A New Subtlety

For the American G.I., peacekeeping’s paradox is plain. Shooting to kill–something a soldier has practiced since basic training–is the best thing he can do in combat. But it’s the worst thing he can do on a peacekeeping mission because an itchy trigger finger can spark civilian casualties, renewed warfare and national embarrassment. Since the cold war, which Russian and U.S. troops spent pacing in their garrisons awaiting World War III, military prowess has become a more subtle discipline. But subtlety has never been the U.S. military’s strong suit, and no other modern military mission is as vexing to the Pentagon as peacekeeping.

Colin Powell, when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, upheld a doctrine that called for decisive use of U.S. military force with a clear goal. That notion eroded under his successor, John Shalikashvili, who told Congress in 1995 that U.S. troops sent to Bosnia as peacekeepers would be home within a year. Five years later, 5,000 U.S. troops are still there. An additional 6,000 are patrolling nearby Kosovo. Republicans on Capitol Hill have criticized such costly deployments as dulling the U.S. military’s fighting edge.

Many soldiers grumble about their growing role as “rent-a-cops.” Yet grunts serving in the Balkans have higher morale and are more likely to sign up for another tour than their Stateside buddies. Some officers see value in the missions that Powell disdains. Army General Montgomery Meigs, who led the peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and now commands all U.S. Army troops in Europe, says his forces can switch easily between peacekeeping and combat. Beyond that, they’re learning valuable lessons. “You’re getting a core of young leaders in the Army who are very tough and experienced,” he says. “And that is worth its weight in gold.”

–By Mark Thompson/Washington