www.usip.org

1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

Special Report 191 August 2007

United States Institute of Peace

Special Report

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions .

Contents 

Introduction 2

Controlling Civil Disorder 2

 Breakdowns in Public Order 3 

Conclusion 11

Recommendation 11

About the Report

This report explains why the United States should carry 

through current plans to create a federal-level police reserve for 

international peace and stability operations. The report is part 

of an effort by the United States Institute of Peace to examine 

the use of civilian police in peace and stability operations. It 

should be read in connection with earlier USIP reports on this 

subject. 

 Robert M. Perito is a senior program officer at the United 

States Institute of Peace. He joined the Institute after a 

distinguished career in the U.S. Foreign Service. He was 

deputy executive secretary of the National Security Council in 

the White House, an American Political Science Association 

congressional fellow, and deputy director of the Justice 

Department’s International Criminal Investigative Training 

Assistance Program.

Robert M. Perito

U.S. Police in Peace and 

Stability Operations

Summary

•	 The first obligation of an international intervention force in a peace or stability 

operation is to provide security for the civilian population. Inevitably the arrival of 

foreign military forces is followed by a breakdown of public order. 

•	 Historically U.S. military forces have been unable or unwilling to perform police functions to control large-scale civil unrest. This was true in Iraq, where looters destroyed 

government buildings, cultural centers, and commercial areas. 

•	 The United States lacks civilian constabulary (gendarmes) or other national police 

forces specially trained for crowd and riot control. Instead the U.S. relies on civil 

police provided by commercial contractors that do not perform this function. 

•	 Fortunately the U.S. government is taking steps to address this deficiency. Current 

State Department plans call for creation of a Civilian Reserve Corps that would have 

a police component. 

•	 There is no agreement on the ultimate size and character of this police capacity. 

However, the history of U.S. interventions from Panama to Iraq argues for a robust 

capability. 

•	 A review of U.S. interventions in post-conflict environments demonstrates that the 

United States has repeatedly needed highly capable police forces but has lacked the 

capacity to respond effectively. The case studies in this report provide lessons applicable to future operations. 

•	 The State Department’s current efforts are a useful first step that will give an opportunity to create the basic infrastructure for expansion of U.S. capabilities in peace 

and stability operations. 
Introduction 

When the U.S. Army’s Third Infantry Division reached the center of Baghdad on April 9, 

2003, Iraqi security officers, intelligence personnel, and Baath Party operatives went into 

hiding, while Iraqi police officers and members of the regular army took their weapons 

and went home. Jubilant crowds poured into the streets and began looting Baghdad’s 

commercial district, ransacking government buildings, and pillaging residences of regime 

officials. Organized criminal groups worked their way through government ministries, 

removing the contents, tearing out the plumbing and wiring, and setting the buildings on 

fire. The small number of U.S. troops in Baghdad had no orders or nonlethal capability to 

interfere. So U.S. military commanders watched the looting but had neither the requisite 

number nor type of forces that would have enabled them to intervene successfully. In the 

words of the one American general, “I do not shoot people for stealing television sets 

and mattresses.” 

The first obligation of an international intervention force in a peace or stability operation is to provide security for the civilian population. Inevitably the arrival of foreign 

military forces is followed by a breakdown of public order; looting of stores, public agencies, and cultural facilities; and the destruction of critical infrastructure. Military forces 

are normally unwilling or untrained and ill equipped to deal with civilian-led violence, 

particularly when armed conflict continues with armies or paramilitary forces. This is especially true of U.S. military forces, which have sought historically to avoid responsibility 

for preserving public order. 

In such circumstances the intervention force would be well served by the inclusion of 

civilian police, which by their very nature are trained and equipped to deal with civilian 

disorder. National police forces, including both stability police units (gendarmes) and 

civil police, exist in most European countries. For the United States, however, policing is 

a responsibility of state and local authorities. The United States has no national police 

force, nor do state or local authorities maintain stability police units (constabulary). As 

a result, the U.S. has been unprepared to deal with the initial consequences of foreign 

interventions. This was most painfully evident in Iraq. 

Controlling Civil Disorder 

Fortunately the United States is now moving to create the capacity to put the hard lessons 

learned in Baghdad into practice. On November 28, 2005, the fundamental importance of 

U.S. military participation in peace and stability operations was acknowledged with the 

issuance of Defense Department Directive 3000.05, “Military Support of Stability, Security, 

Transition, and Reconstruction.” The directive identified peace and stability operations 

as a core mission of the U.S. military, of equal importance with the conduct of combat 

operations. The directive noted that proper planning and execution of the post-combat 

phase of operations is essential to achieve victory and the rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces. 

It instructed the U.S. military to develop new skills in rebuilding indigenous institutions, 

including local police, correctional facilities, and judicial systems. It also instructed the 

military to work closely with civilian government agencies to rebuild indigenous institutions and restore war-ravaged societies. The directive urged creation of new training programs that would equip military personnel to perform essential functions such as policing 

until these could be transferred to civilian authorities. 

