Pentagon's No. 2: Let others take up peacekeeping

By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON � U.S. military forces should focus on fighting wars and leave
peacekeeping duties to Norway, Canada and other nations with a "long
tradition" of carrying out humanitarian missions, the Pentagon's No. 2
official says. "We want to get the military out of non-military functions,"
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in an interview. U.S. troops
have played "an indispensable role in peacekeeping" in the Balkans, but
"let's figure out how we can play our part within reason," he said.


Though U.S. military participation in peacekeeping missions had strong
backing from President Clinton, President Bush has vowed to reduce the
military's overseas commitments. However, during his trip to Europe last
week, Bush reassured allies that he would not unilaterally withdraw 9,800
U.S. troops stationed in the Balkans. "We came in together, we will leave
together," he said.

Wolfowitz said the United States is the only nation that brings significant
military capabilities" in a crisis, and "if we are also picking up
(peacekeeping) tasks that other people can do, I think we've got it wrong."

He said a U.N. peacekeeping mission in East Timor in 1999 is a model for the
U.S. role: The Pentagon provided logistical support but let Australian
troops restore order in the former Indonesian province.

The trouble with peacekeeping commitments is that they never seem to end,
Wolfowitz said. He cited the United States' longest-running peacekeeping
mission, a nearly two-decade presence in the Sinai.

A multinational force of 1,900 peacekeepers, including 865 U.S. troops, has
rarely reported a border violation between Israel and Egypt since the
mission began in 1982.

The Pentagon wants to withdraw half its troops and replace them with
surveillance satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles. But Israel and Egypt,
which can veto a pullout, are unlikely to agree in light of increased
violence in the region.

Ivo Daalder, an analyst at The Brookings Institution, calls Wolfowitz's view
"shortsighted." U.S. peacekeepers provide "political reassurance, not
military reassurance," he says. "To argue that the military is only for war
fighting is to lose sight of the military as a tool in our larger foreign
policy. If things go wrong, we have the ability to set things right."

 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-06-19-peacekeeping.htm




Miroslav Antic,
http://www.antic.org/

                                    Serbian News Network - SNN

                                   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

                                    http://www.antic.org/

Reply via email to