operations through negotiations with U.S.
allies, following established NATO procedures. The U.S. presence in Bosnia dropped
steadily during the Bush Administration from some 4,200 participating in the NATO Bosnia
Stabilization Force (SFOR) at the beginning of 2001 to under 1,000 in 2004. U.S.
participation ended on December 2, 2004, when the European Union assumed responsibility
for the operation. U.S. troops may continue to play some role as NATO continues to support
the EU with intelligence and assistance in apprehending indicted war criminals. (See CRS
Report RS21774, Bosnia and the European Union Military Force (EUFOR): Post-NATO
Transition.
) Similarly, the U.S. presence in Kosovo has dropped from some 5,600 involved
in the NATO Kosovo Force (KFOR) in early 2001 to about 1,800 of the total 17,000 KFOR
force from about 36 nations. (These numbers can fluctuate by the hundreds due to rotations.)
In both cases, these reductions have taken place in the context of an overall reduction of
forces serving in the NATO peacekeeping missions.
NATO Peacekeeping and U.S. Operations in Afghanistan. For some time,
the Bush Administration has maintained that no U.S. troops would participate in
peacekeeping operations in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), despite calls
by some analysts for a U.S. role. With some 8,800 troops contributed by about 37 NATO
and non-NATO nations as of May 2005 ([http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-
factsheet.htm]), ISAF patrols Kabul and its immediate surrounding areas under a U.N.
Chapter VII authorization and is expanding throughout the country. (NATO assumed
command of ISAF on August 11, 2003, just over 18 months after ISAF was formed in
January 2002 as an ad hoc coalition operation of some 5,000 troops from 18 nations under
British command.) The United States has some 11,000 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan,
according to DOD, most in continuing combat (hunting Al Qaeda), but others in support,
training, and reconstruction missions. U.S. troops provide some assistance to the ISAF (i.e.,
logistical, intelligence, and quick reaction force support), but they do not engage in ISAF
peacekeeping. U.S. troops do, however, provide training and assistance for the formation of
an Afghani national military force, an activity which some analysts label “nation-building.”
Hundreds of U.S. troops have been involved since December 2002 in the establishment
and operation of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), which were designed to create
a secure environment for aid agencies involved in reconstruction work in areas outside
Kabul. Each team includes 60-100 U.S. military personnel (Special Forces and civil affairs
reservists) and civilians. As of May 2005, the United States operated 11 PRTs, down from
13 the previous month after two U.S. operated PRTs were taken over by ISAF forces. ISAF
involvement in PRTs began on January 6, 2004, when ISAF (by now under NATO) marked
the beginning of its operations outside Kabul by taking over the German-led PRT in Konduz.
(As of the end of May 2005, ISAF ran 8 PRTs and two forward support bases and planned
to take on two more PRTs in the near future.) Although the U.S. military role in PRTs is not
identified as “peacekeeping,” its objectives — enhancing security, extending the reach of the
CRS-5

IB94040
03-27-06
central government, and facilitating reconstruction — are similar to those of peacekeeping
operations. Some analysts consider it “nation-building.” Thus far, the PRTs have not proven
controversial in Congress, although some humanitarian organizations have taken issue with
them. (For more on PRTs, see CRS Report RL30588, Afghanistan: Post-War Governance,
Security, and U.S. Policy
, the United States Institute of Peace’s Special Report 147,
Provincial Reconstruction Teams and Military Relations with International and
Nongovernmental Organizations in Afghanistan
, and the section on nation-building below.)
Airlift in Africa. The United States military occasionally provides airlift assistance
for peacekeeping missions in Africa. For instance, the United States has participated under
NATO in airlifting African Union troops to the AU mission in Darfur, Sudan.
The Extended U.S. Military “Stabilization” Presence in Iraq. U.S. troops in
Iraq are engaged in a wide variety of activities, the most visible of which are
counterinsurgency operations, but some of which are generally classified as peacekeeping
duties. The activities undertaken by U.S. troops varies from area to area, and some
commanders have noted that their troops are doing a mix of both types of operations. (For
more on this presence, see CRS Report RL31701, Iraq: U.S. Military Operations; and CRS
Report RL31339, Iraq: U.S. Regime Change Efforts and Post-Saddam Governance.)
Apportioning Responsibilities
Debate over U.S. Military Involvement in Nation-Building. In the wake of U.S.
military action in Iraq, the question of continued U.S. military involvement has been framed
in terms of whether the U.S. military should do “nation-building,” and if it does, how it
should prepare for it. Like peacekeeping, nation-building is not a precise term, but rather one
that is used for both a concept and a variety of activities. On one level, nation-building is
used to refer to the concept of creating (or a decision to create) a democratic state, often in
a post-conflict situation. The term is also used, however, to refer to any of the range of
activities that militaries or civilians undertake to advance that goal. (A 2003 RAND report,
America’s Role in Nation-Building from Germany to Iraq, uses the term to encompass the
full range of activities undertaken by the United States, including by its military forces, in
operations that have been variously known as an occupation, peacekeeping, peace
enforcement, and S&R.)

