The notion of creating U.S. military units permanently assigned to peacekeeping was widely discussed at the Pentagon during the Clinton administration, when U.S. forces found themselves increasingly involved in nonmilitary missions in such places as Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo.
Upon taking office, President Bush promised to pull U.S. peacekeepers out of the Balkans and to launch an immediate review of troop commitments in dozens of countries, with an eye to strictly limiting overseas deployments.
But since the Sept. 11 attacks, peacekeeping has come to be viewed by Republicans as more relevant to national security. Indeed, as regards the number of soldiers engaged in peacekeeping, it is the fastest-growing mission of the U.S. military.
"We could take or leave peacekeeping operations in the 1990s — we left Haiti, we left Somalia. The sense was that it might be regrettable in terms of local conditions but not seen as a security threat to the U.S.," said Andrew Krepinevich Jr., executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan defense think tank.
"Now failed states are seen as potential breeding grounds for terrorists, and even though we have sizable forces already engaged in peacekeeping operations, there may be more to come."
Defense officials say Rumsfeld's proposal is consistent with the aim of limiting U.S. overseas deployments.
Though it would professionalize a small number of American troops in peacekeeping, it would aim to enlist other countries to contribute the vast majority of troops to such a force, with the promise that they would be trained and organized by the U.S.
The U.S. has about 5,500 peacekeeping troops in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Croatia and the Sinai peninsula, in addition to the 150,000-plus presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. None of the troops are peacekeepers by vocation, and not all receive such training before deploying.
Still, as envisioned, creating a standing international peacekeeping force that is U.S.-led or -trained would allow the Pentagon to exert considerably more control over peacekeeping than in the past.
The U.N. has historically organized such missions. Though the U.S. foots 27% of the bill for U.N. peacekeeping, it doesn't control the missions. It hasn't provided significant forces since the 1993 mission in Somalia.
After the months of bitter division over how to confront Iraq, many U.N. Security Council members aren't inclined to help the United States keep the peace in that country, a U.N. official said. Nor is Washington inclined to ask after having failed to win U.N. backing for its plans — along with Britain and other members of a coalition — to invade Iraq.
"No one is talking about U.N. peacekeepers" for Iraq, said a U.S. diplomat.
At the Pentagon, defense officials said that although Rumsfeld has broached his idea in meetings recently with senior Army officials, he has not ordered a formal study or set a timetable for implementation.
But "it's really a timely problem and, moving forward, it's really important to ask, 'Is there a different way to configure this?' " one official said. "Everybody sort of thinks there is."
Army leaders historically have been skeptical of turning any of their professional fighters into professional peacekeepers, and have publicly opposed such plans.
In recent years, the U.S. role in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Croatia has become primarily the province of the National Guard and the reserves.
"In their heart of hearts, they feel very strongly that they don't want to be peacekeepers, and who can blame them, because war fighting is what they do, and we need to be very careful before we have them not doing that," said Nash, the retired general.
"Armies see themselves when they get up in the morning as war fighters. When you get the Army doing lots of other things, you have a bad army."
Said a current Army official: "Is there any unit of the U.S. Army that wants to be 'Peacekeepers-R-Us?' Not exactly."