On December 7, 2005, President Bush signed a companion National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD-44), which assigned responsibility to the secretary of state for 

planning and coordinating the activities of U.S. government civilian agencies during 

post-conflict interventions. The State Department assigned the Office of the Coordinator 

for Reconstruction and Stability Operations (CRS) to create a Civilian Reserve Corps (CRC) 

of police, constabulary, and rule-of-law experts to assist the U.S. military in peace and 

About the Institute

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, 

non-partisan institution established and funded by 

Congress. Its goals are to help prevent and resolve 

violent conflicts, promote post-conflict peacebuilding, 

and increase conflict-management tools, capacity, and 

intellectual capital worldwide. The Institute does this by 

empowering others with knowledge, skills, and resources, 

as well as by its direct involvement in conflict zones 

around the globe.

Board of Directors

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy, 

Washington, D.C. • María Otero (Vice Chair), President, 

ACCION International, Boston, Mass. • Betty F. Bumpers, 

Founder and former President, Peace Links, Washington, 

D.C. • Holly J. Burkhalter, Vice President, Government 

Relations, International Justice Mission, Washington, D.C. 

• Chester A. Crocker, James R. Schlesinger Professor of 

Strategic Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown 

University, Washington, D.C. • Laurie S. Fulton, Partner, 

Williams and Connolly, Washington, D.C. • Charles 

Horner, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Washington, D.C. 

• Mora L. McLean, President, Africa-America Institute, 

New York, N.Y. • Barbara W. Snelling, former State 

Senator and former Lieutenant Governor, Shelburne, Vt. 

Members ex officio

Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense • Barry Lowenkron, 

Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, 

and Labor • Richard H. Solomon, President, United States 

Institute of Peace (nonvoting) • Frances C. Wilson,

 Lieutenant General, U.S. Marine Corps; President, National 

Defense University. 
stability operations, among other duties. The directive sought to provide U.S. forces with 

the capacity to close the security gap that had appeared in previous peace and stability 

operations by deploying properly trained and equipped federal police and constabulary 

alongside U.S. military forces to deal with civil unrest. 

In the past year the CRS has developed a plan to provide the United States with a 

limited capacity to deploy police and other critical civilian elements relatively quickly at 

the outset of a peace or stability operation. These elements could be deployed unilaterally 

or as part of a multinational or United Nations force. The plan calls for the creation of 

a three-tiered capacity that could be activated and deployed in stages. Police and other 

rule-of-law components would comprise the largest number of participants in all three 

stages. The first tier, or Active Reserve Corps (ARC), would be composed of 100 to 150 

serving government personnel with diplomatic, police, justice, and other critical skills who 

would deploy on 24-hour notice from their regular jobs with relevant government agencies. These first responders would be assigned to military commands or U.S. embassies to 

provide special expertise and engage in the assessment and planning of future missions. 

The second tier, or Standby Reserve Corps (SRC), would be composed of more than 

1,000 newly hired government personnel who would be trained, equipped, and deployable 

within sixty days of assignment. These individuals would augment the ARC by providing 

additional expertise and manpower for mobile headquarters or regional teams. The ARC 

and the SRC could be activated by the State Department. 

The third tier, or Civil Response Corps (CRC), would be composed of personnel from 

state and local government or the private sector who would sign contracts with the 

federal government; when activated for international service, they would become federal 

employees. Of the initial 500 participants in the CRC, at least 350 would be involved with 

rule of law, and 120 would be police. Activation of the CRC would require a presidential 

decision. 

To finance this plan, including the recruitment of the first 500 members of the CRC, 

Congress has appropriated $50 million in the Iraq supplemental funding bill, which the 

president signed on May 25, 2007. The State Department must take this money from the 

total of $750 million it was given for Iraq. The funds will not be available, however, unless 

Congress also passes a companion piece of authorizing legislation, the Civilian Management Reconstruction and Stabilization Act, sponsored by Senators Lugar and Biden. 

Expectations are that Congress will eventually adopt this legislation. Creation of the CRC 

should begin by the end of 2007. Over time the CRC, including the police component, is 

expected to grow to about 4,000 personnel. 

The State Department has commissioned a series of studies on the possible organization of the CRC. There is general recognition that creating the police component will present the greatest challenge, especially if it includes a stability police unit (SPU). Perhaps 

because of the perceived difficulty of the task, there is no agreement within the U.S. 

government on the location, recruitment, and training of the police component; whether 

police will conduct operations or serve as advisers; and if they will be armed. Each of 

these issues will require interagency agreement and probably will generate bureaucratic 

controversy. Some agencies would like to limit the size of the police force and its mission, 

while others believe that the police component is critical and should have considerable 

capability, including an SPU equipped with heavy weapons and armored vehicles. 

Breakdowns in Public Order 

A review of the history of U.S. involvement in peace and stability operations strongly 

argues for creating the strongest police capacity possible, including stability police units. 