As most often used when referring to the U.S. military, nation-building refers to a range
of activities to assist civilians beyond providing security and humanitarian aid in emergency
situations. These can include projects such as the repair, maintenance, or construction of
economic infrastructure, such as roads, schools, electric grids, and heavy industrial facilities,
and of health infrastructure, such as clinics and hospitals, and water and sewage facilities.
They can also include the provision of a variety of services, such as medical services to
refugee and impoverished populations, and training and assistance to police, the military,
the judiciary, and prison officials as well as other civil administrators.
During the early to mid-1990s, the U.S. military was involved in several peacekeeping
operations with significant nation-building components, especially Somalia and Haiti. In
Somalia, besides assisting in the delivery of humanitarian aid, the U.S. led-UNITAF was
engaged in road and bridge building, well-digging, and the establishment of schools and
CRS-6

IB94040
03-27-06
hospitals. In Haiti, in the absence of civilian personnel, the U.S. military became involved
in revamping the police, judicial, and prison systems as part of their primary task of
establishing security. These two experiences stigmatized peacekeeping and nation-building
for many Members as an inefficient use of military resources.
Nevertheless, some policymakers and analysts assert the need for military involvement
in such tasks, particularly when others are not available to undertake them in the immediate
aftermath of major combat. Nation-building tasks are often viewed as essential elements in
stabilizing post-conflict situations because they provide the physical and organizations
infrastructure populations need to help re-establish normal lives. Such activities are also
viewed as enhancing the legitimacy and extending the presence of weak central governments
as they try to assert control in such situations, and as reassuring local populations of the
friendly intent of foreign military forces. Sometimes, involvement in such activities may
enable armed forces to make more informed judgments about the security situation in an
area. Some analysts view U.S. military nation-building as an essential element in the U.S.
toolkit to respond to the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation (p. 367) to use all elements of
national power “to keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run....”
In immediate post-conflict situations, or extremely dangerous environments, military
forces may be the only personnel available to perform such tasks. In hostile environments,
armed forces may be needed to provide security for relief workers providing such assistance.
In less problematic circumstances, however, some argue that the use of the military for such
tasks can be detrimental to humanitarian and reconstruction tasks. Such critics feel that the
use of troops for such purposes can detract from a sense of returning normality and
establishment of civilian control. Where military and civilians are delivering assistance in
the same areas, some civilians feel that the military presence confuses the civilian role, and
makes them targets of armed opponents. Because of that, humanitarian groups have
objected to the concept of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) that are well
established in Afghanistan and are being set up in Iraq.
Stability Operations Directive’s Mandates to
Improve Military Capabilities

Military Personnel and Contractors.
The directive reflects longstanding
concerns that the U.S. armed services may not possess enough people with the skills
necessary for stability operations, in particular peace operations. The directive calls on the
department to identify the personnel needed for such operations and to develop methods to
recruit, select, and assign current and former DOD personnel with relevant skills. The Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness is directed to recommend all necessary
changes in laws, authorities, and regulations to accomplish this. In particular, the directive
reflects concern about developing enough foreign area officers, enlisted regional specialists,
civil affairs personnel, military police, engineers, and psychological operations personnel.
These specialities have long been noted as having insufficient personnel to meet the demands
of the dozen years. The Defense Science Board Task Force charged with examining needed
changes for Institutionalizing Stability Operations within DOD, as its September 2005 report
is named, recommended that DOD develop special recruiting strategies, “targeted at mid-
career, 35-45 year old professionals, with the skills actually needed for stability operations”
to recruit suitable Civil Affairs officers.
CRS-7

