The U.S. Army in the 21st Century and the Conflict Between Training for War and Keeping the Peace

Abstract

Abstract : As the United States Army enters the 21st Century, its primary mission remains unchanged - to fight and win our Nation's wars. However, with the exception of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the last decade of the 20th Century is replete with examples of the Army's involvement in short of war. Under the rubric of operations (POs), the US Army participated in in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. The purpose of this paper is to address the conflict the Army faces in the 21st Century between its charter to fight and win our Nation's wars and the ever-increasing requirements to execute peace around the world. Some senior leaders argue the skill sets required to fight and win wars and those associated with POs are not exclusive of one another. That assertion is supported in Army Field Manual 100-23 Peace Operations. It states: Peace are not a new mission and should not be treated as a separate task to be added to a unit's mission-essential task list. However, units selected for these duties require time to train and prepare for a significant number of tasks EMPHASIS ADDED that may be different from their wartime METL. This paper suggests the significant number of tasks EMPHASIZED ABOVE required to execute POs are substantial enough for POs to be considered unique and that they should be treated as such. Furthermore, this paper suggests the Army's ability to fight and win our Nation's wars is placed at risk due to the degradation of warfighting skills resulting from executing open-ended POs. The Army is at a crossroads in determining its roles and missions in the 21% Century. It must strike an appropriate balance between the mandate to fight and win our Nation's wars and the ramifications of executing ever-increasing peace around the world. Failure to do so places the security of the US at risk.