The American Army in the Balkans

When President Clinton committed U.S. ground forces to peace support operations in the Balkans, the U.S. Army was irrevocably changed. As part of the NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR), the Army played a vital role in helping to end the Bosnian civil war. For the Army, this was a seminal step in the transition from a tight focus on conventional warfighting to more wide-ranging support of U.S. National Security Strategy. The importance of this cannot be overestimated: the Army's...
More Description

When President Clinton committed U.S. ground forces to peace support operations in the Balkans, the U.S. Army was irrevocably changed. As part of the NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR), the Army played a vital role in helping to end the Bosnian civil war. For the Army, this was a seminal step in the transition from a tight focus on conventional warfighting to more wide-ranging support of U.S. National Security Strategy. The importance of this cannot be overestimated: the Army's successes in the Balkans have been as impressive as its combat victories in the Gulf War. Today, though, the Army's role in the Balkans continues to evolve, driven both by conditions in that region and by shifts in American strategy. 2001 is likely to be a watershed year. With the change of presidents, the reshuffling of Congress, and the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review, U.S. strategy in the Balkans may undergo significant change. In August 2000, Vice President-elect Dick Cheney said that it was time to consider recalling American ground troops from Kosovo and Bosnia.1 Condolezza Rice, one of President-elect Bush's primary national security advisers, amplified this in October, calling for a "new division of labor" in which European nations alone provide the troops for peacekeeping in their region. And, Secretary of State-designate Colin Powell indicated that, "Our plan is to undertake a review right after the President is inaugurated, and take a look not only at our deployments in Bosnia, but in Kosovo and many other places around the world, and make sure those deployments are proper." It remains to be seen whether or how soon this will happen, but one thing is clear: the time is ripe for a rigorous assessment of the role of the U.S. Army in the Balkans, and of the effect the Balkans have had on the U.S. Army. As the new president refines his national security strategy and approach to the Balkans, the Army, which has the highest stake of all the Services in this process, should do four things. First, it should make the case for continued engagement in the Balkans, explaining to national political leaders that the American objectives remain valid and engagement of the U.S. military is the best way to assure that these are attained. Second, it should explore ways to be even more effective and efficient in the Balkans should the new administration opt for continued engagement. Third, should the new administration decide to disengage from the Balkans, the Army should begin to analyze ways that this can be done with minimum risk to U.S. national interests in Europe. And fourth, should national political leaders decide to make involvement in protracted peace operations an enduring mission for the U.S. military, the Army should continue to assess the wider strategic lessons drawn from its experience in the Balkans. This study is intended to provide analysis and recommendations to Army leaders on these four topics.