| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| A New Kind of Force Could Provide Security |
| 2009-08-17 |
| When Hillary Clinton visited eastern Congo this week, she stepped into a land of fairy-tale beauty and incredible potential. I remember vividly the day in 1982 when my incoming "class" of Peace Corps volunteers made the same trip. Eastern Congo may be the most magical place on the planet; I remember thinking it did not even belong on this planet, so surreal were its mountains, lakes, volcanoes, and lush forests and farmland. Unfortunately, the tragedies and turmoil afflicting this area have no place in this world, either. For much of the time that Mobutu Sese Seko ruled then-Zaire, the eastern region was poor but reasonably stable. Since the early 1990s, however, it has been on a rapid descent. Genocide in Rwanda spilled over the border; the Democratic Republic of the Congo's own conflicts accelerated, fueled by the region's mineral wealth; health-care infrastructure disappeared; sexual violence became worse than anywhere else on Earth. Clinton has taken the first step by calling attention to this region and its terrible problems. But the United States has shown interest in Congo before to little avail. If the situation is to improve, we need to do the one thing that is required above all others -- strengthen security, especially in eastern Congo. And by now we should have learned the hard way that there is only one way to do so -- by leading through example, with the deployment of at least modest numbers of American troops, to spark a broader strengthening of the current U.N. mission. If the Afghanistan mission was undermanned last year with only 60,000 NATO-led troops in a country of 30 million, how can a U.N. mission of 20,000 address the challenges of Congo and its 60 million people? Yet how can the U.S. military, so overstretched in strategically crucial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, spare any troops for this type of primarily humanitarian venture? The dilemma is similar to that faced in recent years in Darfur, where we wanted to do something but did not have the forces. Admittedly, there may not be a solution tomorrow. But by tapping into President Obama's call for a new spirit of volunteerism and national service, there may be a way to make a difference sometime in 2010. The idea involves a new type of military unit that the Pentagon should propose during its ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review. For crises like those in Congo and Darfur, the United States should consider a radical innovation in recruiting policy. We should create a peace operations division in the Army with individuals enlisting specifically for this purpose. There would be risks in such a venture, to be sure. But they are manageable and tolerable risks, especially since most such deployments would be legitimated by the United Nations, carried out with partners such as key allies, and backstopped by the U.S. armed forces in worst-case scenarios. The notion is this: Ask for volunteers to join a peace operations division for two years. They would begin their service with, say, 12 weeks of boot camp and 12 weeks of specialized training and then would be deployable. They would receive the same compensation and health benefits as regular troops, given their age and experience. Out of a division of 15,000 troops, one brigade, or about 3,000 to 4,000 soldiers, could be sustained in the field at a time. This type of training would be modeled after standard practices in today's Army and Marine Corps. To be sure, soldiers and Marines in regular units usually go beyond this regimen to have many months of additional practice and exercise before being deployed. But the peace operations units could be led by a cadre of experienced officers and NCOs -- perhaps some of whom would be drawn back to military service after leaving (or being booted out because of the obsolete "don't ask, don't tell" policy). The dangers of deploying such units to missions such as the one in Congo, would be real, but the risks would be acceptable. First, those volunteering would understand the risks and accept them. Second, in most civil conflicts such as Congo's, possible adversarial forces are not sophisticated. Soldiers in the new division would not need to execute complex operations akin to those carried out during the invasion of Iraq or current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They would largely monitor villages and refugee camps, inspect individuals to make sure they did not have illicit weapons, and call for help if they came under concerted attack. Their jobs could be somewhat dangerous and would require discipline and reasonable knowledge of some basic infantry skills -- but they would not be extremely complex. Care would have to be taken in deciding when to deploy this force, but it generally would be, given the scars of recent difficult American experiences in places such as Somalia. Problems like Congo, Darfur and Somalia tend to get solved only with U.S. leadership. And the United States cannot truly lead on this issue while resisting any role for its own ground forces. It is time to recognize the contradiction of pretending otherwise and get on with a solution. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at Brookings, is the author of "Budgeting for Hard Power" and "The Science of War." |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #21 I see Social Security savings in the near future ... |
| Posted by: Adriane 2009-08-17 22:44 |
| #20 This is objectively psychotic. The Iraqi *regular* military had more training than this clown is talking about. How did that work out? Moving up a level, the afghan mujahideen could best soviet regular forces and at least keep spetsnaz on its toes... |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2009-08-17 19:45 |
| #19 What's the recruiting poster? "Uncle Sam wants YOU to become a hostage in some third world hellhole!" |
| Posted by: Matt 2009-08-17 16:17 |
| #18 "backed up by regular troops" "call for help". From whom? If the Big Boys are available for help, they're not someplace else. This does nothing to help spread our forces, but only to tie down more. What a maroon. |
