Stability and Support Operations: History and Debates

Abstract

S. military doctrine has recently elevated stability and support operations (SASO) to be a mission on par with the traditional combat missions, offense and defense. The new doctrinal approach to SASO represents a revolutionary change in the military's raison d'être; now the armed forces' job is not only to win battles, but to create space for political negotiations and accords through the provision of controlled, nonviolent environments and other forms of military assistance to civilians. This article puts this change into context, looking at the American military's history of SASO and the longstanding debates about the military's priorities and roles.On 28 November 2005, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) released Directive Number 3000.05 1 requiring stability operations to be treated on par with offense and defense in every aspect of military preparation. In its directive, the Pentagon offered only a very general characterization of stability operations: "Military and civilian activities conducted across the spectrum from peace to conflict to establish or maintain order in States and regions." Notably, the mission includes civilians. It involves the establishment and maintenance of order. And it applies equally in peacetime and in conflict. These aspects of stability operations differentiate them from the armed forces' traditional offensive and defensive missions and represent a dramatic change in the military's perception of its role and responsibilities. Indeed, over the past five years, both DoD's civilian leadership and military officers appear to have embraced stability and support operations (SASO) in doctrine and nascent changes to training, force structure, and equipping. Military leaders now are calling for U.S. forces to be prepared for "full-spectrum operations" entailing "the application of combat power through simultaneous and continuous combinations of four elements: offense, defense, stability, and civil support." 2 Elevating SASO to a core mission alongside offense and defense is a radical change that represents a new raison d'être for the U.S. military. It is the armed forces' most fundamental adjustment since the establishment of the Department of Defense in 1947, arguably more foundational than the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols reorganization. 3 Military leaders themselves are touting this as a revolution. And, despite being so recent, the change is whole-hearted, with a fully developed legitimizing logic that goes something like this: the military has a conventional capabilities surplus but a deficit for conducting the kinds

Pray for Peace. Prepare for War...and Stability Operations

“…10 However, "stability operations", as described above, represents a substantial departure from previous definitions and will require changes in military thinking that have been lauded as the "most fundamental adjustment since the establishment of the Department of Defense in 1947" and "more foundational" than the Goldwater-Nichols Act.…”

“…Operations Other Than War. 12 Instead, they are now considered part of the "larger strategic objective"; no longer "distractions from war, they are now considered part of war itself." 13 The policy directives which drove this fundamental change and informed the resulting doctrinal revisions, emerged primarily as the U.S. prepared to invade Iraq in 2003 and evolved over time, as did the struggle to stabilize that country.…”

International mediation and the prevention of mass atrocities: evaluating African Union mediation in atrocity crime settings

“…The term 'stabilize' or stabilization can be used in a broad sense to include governance reforms (seeIfediora, 2016;Muggah, 2013;Taw, 2010).…”