In the following cases of peace and stability operations, U.S. military forces failed to 

contain the initial breakdown of public order. This created a climate of impunity that 

imperiled and prolonged the operation. In the case of Iraq, failure to restore order rapidly 

had consequences that were particularly severe. 

The CRS has developed a plan to 

provide the United States with a 

limited capacity to deploy police 

and other critical civilian elements 

relatively quickly at the outset of 

a peace and stability operation.

There is no agreement within the 

U.S. government on the location, 

recruitment, and training of the 

police component.
Case 1: Panama

The U.S. handling of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 was remarkably similar to the manner in which the U.S. dealt with Operation Just Cause, the U.S. intervention in Panama in 

1989. In Operation Just Cause, the United States acted unilaterally to remove a perceived 

threat to its national security by deposing a brutal dictator, General Manuel Noriega. Following a quick U.S. military victory, massive looting occurred in Panama City. U.S. troops 

stood by as government buildings and the city’s commercial districts were ransacked. U.S. 

military forces had no orders to intervene and were unprepared to deal with large-scale 

civil disorder. 

The U.S. plan for post-conflict “restoration” assumed Panamanians would welcome 

the intervention and the Panamanian police would maintain public order. U.S. forces had 

routed the Panamanian Defense Force (PDF), the country’s only security service, and its 

surviving personnel were in hiding. After five days of rioting, additional U.S. troops and 

military police were deployed to restore order. Subsequently, in combating a stubborn, 

low-level insurgency led by paramilitary “dignity battalions,” the United States suffered 

more casualties than it had during the major combat phase of the operation.

Fearing that disbanding the PDF would fuel the resistance, the Panamanian government opted to use vetted PDF personnel to form a new organization, the Panamanian 

National Police (PNP). Responsibility for training was assigned to the U.S. military, but 

this effort ran afoul of U.S. law. After termination of the military phase of operations, 

Congress adopted the Urgent Assistance to Democracy in Panama Act, which reaffirmed 

the legal prohibition in Section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act against the U.S. military 

training foreign police in peacetime. Responsibility for police training was reassigned 

to the Department of Justice’s International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance 

Program (ICITAP). Over the next two years, ICITAP created a police academy and trained 

the new Panamanian police. During this period U.S. military police continued joint patrols 

with the fledging PNP under the guise of “liaison and operational activity,” not training. 

These joint patrols provided essential security and gave the PNP on-the-job-training in 

police operations. 

Case 2: Somalia

On December 3, 1992, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 794, authorizing a 

humanitarian relief mission to Somalia. The core of Operation Restore Hope was a U.S.-

led United Task Force (UNITAF) consisting of 38,000 troops (including 28,000 Americans) 

from more than twenty countries. UNITAF did not include a police mission, but it did 

become deeply involved in creating an indigenous police force, using former members of 

the Somalia National Police (SNP). Before the civil war the SNP had 15,000 officers and a 

well-earned reputation for professionalism, fairness, and clan neutrality. During the conflict, the SNP ceased to exist, but its members avoided taking sides. As UNITAF deployed, 

former members of the SNP reappeared in their tattered uniforms and voluntarily assisted 

UNITAF troops with traffic control and other police functions. When U.S. Marines began 

suffering casualties patrolling the streets of Mogadishu, the U.S. special envoy, Ambassador Robert Oakley, decided that establishing a Somali police force would improve security 

in Mogadishu and eliminate the need for UNITAF to perform police functions. 

In response to Oakley’s recommendation, the U.S. Defense Department authorized 

UNITAF to help organize an Auxiliary Security Force (ASF) composed of former members 

of the SNP. The UNITAF provost marshal and twenty-two U.S. military police provided 

assistance but were not allowed by U.S. law to provide training. UNITAF also wrote an 

ASF handbook with administrative and operational guidelines. The police were assigned 

to traffic control, crowd control, neighborhood patrol, security of food distribution sites, 

and security of airfields and seaports. Police were unarmed but were provided weapons by 

UNITAF to protect police stations and for use in joint patrols with UNITAF military forces. 

The ASF performed missions that might have resulted in casualties to the intervention 

U.S. troops stood by as government 

buildings and the city’s commercial 

districts were ransacked.

Former members of the SNP reappeared in their tattered uniforms 

and voluntarily assisted UNITAF 

troops with traffic control and 

other police functions.
force. Unfortunately, the ASF failed to survive UNITAF’s departure and termination of its 

support. 

With relief supplies flowing, famine on the wane, and the country at relative peace, 

UNITAF withdrew, transferring operations to a significantly less capable UN mission, 

UNOSOM II. Troop strength decreased to 28,000 peacekeepers; only 4,000 U.S. troops 

remained. The UN Security Council, however, broadened the UNOSOM II mandate to 

include reestablishing a national government, advancing political reconciliation, disarming Somali factions, and holding accountable Somalis who breached international law. 

With the U.S. Marines gone, the Somali warlord, General Mohammed Farah Hassan Aideed, 

ambushed a UN patrol, killing 24 Pakistani peacekeepers. The Security Council condemned 

the attack, and the head of the UN mission in Somalia issued an arrest warrant for 

Aideed. 