| Posted by: Richard Aubrey 2009-08-17 15:16 |
| #17 and self-defense training by Robert Fisk |
| Posted by: Frank G on the road 2009-08-17 14:30 |
| #16 I'm thinking that anything that thins the 'Birkenstock' herd can't be a bad thing. Rough outline: overseas training and deployment only, no base in US; Keep them together (segregated from regulars); must undergo psyche tests to ensure they have the 'proper' caring mindset; prior military service is an absolute bar to entry; let them do their own training and establish their own training doctrines (can't you just feel the love?); arm them with non-lethal weapons only; no arty or area weapons, maybe Tasers and their ilk ensure that they are direct-funded only by MoveOn, DU, and maybe the Kossacks (so they aren't 'tainted', of course; keep 'em pure and sweet) and must not add to tax burden or divert funds from existing services; add your own ideas |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2009-08-17 14:20 |
| #15 The Farce is with us. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2009-08-17 12:03 |
| #14 So there's not enough infighting among the current branches of the service? We need another one to really confuse things? |
| Posted by: Matt 2009-08-17 11:24 |
| #13 O'Hanlon also is ignoring the real and effective missions our 'battle-hardened' troops are doing among the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, going house to house in the villages, drinking tea and handing out school supplies, and enlisting tribal help in flushing out extremists. |
| Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2009-08-17 10:38 |
| #12 First step to going back to the bad old days of conscripts. |
| Posted by: mojo 2009-08-17 10:31 |
| #11 Come on, you know what they really want and will never admit. Mercenaries. That's what they're really after, but after the way they go after Blackwater and other contractors, it's not going to happen. At least, not with quality people. If all you want is gun toting bodies, I'm sure you can hire that quick enough. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2009-08-17 10:08 |
| #10 I'd give their division two weeks in theater before they're busy ...looking for kidnapped team members and discovering cooking pots and body parts. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-08-17 09:57 |
| #9 You know, the headline "A New Kind of Force Could Provide Security" prompts me to ask, "You mean the Dark Side?" If you look at this, it seems they want to reinvent the wheel, only they'll be both cheaper and more successful (and have less collateral casualties) than a regular military force because... well, they don't seem to get around to that. People who listened to every bit of propaganda and believed most of it about the traditional 'square' military believe they could reinvent it and not have all the problems the regular military does, because they're better people, gosh darn it! I'd give their division two weeks in theater before they're busy covering up their first My Lai massacre. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-08-17 09:44 |
| #8 Clinton has taken the first step by calling attention to this region and its terrible problems...since the MSM cast a blind eye to Bush's efforts for most of his Presidency in order to further their own preconceived personal animosity and hatred. Fixed it for you, sycophant. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-08-17 08:57 |
| #7 The dangers of deploying such units to missions such as the one in Congo, would be real, One might accurately call that the understatement of the year. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-08-17 07:53 |
| #6 Well, yeah, it could work under the auspices of the UN! After all, no one's ever taken potshots at the guys in blue helmets, or threatened to eat them if they capture them after their ammo runs out, or hack at them with machetes if given the chance....so I'm sure if we sent out some cannon fodder, er, peace warriors, it would all work out well as long as the locals understand they are not under the command of the icky Pentagon, right? They'll get the locals joining hands, singing kumbaya and driving hybrids in no time flat! |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2009-08-17 07:33 |
| #5 But they are manageable and tolerable risks, especially since most such deployments would be legitimated by the United Nations, carried out with partners such as key allies, and backstopped by the U.S. armed forces in worst-case scenarios. What's the point of providing forces if you are not willing to defend anything such as Iraq? This guy seems to think "6 months of military training and we'll have a military force for peace operations" Where will they get NCOs and will the focus of the NCOs be their charges, or will the focus of NCOs be a non-military agenda? Because liberals believe in sacrificing for your goals as long as you can get others to do the sacrificing. If liberals want a peace division, hows about increasing the number of high readiness real military divisions. Better yet and a better value, how about increasing funding for a missile shield against any south Asian or African mobocracy that want to launch a missile attack against the US and its allies? |
| Posted by: badanov 2009-08-17 07:20 |
| #4 Wow, O'Hanlon has really outdone himself here. Too many jaw-droppers to even begin. Perhaps the other 6 billion people on the planet could "lead by example" in this case - just for a change - by actually doing something. We've been leading by example for decades. With a few small exceptions, nobody's been following. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2009-08-17 02:37 |
| #3 Ha, yeah right like that'll happen. Lefties never do anything unless it fellates their narcissism. |
| Posted by: gromky 2009-08-17 02:00 |
| #2 Too funny. It could to called the Birkenstocks to Boots program. Volunteer you damn dirty hippies and show us your war face. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-08-17 01:16 |
| #1 Will they wear brown shirts? |
| Posted by: tipover 2009-08-17 01:07 |