{ "id": "RS22473", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RS22473", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 316773, "date": "2006-07-10", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T18:57:41.782029", "title": "Peacekeeping and Related Stability Operations: Proposals for Army Force Structure Changes", "summary": "The U.S. Army is in the midst of an extensive overhaul of the organization of its forces. \nAlthough\ndesigned to make the Army more efficient in combat operations, the change to a \"modular force\" and\nthe reallocation of functions between active and reserve forces also meet some of the criteria that\nhave long been argued as necessary to enable the Army to better perform peacekeeping and related\npost-conflict operations, now generally referred to as stabilization or stability operations. Over the\nyears, a number of different proposals have been advanced, some of which involve creating\nspecialized forces that are dedicated, at least part time, to preparing for and deploying to such\nmissions. The Army has long rejected proposals for dedicated peacekeeping forces as they would\ndivert funds from combat resources and undermine the concept of a general purpose, \"full-spectrum\"\nforce. Alternate proposals for augmenting personnel for such missions involve non-military options.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RS22473", "sha1": "c8e9bfe925ed4390b3143d239984beab1e86185d", "filename": "files/20060710_RS22473_c8e9bfe925ed4390b3143d239984beab1e86185d.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS22473", "sha1": "cd9d0ccdc5081c5abf1b0354275f8e9ec198fc45", "filename": "files/20060710_RS22473_cd9d0ccdc5081c5abf1b0354275f8e9ec198fc45.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [] }