IB94040
03-27-06
Certain points of the directive also suggest that DOD may wish to depend on contractors
for any additional personnel needed in stability operations. In addition to the mandate
mentioned above that would bring former DOD personnel into the mix of persons
participating in stability operations, the directive mandates a check for adequate oversight
of contracts in stability operations and in the ability of U.S. commanders in foreign countries
to obtain contract support quickly. The DSB Task Force on institutionalizing stability
operations labeled the private sector as DOD’s “fifth force provider” for stability operations
(in addition to the four branches of the armed services) and recommended that DOD design
a new institution that would effectively use the private sector in stability operations.
Stability Operations Curricula. The directive calls on DOD to ensure that military
schools and training centers incorporate stability operations curricula in joint and individual
service education and training programs at all levels. It particularly calls for developing and
incorporating instruction for foreign language capabilities and regional area expertise,
including “long-term immersion in foreign societies.” It would also broaden the exposure
of military personnel to U.S. and international civilians with whom they would work in
stability operations by providing them with tours of duty in other U.S. agencies, international
organizations, and non-governmental organizations.
Inter-Agency and International Participation in Education and Training.
Responding to calls to enhance the ability of the wide variety of participants in stability
operations to work together, the directive provides a number of ways to incorporate military
personnel and civilians of many backgrounds in education and training courses, including
personnel from U.S. departments and agencies, foreign governments and security forces,
international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and members of the private
sector in stability operations planning, training, and exercises. It also proposes that DOD
ensure that instructors and students from elsewhere in the U.S. government be able to receive
or provide instruction in stability operations at military schools.
Training Other Nations’ Security Forces.
The directive also calls for DOD to
support the development of other countries’ security forces in order to ensure security
domestically and to contribute forces to stability operations elsewhere. This includes helping
such forces, including police forces, develop “the training, structure, processes, and doctrine
necessary to train, equip, and advise large numbers of foreign forces in a range of security
sectors....” The Senate has introduced legislation regarding this point, as a floor amendment
to the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006, which is now
in conference. DOD objects to the amendment as adopted, preferring an earlier version
which gave it greater flexibility and leadership for train and equip activities.
Improving Coordination. The directive calls for the creation of “a stability
operations center to coordinate operations research, education and training, and lessons-
learned.” The U.S. military has two institutions currently devoted exclusively to such
operations, neither of which serves a coordinating function: the U.S. Army Peacekeeping and
Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI) at Carlisle Barracks, PA, and the Naval Post-Graduate
School’s Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction Study (CSRS). PKSOI assists with
the development of Army doctrine at the strategic (i.e., the leadership and planning) and
operational levels, and helps the Army’s senior leadership develop operational concepts. It
works with the UN, U.S. government interagency groups, inter-service groups, and foreign
militaries ([http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usacsl/divisions/pksoi/]). CSRS’s mission,
CRS-8