On October 3, 1993, U.S. Army Rangers executed a raid to capture Aideed’s supporters. 

Two Blackhawk helicopters were shot down, eighteen Army Rangers were killed, eightyfour other US soldiers were wounded, and a U.S. helicopter pilot was captured. Americans 

were stunned by TV images of Somalis dragging the bodies of American soldiers through 

the streets. In response to a public outcry, President Clinton announced on October 7, 

1993, that U.S. military forces would withdraw from Somalia by March 31, 1994. The 

president said the United States would help the UN create a Somali police force to replace 

U.S. troops and provide security.

Following the President’s announcement the State and Justice Departments began 

work on a U.S. police assistance program to help the UN create the new SNP. It took six 

months for the State Department to obtain funding from Congress and the presidential 

waiver required by Section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act. ICITAP trainers arrived 

in March 1994, by which time U.S. troops were already departing. ICITAP established a 

police academy in the UN compound in Mogadishu and training centers at Baidoa and 

Calcaio and started rebuilding police stations with the help of the UN military. ICITAP 

began training Somali police officers, utilizing members of the UN mission’s 54-member 

police contingent as instructors. The Defense Department contributed 353 vehicles, 5,000 

M-16 rifles, 5,000 pistols, uniforms, and equipment. There was also U.S. money for police 

salaries. 

It was too little too late. The U.S. effort to train and equip the new SNP was lost to 

the inability of Somalia’s warring factions to form a government and increasing violence 

in Mogadishu. When UN convoys were attacked exiting the gates of the UN compound 

and ICITAP instructors began wearing flak jackets and helmets in the classroom, it was 

clear the police-training program could not exist in a war zone. The U.S. police assistance 

program was withdrawn in June 1994. The UN police mission remained until March 1995, 

when the Security Council terminated UNOSOM II’s mandate. 

Case 3: Haiti

Planning for the U.S.-led intervention in Haiti was influenced by the perceived failure of 

the UN peace operation in Somalia. The Defense Department was determined to prevent 

the type of “mission creep” that had occurred in Somalia and to have an “exit strategy” in 

place that would permit an early U.S. withdrawal. It made clear that U.S. military forces 

would not perform police functions and an effective indigenous security force must be 

created to maintain public order. The goal was to recruit and train a Haitian police force 

that could provide internal security and permit the departure of U.S. forces. 

The problem was that Haiti did not have civilian police. Haiti’s only security force 

was the Forces Armées d’Haiti (FAd’H), which performed military and police duties. In a 

September 1991 coup the FAd’H had overthrown Haiti’s first democratically elected president, Jean Bertrand Aristide, and established a military dictatorship. The FAd’H was an 

untrained and ill-equipped force of 7,000 men supported by uncounted numbers of thugs 

called Attachés. During planning for the Haiti intervention, it seemed likely the FAd’H 

The goal was to recruit and train 

a Haitian police force that could 

provide internal security and permit the departure of U.S. forces.

It was clear the police-training 

program could not exist in a 

war zone. 

Americans were stunned by TV 

images of Somalis dragging 

the bodies of American soldiers 

through the streets.
would resist and be destroyed. The problem was how to use some of its surviving members 

as an interim security force while a new civilian police force was trained. 

The U.S. solution was to create a force of 920 International Police Monitors (IPM) 

provided by twenty-six countries in Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America. Under 

the 1993 Governor’s Island Accord signed by Haitian strongman General Raul Cedras and 

President Aristide, IPMs (and, later, UN police) were authorized to carry sidearms, had 

arrest powers, and could use deadly force in self-defense or to prevent Haitian-on-Haitian 

violence. The American IPM commissioner reported directly to the American commander 

of the Multinational Force (MNF). IPM national contingents were assigned as units to geographic sectors or specific functional responsibilities. IPMs were located in Haitian police 

stations along with U.S. Military Police. IPMs provided internal security and supervised 

the Haitian Interim Public Security Force (IPSF) composed of 3,000 vetted and retrained 

members of the FAd’H. Patrols were conducted by “Four Men in a Jeep,” an approach that 

brought together a MNF vehicle with a Military Police driver, an IPM officer, an IPSF officer, 

and an interpreter. All police elements were present with full police powers. 

Following the MNF’s arrival, the Justice Department, with assistance from France and 

Canada, established Haiti’s first National Police Academy and trained Haiti’s first civilian 

police force. At its peak, the Haiti police training effort employed more than 300 trainers 

and interpreters with 3,000 cadets in training. When the Haitian government increased 

the number of HNP required from 3,500 to 5,000, a second campus opened at Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. By February 1996 some 5,243 Haitian police officers had completed training. As recruits graduated from the academy, they were placed under the 

supervision of IPM monitors who acted as field training officers, and an equal number 

of IPSF officers were demobilized. On March 31, 1995, the UN Mission in Haiti (UNMIH) 

replaced the MNF. The IPM was replaced by a force of 870 UN police who were armed and 

had executive authority. Their mandate was to provide training and monitor the HNP and 

to assist in establishing a secure and stable environment. 

