TEXT:*LEF103   12/05/94


TR94120503 (May have to protect "values" as well as security) (750)

By Jacquelyn S. Porth

USIA Security Affairs Correspondent

WASHINGTON -- The chairman of President Clinton's Foreign Intelligence

Advisory Board says the U.S. military will increasingly be called on to

conduct "peacekeeping and peacemaking" operations and to carry out other

less traditional military roles in the post-Cold War world.

1es Aspin, former secretary of defense and chairman of the House Armed

Services Committee, said U.S. military assets have been traditionally used

to protect American security and interests.  But, he told participants in a

recent conference sponsored by the U.S. Institute of Peace, there is a

diminished threat to security "now that the Soviet Union has disappeared."

This reduced threat does not mean that the United States will not be

concerned with other challenges such as dealing with terrorists, weapons

proliferators and drug traffickers, but he predicts that the armed forces

will become involved increasingly in the protection of "American values."

The "new world" wants to see high-profile leadership from the United States,

according to Aspin, and often America is the only country with a military

"capable of doing what is necessary" because it is the only one with

sufficient logistics, technology and training.  "So the world, much more

... would rather like the United States military to get involved," he said.

The former defense secretary suggested in remarks to the conference that

after an extended foreign policy debate in the United States a consensus

may emerge favoring U.S. intervention to prevent famine, ethnic cleansing

or the fall of democratically elected governments, lest they be replaced by


"Using U.S. military assets to protect American values," he stressed, "is a

different ball game from using them to protect security and ... (national)

interests."  Most of the problems occurring in the world today, he said,

involve "moral" or "values cases," and intervening in such cases may result

in the United States getting involved "in the internal fights within a

country as opposed to dealing with the aggression" of one country against


He described this new world as a much more complicated one.  Preparing

military intelligence for values cases is especially challenging, according

to Aspin.

Intelligence collection is set according to priorities, with security and

national interest being high on the list, he said, but intelligence

officers "don't know where (in the world) a values case is going to crop

up."  Rwanda, for example, Aspin said, keeps bouncing up and down on the

intelligence priority list depending on changing circumstances there.

"The values agenda" is frequently driven by the spotlight of major news

media such as CNN, Aspin noted.  He also warned that the general public can

change its mind often and quickly when reacting to values cases.  The

public may accept loss of life if U.S. soldiers are deployed for

interventions associated with defending U.S. security or interests, he

suggested, but may not if they are thought to be dying exclusively for

American values.

The U.S. military is concerned about the signals sent to hostile forces when

American forces are deployed and then quickly withdrawn when public opinion

turns negative as it did in Somalia.  The military, Aspin said, worries

about the possibility of decisions regarding deployments being manipulated

through the media.

The U.S. military, Aspin noted, "is not anxious" to be involved in any

operations which are not tied to U.S. security and interests and are

"generally uncomfortable" supporting missions tied to protecting American

values, largely because it impinges on military readiness and is considered

closer to "police work" than soldiering.

He suggested that the United States may want to explore the idea of

developing a "Foreign Legion" concept whereby U.S. military units would be

devoted to traditional duties while other units would be tasked with

international policing functions.  Alternatively, Aspin suggested the

possibility of using reserve forces for peacekeeping functions abroad where

1anger is highly unlikely.

He also suggested consideration be given to sharing the workload on values

cases with other nations so that the U.S. military would be responsible for

the tasks it does best, such as intelligence, logistics and communications,

while leaving other aspects of the mission, including manpower, to the

militaries of other nations.  A United Nations international police force

concept could be creatively employed, he said, although he had no

recommendations on who would pay for it.