IB94040
03-27-06
according to its website, is “to educate the full spectrum of actors” involved in S&R
a c t i v i t i e s t h r o u gh e d u c a t i o n a l , r e s e a r c h , a n d o u t r e a c h a c t i v i t i e s
([http://www.nps.edu/CSRS/]).
Legislation to Improve Civilian Capabilities
Civilian Capabilities to Perform Nation Building Tasks. Several proposals to
build civilian capabilities to perform nation-building tasks, especially rule of law tasks, in
peacekeeping operations have been advanced. No legislation was passed in the 108th
Congress despite the introduction of three bills, but some of the proposed ideas were taken
into consideration in the State Department’s establishment, in July 2004, of a new Office of
the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS). S/CRS’ function is to
develop mechanisms to enhance civilian capabilities, and to improve inter-agency
coordination in planning and conducting S&R operations. (For further details on S/CRS and
relevant legislation, see CRS Report RL32862, Peacekeeping and Conflict Transitions:
Background and Congressional Action on Civilian Capabilities
.)
Defense analysts and military experts have provided much of the impetus for the
concept of developing civilian capabilities for S&R missions. The DSB’s summer 2004
study entitled Transition to and from Hostilities supported the development of civilian
capabilities. According to the unclassified version published in December 2004, the study
described the S&R mission as “inescapable, its importance irrefutable” and argued that both
DOD and the Department of State need to augment S&R capabilities and to develop “an
extraordinarily close working relationship.” In addition, the study found that the State
Department needs “to develop a capacity for operational planning [that] it does not currently
possess” and to develop “a more robust capacity to execute such plans.” (pp 38-39. The
report can be accessed through the DSB website [http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb].) The follow-
up September 2005 DSB study on institutionalizing stability operations expressed concern
that S/CRS “is not getting anywhere near the level of resources and authority needed.” If
DOD actions in critical areas where there is an overlap between DOD and civilian
responsibilities “are not complemented by growth of capabilities in other agencies, the
overall U.S. ability to conduct successful stability operations will be far less than it should
be.” (pp. 5-6.) The February 2006 QDR stated that DOD will support “substantially
increased resources” for S/CRS and for the establishment of a Civilian Reserve Corps and
a conflict response fund. (p 86)
The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report accompanying the FY2006 DOD
authorization bill (S. 1042, S.Rept. 109-69), commended DOD’s “active support of and
cooperation with” S/CRS and urged DOD “to continue to deepen its coordination with the
Department of State on planning for and participating in post-conflict stability operations and
reconstruction efforts. Neither S. 1042 nor the House equivalent, H.R. 1815, includes,
however, the Administration’s request for authority to transfer up to $200 million in defense
articles, services, training or other support to the Department of State for unforeseen
emergencies requiring “immediate reconstruction, security, or stabilization assistance to a
foreign country for the purpose of restoring or maintaining peace and security in that
country....” notwithstanding any other provision of law. According to a DOD official, this
authority was intended to support S/CRS in carrying out possible activities.
CRS-9

IB94040
03-27-06
Improving International Capabilities
The Global Peace Operations Initiative. The Bush Administration proposed a
five-year, multilateral Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), to prepare other, largely
African, nations to participate in peacekeeping operations. GPOI’s primary goal is to train
and equip some 75,000 military forces, and to develop gendarme forces (also known
constabulary police, i.e., police with military skills) to participate in peacekeeping
operations. The Administration estimated the U.S. cost at $661 million from FY2005-
FY2009. For 2005, Congress appropriated some $100 million for GPOI in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act (H.R. 4818/P.L. 108-447). The Bush Administration requested $114
million in State Department funding for GPOI in GY2006. (For more information on GPOI
and relevant legislation, see CRS Report RL32773, The Global Peace Operations Initiative:
Background and Issues for Congress
.)
Other Support Urged. The February 2006 QDR report stated that DOD would
continue to support initiatives such as GOPI. It specifically mentioned its support for the
African Union’s development of a humanitarian crisis intervention capability. It also stated
DOD “stands ready to increase its assistance” to the U.N. peacekeeping operations
department for doctrine, training, strategic planning, and management. The QDR also states
that DOD supports efforts to develop a NATO stabilization and reconstruction capability and
a European constabulary force. (p 88)
Greater U.S. Support of U.N. Missions Urged by Congressionally-
Appointed Panel. While the reduction in U.S. troops involved in peacekeeping, especially
U.N. peacekeeping, from the early 1990s responded to perceptions that peacekeeping
excessively strained U.S. forces without significantly serving U.S. interests, some analysts
continue to argue that greater participation of U.S. forces in U.N. peacekeeping would be
desirable. In June 2005, the Congressionally-mandated Task Force on the U.N., chaired by
former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader George
Mitchell, called for greater U.S. support of U.N. operations. The Task Force report
recommended that U.N. Member States should substantially increase the number of trained
and equipped forces for rapid deployment for peace operations and that the Department of
Defense should “prepare options for additional means to support U.N. peace operations with
logistics, capacity-building assistance, and other means” and “for U.S. engagement in peace
operations consistent with U.S. national interests.” It specifically recommended that the
United States “consider upgrading its participation” in the U.N. Stand-by Arrangements
system, through which countries volunteer capabilities for U.N. peace operations. (American
Interests and U.N. Reform: Report of the Task Force on the United Nations
. Washington,
D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, June 2005. Quotes taken from pp. 11, 24 and 97.)
Some military analysts argue that the U.N. does not necessarily need more U.S. troops
to place in field-level observer slots in U.N. missions. What is needed, they say, are staff
officers at the headquarters command level whose training and mindset enables them to think
proactively about dealing with developing problems. Others believe that U.S. soldiers with
engineering and skills using advanced communications technologies would also be useful.
CRS-10