Haiti marked the first time the United States provided a contingent for both a coalition 

and a UN police force. This effort exposed the problems created by the extremely decentralized U.S. system of some 18,000 state, county, and municipal police departments. 

Without a national police force to provide policy guidance and personnel, the responsibility of providing American police was assigned to the State Department, which outsourced 

the program by using a commercial contractor to recruit, train, uniform, and equip a U.S. 

police contingent. The United States became the only country to use commercial contractors, as opposed to police in national service, for UN and other international missions. 

That these officers wore U.S. government uniforms and carried U.S. government-provided 

weapons only added to the anomaly. 

The contractor recruited mostly retired police officers from a wide variety of state and 

local agencies that were not always prepared for the challenges of international service. 

Since these police officers were legally independent subcontractors of a commercial firm, 

the State Department’s ability to exercise close supervision was limited. American police 

serving abroad were beyond the reach of U.S. law (except in cases involving trafficking 

in women), so punishment for cases of gross misconduct was limited to repatriation. Currently, the U.S. uses civilian police recruited by commercial contractors as police advisors 

in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Case 4: Bosnia

After three weeks of U.S.-led negotiations at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, 

Ohio, the Bosnian war ended on November 21, 1995, with the initialing of the General 

Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Issues relating to the role of 

police were contained in Annex 11, entitiled “International Police Task Force.” The Dayton 

Accords provided that the Bosnian entities would be responsible for creating a safe and 

secure environment by maintaining civilian law-enforcement agencies that would respect 

The Justice Department 

established Haiti’s first National 

Police Academy and trained 

Haiti’s first civilian police force.

The United States became the 

only country to use commercial 

contractors, as opposed to police 

in national service, for UN and 

other international missions.
human rights and fundamental freedoms. The parties to the agreement requested that the 

UN Security Council establish a UN International Police Task Force (IPTF) to assist Bosnian 

law enforcement agencies. 

The mandate and organization of the IPTF resulted from a compromise between American and European diplomats and was not the product of negotiations with the parties to 

the conflict. It was also not the work of police experts, as no police officers or law enforcement specialists were at Dayton. The most important negotiations concerning creation of 

the IPTF took place in Washington the weekend before the negotiators left for Ohio. 

In a Saturday meeting at the State Department, representatives of the Contact Group 

(U.K., France, Russia, Germany, and the United States) met to work out differences on 

military issues, constitutional questions, and the nature of the international police force. 

The United States urged the creation of a highly capable police force, including a rapid 

reaction unit of Western European civilian police and gendarmes, with some participation 

by the United States and Canada. The entire force would be well trained, fully equipped, 

highly mobile, armed, and authorized to make arrests and use deadly force. The Rapid 

Reaction Unit would have helicopters and armored fighting vehicles. There would be no 

UN participation. The force would be recruited, equipped, and funded by the European 

countries that contributed members. The United States had primary responsibility for the 

NATO-led military force, IFOR; policing would be left to the allies. 

European members strongly opposed the type of police force advocated by the United 

States and made clear they would accept nothing more than unarmed UN police monitors. 

The European preference for a weak IPTF was shared by the Defense Department, which 

also opposed creating an empowered international police force. Fearing a repeat of the 

“Black Hawk Down” episode in Somalia, the U.S. military argued that an armed IPTF with 

an aggressive mandate might get into trouble and have to be rescued. In the closing days 

of the Dayton talks, U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke made a final effort to create an 

effective police force with full executive authority by having Washington pay the cost of 

organizing and arming a strong IPTF. Unfortunately Holbrooke’s appeal came at time when 

the Clinton Administration was locked in a budget fight with Congress that eventually led 

to a temporary shutdown of the U.S. government. When told there was no hope of obtaining funding, Holbrooke relented. The IPTF was given a weak mandate and assigned to the 

United Nations. 

Under the Dayton Agreement and subsequent UN Security Council resolutions, the 

unarmed IPTF had no authority to enforce the law, conduct investigations, or make arrests. 

Its mandate was limited to monitoring, mentoring, and training the Bosnian police. If the 

IPTF’s advice was ignored, its only recourse was to notify the high representative, who 

could take the complaint to the Bosnian government. The drafters at Dayton failed to 

understand that after years of bitter war, Bosnian police forces were ethnically biased and 

more likely to abuse than to protect minorities. IFOR could provide a security presence and 

deter general lawlessness, but it did not wish, nor was it trained or equipped, to perform 

police functions. Unarmed and essentially powerless, the IPTF could operate only with 

the consent, cooperation, and protection of the same Bosnian police it was supposed to 

monitor. 

On December 21, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1035, which created the 

United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMBIH) and established the IPTF 

with an authorized strength of 1,721 international police monitors. Several hundred of 

them were Americans provided by a commercial contractor. Some forty-three countries 

provided personnel, but the IPTF was extremely slow to deploy and only a few hundred 

police were present when the IPTF faced its first test in February, 1996.

