Sun editorial:

Right role for the Army?

Latest manual says soldiers should be trained for peacekeeping, nation-building

Wed, Oct 8, 2008 (2:06 a.m.)

A new field manual that would bring fundamental change to the Army should be extensively debated in Congress and elsewhere.

The manual, based on the assumption that large-scale military actions are unlikely in today’s world, states that soldiers’ training will now focus more on nation-building and peacekeeping skills than on readiness for combat.

A Washington Post story on the manual, published this week, included comments from critics who say this direction is worrisome and naive. We believe the critics deserve to be heard by Congress.

Since our earliest days as a nation the Army has been the bedrock of our fighting forces. The Marines, as outstanding as they are, do not have the numbers to lead large-scale, sustained ground operations.

Can the country really take the chance, so soon after 9/11, and with anti-U.S. sentiment abounding in many regions of the world, that such operations will not ever again be necessary?

We’d like to hear more from military experts — and there are many of them — who say the Army should remain dedicated to its traditional mission, that of being ready at all times to defend the country and protect U.S. interests around the world.

The new manual was prepared under the direction of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell IV, commander of the U.S. Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Known as the Stability Operations Field Manual, it calls for Army troops and commanders to be trained for long-term deployments to hot spots around the world. The soldiers’ mission would be to reform populations trending toward lawlessness and violence.

Critics say the plan sounds imperialistic, that it would diminish the Army’s current capability of fighting any type of war, that it would blur the lines between aid workers and soldiers, greatly imperiling aid workers, and that establishing public services and setting up new governments in strife-torn regions is best left to experts in the civilian ranks.

Are they right? The next president and the new Congress should be asking that question early next year.

Discussion: 2 comments so far…

By gb1980

10/8/08 at 12:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

The Army is trained to fight. That means it is offensively oriented. If they train to be pacifiers then they won't be fighters. It's one or the other---not both. Create a new position under the secretary of state called Civilian Nation Building ambassador--my choice would be Bill Clinton. Give him a small group of lets say 10,000 people to do nation building. Hire teachers, engineers, plumbers, electricians, laborers to help those other countries. Let the Army do what it was created to do---FIGHT!!!
By Johnathan_Abbinett

10/8/08 at 8:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Going back in time, the idea was that the United Nations Multi-national Force would serve in the role of "peacekeepers" (after a conflict ends) to protect the peace while the "nation builders" reconstructed the infrastructure and the society returned to the rule of law - that hasn't worked out too well, given, the wide-spread corruption in the United Nations...

...still, imagine if you can, that every soldier in every army aspired to be assigned to duty with the U.N. Multi-national Force because it was the best trained, best equipped, most desirable way for a professional soldier to serve in the most awesome force to preserve the peace?

Sadly, the U.N. is the last place most soldiers would want to be associated with - because of the corruption and incompetence!

Hey, the bottom line remains, America has a Department of Defense - not OFFENSE! The ideas of maintaining de tente and deterrence remain preferable to moving from defense into offense. When we wage offensive war the goal is to get the bad guys back to the negotiating table and back on the path of peace - it's not about "killing them all and letting God sort it out" - that's genocide and insane and un-American!

I'm all for our military being fully equipped, trained and prepared to hunt down, find, capture or kill our enemies - being able to accomplish such missions is the ony way to credibly stand as a military power. But, using force should always be a last resort after exhausting every resonable political and diplomatic avenue - the Great American Just War Tradition (which way too many seem to have forgotten in the run up to the unnecessary war in Iraq)! But, then, since when does the President or Congress really listen to military professionals - or our retired professional military?

After all, what the heck do veterans know about war and peace the ultimate costs of freedom any way?