A comparative study of Civil-Military Operations perspectives as they apply to peace support operations

• Main Author: Haynes, John T.
• Other Authors: D.P. Eyre
• Language: en_US
• Published: Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School 2013
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10945/31986

The post-Cold War world has been marked by the United Nations approval and participation in the intervention into the affairs of sovereign states, often labeling them Peace Support Operations. American interventions have been studied in terms of chain of command, firepower and rules of engagement problems, but Civil-Military Operations have not been analyzed in a comparative fashion. Given that future interventions are likely to occur, it is the responsibility of policy analysts and leaders to consider both the costs and benefits of democratic enlargement and the applicability of current doctrine. To do this, tools are needed. This study provides three such tools. First, case studies on the US interventions in Somalia and Haiti provide a view of some of the questions and problems involved with intervening in the affairs of states for humanitarian or democratic enlargement reasons. Second, the study pits contending theories against each other to see if one better explains the outcomes.