IB94040
03-27-06
Military Capabilities Issue: Readiness vs. Adequacy
Congressional debate over U.S. military capabilities to perform peacekeeping and
related stability operations has taken two different forms. During the 1990s, critics of the
commitment of U.S. military personnel to peacekeeping operations drove the readiness
debate. As the U.S. military was increasingly called upon to perform peacekeeping and other
non-combat missions — at the same time as it was downsized significantly — many
Members questioned whether U.S. military forces could perform their “core” war-fighting
mission if they engaged extensively in other activities. Opponents of non-combat
commitments, particularly in areas they regarded as irrelevant to key U.S. interests, argued
that they impaired the military’s capability or “readiness” to defend the nation.4 More
recently, those who view such missions as a necessary role for U.S. armed forces have
reframed the debate, arguing that the services should be structured and sized to perform such
operations without undue stress on soldiers and units. In addition, they recommend that
readiness ratings encompass the armed forces’ preparedness not only for combat, but also for
stability operations. (The 2005 DSB report on institutionalizing stability operations stated
that the forthcoming Defense Readiness Reporting System could provide the framework for
monitoring readiness in both combat and stability operations, if it were so employed.)
Assessing and Adjusting U.S. Forces for Stability Missions
The military’s ability to perform peacekeeping and related stability operations while
retaining its preparedness to fight wars depends on several factors. Most salient among them
are 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 while deployed on peacekeeping and related operations.
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.5
4 There were a variety of reasons for declines in the ratings which measured combat readiness in the
1990s, some of which were addressed by changes in military practices: (1) military personnel could
not practice all their combat skills while engaged in peacekeeping operations; (2) in the 1990s, the
U.S. military performed these operations at the same time the armed forces, particularly the army,
were reduced substantially; (3) funds for training and equipment were diverted in the past to fund
peacekeeping operations; and (4) units were disrupted by the deployment of an individual or a small
number of individuals. If one looked at the larger readiness problem of the 1990s and early 2000s,
that is the perception that U.S. military personnel were overworked, that military equipment was
in poor shape, that spare parts were in short supply, and that the military could not recruit and retain
needed personnel, the relationship of peacekeeping to readiness was less pronounced, according to
some analysts. Some have argued that the readiness problem was exaggerated or non-existent, given
the successful combat performances of U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2001 and in Iraq in 2003.
5 In one of the first publicly-available studies of peacekeeping stresses, in March 1995 the GAO
(continued...)
CRS-11

IB94040
03-27-06
The Army took steps to deal with some of its problems by the realignment and better
management of its resources, as did the Air Force. In recent years, the army addressed
perstempo strains by limiting deployments to six months (although this was overridden by
deployments to Iraq), and including national guard and reserve units among those on the
roster to serve in the Balkans, thus attempting to reduce the optempo of active combat duty
units. The Air Force, beginning in 1999, established Air Expeditionary Units to deploy
under a predictable rotation system. In some cases, however, these solutions generate other
problems. For instance, the Army’s attempts to relieve the stresses of frequent deployments
on its active forces by deploying reservists may have, some analysts worry, affected Guard
and Reserve personnel recruitment and retention. Some analysts suggest that more resource
management reforms could ease stresses. Others prefer to change force size or structure.
Force Adjustments for Peacekeeping and
Related Stability Operations

