ACCESSION NUMBER:370066 FILE ID:LEF103 DATE:12/05/94 TITLE:ASPIN SEES MORE NON-TRADITIONAL FUNCTIONS FOR U.S. MILITARY (12/05/94) TEXT:*LEF103 12/05/94 ASPIN SEES MORE NON-TRADITIONAL FUNCTIONS FOR U.S. MILITARY 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 dictatorships. "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 another. 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. NNNN .