Under Dayton, the Sarajevo suburbs, located on high ground surrounding the city, were 

transferred from Serb military to Federation control to make the city less vulnerable to 

attacks by artillery if the war should resume. Some 100,000 ethnic Serbs inhabited these 

areas; many were longtime residents. As the deadline for the transfer approached, hardline Serb leaders ordered Serb residents to evacuate and destroy everything they could not 

European members strongly 

opposed the type of police force 

advocated by the United States.

The unarmed IPTF had no authority to enforce the law, conduct 

investigations, or make arrests.

Hard-line Serb leaders ordered 

Serb residents to evacuate and 

destroy everything they could 

not carry.
carry. They told departing Serbs to loot, burn, booby-trap, and destroy buildings so that 

incoming Federation authorities would find a wasteland.

The Office of the High Representative (OHR) allowed Serb police to remain in the 

municipalities on the assumption they would protect Serb residents. Instead Serb police 

and groups of young Serb thugs engaged in “ethnic self-cleansing,” forcing as many as 

30,000 Serb residents who might have stayed to withdraw. From late February to midMarch all Serb residents were either evacuated or forced to leave for the Republika Srpska 

(RS), taking the wiring, windows, and pipes from their apartments and destroying or 

booby-trapping what could not be removed. Some families exhumed the bodies of their 

relatives and carried them to the RS. Television pictures of burning buildings and fleeing 

refugees showed the world an image of general lawlessness that the international intervention force was unable to control.

During the forced evacuation IFOR, which was present in force, did nothing to intervene. Its troops stood by and watched, refusing requests from Bosnians for protection. 

An IFOR spokesman stated that although the burning of buildings was “unfortunate,” 

the Serbs had the right to burn their own houses. IFOR had the capacity to prevent the 

destruction of property and the violent expulsion of thousands of residents but refused 

because the IFOR commander, U.S. Admiral Leighton Smith, considered police functions 

outside his mandate. An IFOR spokesman put it bluntly: “IFOR is not a police force and will 

not undertake police functions.” Failure to prevent violence was a defining moment for the 

international presence, setting a negative tone for the initial phase of peace operation. 

In Bosnia the United States launched a comprehensive assistance effort to rebuild the 

local police. This program was conducted by ICITAP, which trained and equipped local 

police directly or provided curriculum and equipment to the IPTF, which trained the Bosnians. The aim of the police assistance program was to create a community-oriented police 

force that abided by democratic standards and observed and protected human rights. Over 

time this U.S.-led effort created police organizations in Bosnia that effectively controlled 

street crime. The police program was not matched, however, by an equal effort to reconstitute the other parts of the judicial system, courts, and prisons. As a result the police 

were unable to deal with organized crime, which turned Bosnia into a criminalized state 

over time. 

On August 28, 1997, an incident occurred in the border town of Brcko that had a major 

impact on the force structure of future UN police missions. At dawn a highly organized, 

ethnic-Serb “rent-a-mob” hired by hard-line Serb leaders attacked UN police and American 

soldiers guarding the town police station and a bridge that was part of the principal NATO 

supply route from Germany. Armed with sticks and rocks, the mob scattered the unarmed 

UN police officers and nearly overran the U.S. soldiers, who engaged in hand-to-hand 

fighting but refused to fire because the Serbs were unarmed. Sobered by the experience, 

the United States pressed its European allies to create a special military unit composed 

of gendarmes trained and equipped to handle riots and other forms of civil unrest. After 

a year of intense diplomatic activity the Multinational Specialized Unit (MSU), composed 

primarily of Italian Carabinieri, arrived in Bosnia. The first constabulary unit to serve in an 

international force, it was the forerunner of civilian “stability police units” whose members 

now comprise more than half the police serving in UN missions.

Case 5: Kosovo

Lessons learned from the IPTF’s failures in Bosnia were evident in the planning for the UN 

police force in Kosovo. In July 1999 the UN secretary general informed the Security Council 

that the UN police force would have 4,700 officers and be spearheaded by ten companies 

of stability police units. All UN police would be armed and have executive authority to 

conduct investigations and make arrests. UN police would also mentor a new Kosovo Police 

Service (KPS). As in Bosnia, however, the UN received little advance warning that it would 

be responsible for fielding an international police force, particularly one that would have 

to perform the entire range of police functions. Recruiting lagged; deployments took even 



Television pictures showed the world an 

image of general lawlessness that the 

international intervention force was 

unable to control.

The aim of the police assistance 

program was to create a communityoriented police force that abided by 

democratic standards and observed 

and protected human rights.
longer. Instead of serving as the leading edge of the force, the first stability police unit 

did not arrive until April 2000; the last in February 2002. 