The appropriate size and structure for the military depends largely on the types of wars
that it is expected to fight and the range of missions that it is expected to perform. Since the
early 1990s, many defense analysts, military officers, and policymakers have questioned
whether the military, especially the Army, is appropriately sized and structured to perform
all the tasks assigned to it. As the deployment strains, noted in the GAO reports cited above,
became evident, many Members argued that the U.S. military was too small and too stretched
to take on peacekeeping operations. The continued stresses on the force of extended U.S.
presences in stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has intensified this debate. The
November 2005 stability operations directive points to possible increases in the numbers of
certain specialities in high demand in peacekeeping and related stability operations (i.e., civil
affairs officers, foreign area specialists, military police, engineers, and psychological
operations personnel) as mentioned above, but no further changes in size or structure. Others
have urged more extensive changes in the force to better accommodate such missions.
Debate Over Force Size. Concerns that the United States does not have sufficient
military forces to maintain a presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as long as needed, and to carry
out a full range of possible concurrent future missions has given new prominence to the issue
of force size. The size of the U.S. military is controversial in large part because the basic cost
of each additional soldier is high, averaging some $100,000 per year for an active duty troop,
according to a CBO estimate. Since the mid-1990s, some policymakers and military experts
have suggested that 520,000 to 540,000 troops would be a more appropriate size for the
Army if it were to prevail in the scenario involving two major theater wars (which was then
the standard for sizing force structure) and also to engage in peacekeeping missions. (For
5 (...continued)
reported (GAO/NSIAD-95-51) that increased deployments due to peacekeeping together with
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 an major regional contingency (MRC) to an extent that could
endanger DOD’s ability to respond quickly to an MRC. A July 2000 GAO report (GAO/NSIAD-00-
164) found shortages in forces needed for contingency operations, including 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.
CRS-12

IB94040
03-27-06
the 14 years after the end of the Vietnam War in 1975 through the year of the end of the Cold
War in 1989, the Army had averaged some 778,000, with fluctuations.) Other policymakers
would prefer further cuts in personnel in order to conserve funds for modernizing equipment
and weapons systems. The September 2005 DSB report on institutionalizing stability
operations notes that DOD lacks “a sizing concept” that would enable the department to
prepare “for concurrent domestic stability operations, foreign stability operations and foreign
combat operations; all of which will call upon some of the same resource base.” (p. 11.) The
2006 QDR report states that Army end-strength should be stabilized at 482,400 Active and
533,000 reserve component personnel by FY2011. (p. 43)
Beginning in FY2005, Congress has mandated increases in Army end-strength, which
had been set at 480,000 for several years; these increases too may be only temporary. The
FY2006 DOD appropriations bill conference report (H.R. 2863, H.Rept. 109-359), funds the
President’s requested active duty Army end-strength of 482,400 through regular personnel
appropriations and provides an additional $4.7 billion for the Army personnel account in
Title IX. The House’s FY2006 defense authorization bill (H.R. 1815) calls for an Army end-
strength of 512,400, while that of the Senate Armed Services Committee (S. 1042) calls for
522,400. (For further information, see CRS Report RS21754, Military Forces: What is the
Appropriate Size for the United States?
, by Edward F. Bruner.)
Debate over Army Force Structure and Restructuring Proposals. Size is not
the only consideration, and some would argue it is but a secondary consideration, for
providing the capabilities needed for stability operations and relieving stress on the armed
forces. For several years, analysts have advanced proposals to restructure U.S. Army forces
to increase capabilities for peacekeeping and related operations. Despite the “small-scale
contingency missions” that became a staple of the 1990s and that many argued would
constitute a sizable proportion of future missions, until mid-2003 the Army retained its
traditional structure. This structure was built around warfighting divisions of 9,000-17,000
(although the number of active duty Army divisions was cut from 18 to ten during the
1990s). Divisions were divided into three brigades of combat forces, and separate units of
support personnel. (Support personnel include “combat support” such as artillery, engineer,
military police, signal, and military intelligence, and “combat service support” such as
supply, maintenance, transportation, health.) Support forces are also found “above” the
division level in the Army’s four corps or elsewhere in the active and reserve forces.
For the most part, proposals for reform in the 1990s and early 2000s centered on an
increase in the number of personnel in “low-density, high-demand” units (i.e., those most
heavily taxed by peacekeeping), which are now stressed by “stability” operations in Iraq, and
which to this point have been concentrated in the reserve component. For several years,
many military analysts suggested that the overall force might be restructured to include more
of the specialities needed for peacekeeping (which some also regard as in short supply for
warfighting or war termination periods), and in units sized for peace operations. Civil
affairs, psychological operations (PSYOPS), and military police units were frequently
mentioned as specialties that were particularly needed in peace operations (i.e., three of the
six listed as important stability operations specialties by the November 2005 stability
operations directive), but were in short supply in the active military. As the Army performed
increasing numbers of small-scale peacekeeping missions, analysts noticed that such
operations were built around one or two “maneuver brigades” (of 2,000+ to 3,000+ troops)
with command and support elements drawn from divisional HQ and elsewhere in the Army,
CRS-13

IB94040
03-27-06
and recommended formalizing such arrangements by creating rapidly deployable and
autonomous maneuver brigades for peacekeeping. (RAND, Assessing Requirements for
Peacekeeping, Humanitarian Assistance, and Disaster Relief
, 1998, accessible through
[http://www.rand.org] pp. 133-134.)