In the vacuum of authority created by the slow pace of UN police deployment, ethnic 

violence and crime racked the province. Ethnic Albanians carried out a reprisal campaign 

of house burning, rape, and murder against ethnic Serbs and other minorities. Meanwhile 

Albanian organized crime engaged in drug trafficking and smuggling of vehicles, cigarettes, and contraband. U.S. and European military commanders chafed at the need for 

NATO military forces to perform police functions. General Henry Shelton, chair of the U.S. 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, complained to Congress that U.S. troops were forced to “engage in 

police-type actions—arresting law breakers and patrolling neighborhoods.”

As in Bosnia, the most important U.S. contribution was the training of the Kosovo 

Police Service (KPS), provided by a U.S.-led program sponsored by the Organization for 

Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Within weeks of the arrival of NATO forces, 

a new Kosovo Police School opened with a U.S. director and 200 international police 

instructors from twenty OSCE member states. The school utilized a curriculum developed 

by ICITAP but modified over time to suit local conditions. Once fully operational, the 

police school had more than 600 cadets enrolled in four-month training programs followed by field training supervised by the UN police officers. The Kosovo Police School met 

its initial goal of training 4,110 police officers in September 2001. 

It was not until the second year of the Kosovo mission that UN authorities had the 

requisite number of UN police and the judicial institutions in place to begin a crackdown 

on politically motivated violence and organized crime. With nearly 5,000 UN police and a 

sizable complement of KPS, the UN began arresting organized crime leaders and protecting minorities. The United States contributed significantly to this effort, providing some 

800 members of the UN police force, including most of the specialized units that dealt 

with intelligence and organized crime.

Case 6: Iraq

Before the Iraq intervention U.S. officials believed U.S. military forces would capture a 

fully functioning state with its institutions intact. They believed the Iraqis would welcome 

U.S. troops as liberators and join coalition forces in quickly neutralizing the Baath Party, 

Saddam’s security services, and other opponents of the new order. It was assumed that 

the Iraqi police would remain on duty, assume responsibility for security, and maintain 

public order.

Under Saddam Hussein the 60,000 members of the Iraqi police force were at the bottom 

of a multilayered security bureaucracy of military and civilian organizations that created 

a pervasive police state. The police force was composed of an academy-educated officer 

corps and a thuggish, uneducated, and largely untrained rank and file. Poorly equipped, 

badly led, and underpaid, the police were known for their brutality and petty corruption. 

Police did not patrol but remained in their stations until ordered to make arrests. The public viewed the police as the face of Saddam’s repressive regime. Despite the Iraqi police’s 

reputation as the country’s least effective security force, U.S. decision makers assumed 

that post-intervention public security could be left in their hands. Instead the Iraqi police 

and all government authority vanished when U.S. forces captured Baghdad. 

Prewar planning made no provision for an international police force such as those that 

had participated in operations in Haiti and the Balkans. The U.S. military failed to receive 

orders or special training to deal with widespread civil disorder. Finally, no American police 

were recruited for that purpose. During the looting, mobs destroyed police stations, stole 

police vehicles, and walked away with weapons and equipment. The breakdown in public 

order enabled organized criminal networks and the tens of thousands of criminals that 

Saddam had released before the war to exploit the chaos and prey on Iraqi citizens. 

In early April 2003, with looters on the streets and fires burning in government buildings, U.S. military authorities made a public appeal for Iraqi police to return to duty. On 

In the vacuum of authority 

created by the slow pace of 

UN police deployment, ethnic 

violence and crime racked the 

province. 

The police force was composed 

of an academy-educated officer 

corps and a thuggish, 

uneducated, and largely 

untrained rank and file.
10

April 14, 2003, joint patrols of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi police made their first tentative 

appearance on the streets of the capital. Initially Iraqi police were not permitted to carry 

weapons. The presence of police officers who had committed abuses under Saddam caused 

outrage among Iraqi citizens. Police who returned to duty lacked leadership, organization, and logistic support. In May 2003 a U.S. Justice Department police assessment 

team determined that the Iraqi police were incapable of restoring public order and would 

require substantial international assistance before they could assume responsibility for 

internal security. The team recommended the deployment of 6,600 international police, 

including a 2,500-member gendarme force, plus a comprehensive program to reorganize, 

retrain, and reequip the police.

At first senior U.S. officials in Washington considered these recommendations overly 

ambitious and unnecessary. Similarly, the Coalition Authority in Baghdad seemed little 

interested in combating the crime wave that affected nearly every Iraqi. Kidnapping, rape, 

carjacking, and murder terrorized families. Children were kept home from school. Men 

and women feared to go out to shop or travel to work. U.S. military authorities saw law 

enforcement as an Iraqi responsibility despite the inability of the Iraqis to conduct police 

operations. Only increasing insurgent attacks on U.S. forces compelled action. 

A training program for Iraqi police recruits opened in Amman, Jordan, in December 

2003 but did not reach capacity until late spring 2004. Of the recommended 6,600 

international police advisors, only fifty arrived during the first six months following the 

intervention. A year later only 375 had arrived. Vital equipment did not reach the Iraqi 

police until after March 2004, when President Bush signed a National Security Presidential 

Directive, which formally assigned responsibility for the “train and equip” police program 

to the Department of Defense.