Army Active Duty and Reserve Component Restructuring. In mid-2003, the
Army commenced a restructuring of the Army’s active force and a “rebalancing” of positions
between the Army active and reserve forces that officials said eventually would involve
some 100,000 positions. (Testimony of the Army Chief of Staff, General Schoomaker,
before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), January 28, 2004.) Of these, some
10,000 positions were shifted in 2003, another 20,000 were to be shifted in 2004, and 20,000
more changes were scheduled for FY2005, according to testimony of DOD Secretary
Rumsfeld before the HASC on February 4, 2004. As of September 2005, plans are to shift
the full 100,000 positions by FY2011, according to a Department of Defense source, of
which 70,000 were to have been shifted by the end of FY2005. The primary reason stated
for these changes was to improve the Army’s warfighting capacity. Nevertheless, the
changes were also viewed as enhancing the Army’s ability to carry out a broader range of
missions — including peacekeeping and related stability operations, as well as homeland
defense — with less stress on the active and reserve forces. One goal of rebalancing is to
reduce reliance on the reserve component during the first 15 days of a “rapid response
operation” and to limit reserve mobilization, especially for high demand units, to once every
six years.
Over the past decade, but especially since 9/11, the U.S. military has increasingly called
upon Army, Air Force, and Navy reserve forces and National Guardsmen for peacekeeping
and related operations. (These forces are known collectively as “the reserve,” “reservists,”
and “the reserve component.”) These deployments raised issues regarding the appropriate
division of labor between active and reserve forces, and the extent to which reserve forces
can be used without jeopardizing their ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel. Until
the call-ups for Iraq, the increasing use of involuntary call-ups of reservists for peacekeeping
operations in the Balkans and elsewhere was largely considered a desirable trend by many
analysts. (National Guard generals commanded the U.S. Bosnia SFOR contingent for its last
four years beginning in October 2000, and a National Guard general was appointed
commander of the U.S. KFOR contingent in March 2003.) These call-ups were necessary to
deploy adequate numbers of personnel with specialized skills required in post-conflict
operations and to relieve over-taxed active duty combat personnel. At the same time, the
potential effect of repeated mobilizations on recruitment and retention was a source of
concern. These concerns were given substance by the post-September 11, 2001 call-ups for
duty for homeland defense, the subsequent call-ups related to Afghanistan and Iraq, and the
extension of the tours of reservists in Iraq to one year, announced in the fall of 2003.
The following three elements of the current restructuring reflect changes that have been
proposed to make forces more adept at such operations.
1. The internal restructuring of divisions to make the Army more mobile (i.e., rapidly
deployable or “expeditionary”) and versatile. The Army is reconfiguring its ten divisions in
order to make the brigade, instead of the division or corps, the Army’s primary unit of
organization for combat operations. The reconfiguration incorporates into combat brigades
many or all of the support services necessary to make the brigade more self-sufficient on the
CRS-14

IB94040
03-27-06
battlefield. At the same time, the number of combat brigades in each division increases from
three to four. Some divisions may maintain additional support personnel in separate brigades
to be used for stabilization tasks in immediate post-conflict situations. The formation of
these brigades seems similar to RAND’s 1998 recommendation (see above).
2. The increase in the active Army of high demand/low intensity support personnel in
order to support this restructuring and to reduce reliance on and use of the reserve component
(as discussed in the section on reserves, above). This increase involves the relocation of
such positions from the reserves to the active force, as well as a reshuffling of positions
within the active force. For instance, at the start of the restructuring, only one of the Army’s
25 civil affairs (CA) battalions was in the active force, while the others were in the Army
Reserve. (Combat battalions range in size from 600 to 900 troops, while civil affairs units
are somewhat smaller.) Some CA battalions are now being moved to the active force,
although the primary capability will still reside in the Reserve. Besides CA, specialities
being increased in the active forces that are especially relevant to peacekeeping and related
operations are military police, special operations forces, and certain engineer and
transportation capabilities. (General Schoomaker, January 28, 2004 HASC testimony.) The
Army is attempting to do this without increasing force size by converting certain combat
positions (such as heavy artillery) and other low-demand specialities into support positions.
3. The creation of a few thousand new reserve positions, including positions needed for
peacekeeping and related operations, especially military police. On January 18, 2006, the
Army announced that it was cutting six National Guard combat brigades in order to create
brigades of support personnel such as engineers, military police, and civil affairs soldiers.
Although the support personnel were identified as appropriate for homeland defense
missions, according to press reports, they are also the forces desired for stability operations.
The effect of these changes on the Army’s ability to perform functions from combat to
peacekeeping and related operations is open to debate. Some criticize the reforms as short-
term measures meant to deal with the demands an extended presence in Iraq rather than with
the combat realities of future battlefields, others might look at them as insufficient if the
Army is to possess the types of forces necessary to carry out stability operations, in addition
to combat and homeland security operations, as a component of its future missions.
Related 2006 QDR report proposals. The 2006 QDR report calls for further
increases in certain specialties. It calls for increasing the number of Special Forces battalions
by one-third starting in FY2007 and expanding psychological operations and civil affairs
units by one-third (3,700 personnel). In another area that may be at least partially related to
conflict transitions and post-conflict operations, it also calls for the establishment of a Marine
Corps Special Operations Command of 2,600 personnel to train foreign military units and
conduct direct action and special reconnaissance.
CRS-15

DOD Incremental Costs of Peacekeeping and Security Contingency Operations, FY1991-FY2005
(Millions of current year dollars)
FY1991-
FY2005
Operation
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
(Est.)
TOTAL
AREAS OF ONGOING OPERATIONS
Southwest Asia/Iraq
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
38,322.0
52,148.0
56,200.0
146,670.0
Provide Comfort/Northern Watch
773.1
88.9
93.1
136.0
156.4
143.7
148.6
1,372.4
626.2


Southern Watch/Air Expeditionary Force
1,517.3 576.3
597.3
1,497.2
954.8
755.4
963.5
11,023.7
Desert Strike/Intrinsic Action/Desert Spring

102.7
5.6
13.8
239.8
261.6
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)
32.4










32.4
Total Southwest Asia/Iraq
2,580.5
665.2
793.1
1,638.8
1,261.4
1,138.9
1,373.5
1,372.4
38,948.2
52,148.0
56,200.0
158,120.0
Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF)
15,788.1
9,849.2
11,800.0
37,437.3
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
1,383.9
938.2
590.4
552.9
693.3
7,006.3
Sustain Hope (Refugee Assistance)
141.6






141.6
Total Kosovo
3,132.4
1,803.1
1,383.9
938.2
590.4
552.9
693.3
9,094.2
Korea Readiness*
160.6










160.6
COMPLETED OPERATIONS
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
932.9
742.2
667.8
150.7
14,405.1
Other Former Yugoslavia Operations*
784.0
288.3
195.0
169.9
155.4
101.3
79.4
Total Bosnia
784.0
2,520.0
2,282.5
1,962.7
1,586.6
1,483.1
1,292.6
932.9
742.2
667.8
150.7
14,405.1
Totals of Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, Angola,
2,458.2
86.9


1.5
56.8


3.1


2,606.5
Cambodia, Western Sahara, East Timor and
Liberia
GRAND TOTALS

5,983.3
3,272.1
3,075.6
3,601.5
5,981.9
4,481.8
4,050.0
3,243.5
56,072.0
63,217.9
68,844.0
221,823.6
Source: Defense Finance and Accounting System data through FY2002; Office of the Secretary of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 Budget Estimates: Justification for Component Contingency Operations
and the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund, for FY2003; FY2004, and FY2005 (est) provided by the DOD Comptroller’s Office, June 24, 2005. The FY2005 figures are from the FY2005
Supplemental Request of February 2005 and do not reflect approximately $31.6 billion in other support and related costs applicable to OIF and OEF.
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
(including OIF in Iraq and OEF in Afghanistan, which are combat/occupation 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. NA=Not Available.