The U.S. military’s takeover of indigenous police training was unprecedented. In all 

previous operations, responsibility for police training was assigned to the State and 

Justice Departments. In Iraq, however, it appeared that only the U.S. military had the 

resources required to expedite the police program. In March 2004 the Civilian Police Advisory Training Team (CPATT) was established under the Multi-National Security Transition 

Command (MNSTC-I). An army general with a civilian (Justice Department) deputy led 

CPATT, which included both military and civilian personnel. The problem was that the U.S. 

military and Justice Department police advisers had markedly different goals and no common understanding about the Iraqi police’s mission. As a result, there was a disconnect 

between the training provided to the new Iraqi Police Service (IPS) and its utilization in 

the field.

State Department policymakers and Justice Department police trainers were intent on 

creating a civilian, lightly armed IPS that utilized community policing techniques and 

operated in conformity with Western democratic standards for professional law enforcement. Justice Department police advisers argued that Iraq’s security problems were best 

resolved by relying on investigations and arrests to remove criminals and terrorists. Curriculum at the Justice Department-run police training facility established in Amman was 

based on the training program developed for the police in Kosovo. The Kosovo program 

had entailed four months’ of classroom instruction and twelve weeks of follow-on field 

training; the Iraq program was reduced to ten weeks of class work and no field training.

Moreover, the Iraq insurgency meant that the basic assumptions of the Kosovo-based 

training did not apply. Instead of operating in a benign environment that permitted 

community policing, Iraqi police played a counterinsurgency role, facing car bombs and 

gunmen with heavy weapons. The results were predictable and tragic. Thousands of police 

officers died in the line of duty. Hundreds of young men perished in bomb attacks on 

police recruiting centers. Only during 2006, with the addition of classes on officer protection and defensive tactics, did the emphasis for recruit training change to policing in a 

nonpermissive environment. 

For its part the U.S. military wanted to create an Iraqi police force that could deal with 

insurgents and hostile militias, ultimately permitting a U.S. withdrawal. To confront the 

The U.S. military ’s takeover of 

indigenous police training was 

unprecedented.

Only during 2006 did the 

emphasis for recruit training 

change to policing in a 

nonpermissive environment. 
11

growing insurgency, the U.S. military created “heavy police units” composed of former 

Iraqi soldiers. The original Public Order Battalion, Mechanized Police Unit, and Emergency 

Response Unit were composed of Sunnis. Their unvetted personnel were given military 

weapons and counterinsurgency training. In early 2006 MINSTC-I combined these units 

into a new organization, the Iraqi National Police (INP). Under the interim government, 

however, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr, a Shitte political leader, permitted Shiite officials 

to purge Sunnis and create police commando units of fighters from Shiite militia organizations. By summer 2006 it had become clear that these INP units were engaged in 

sectarian violence and death squad activities.

Conclusion

Between Operation Just Cause in Panama and Operation Iraqi Freedom more than a decade 

later, the United States established a pattern of failing to deal with large-scale breakdowns in public order that occurred after international interventions. Failure to control 

looting and civil disorder created a climate of impunity and encouraged criminal violence 

and street crime. In the face of widespread civil unrest, U.S. military forces were neither 

trained nor equipped to control civil disorder or perform police functions. Indigenous 

police and security forces were unprepared, unwilling, or unable to perform such functions 

and deal with civilian violence and lawlessness.

Local populations were faced with a breakdown of public order and had no defense 

against rampant crime. This undermined popular support for the intervention and endangered the success of the mission. Former regime police, even when they were retrained, 

provided with new uniforms, and escorted by international police monitors, had difficulty 

adapting to new circumstances and gaining public acceptance. New officers had to be 

recruited to change the nature of the police force. It was also clear from U.S. experience 

that developing an effective police organization (under the interior ministry or police 

department) and training a police force were resource-intensive and would take at least 

five years under optimal conditions. 

This effort required U.S. civilian police experts with specialized skills and extensive 

foreign experience. In addition to performing operational duties, civil or military police 

could not do police training successfully. Attempts to rush police training to put “uniforms 

on the street” inevitably failed to meet either the short-term need for security or the longterm requirement for professional law enforcement and the rule of law. Most important, it 

was clear from both Somalia and Iraq that police could not operate effectively unless the 

intervention’s military force created a sufficiently secure environment. Without a reasonable level of public order, police had to provide for their own security, leaving the civilian 

population defenseless.

Recommendation 

To deal with future interventions, the U.S. needs a vigorous capacity to rapidly deploy 

trained and equipped federal, civilian constabulary and police forces to control civil disorder and prevent crime. Civilian police require the presence and support of conventional 

military forces and military police to provide force protection, logistics, and other services. 

Civilian police augment the military, assuming responsibility for dealing with civilians and 

freeing soldiers to perform their duties, including engaging armed groups. Civilian police 

ensure that unarmed civilian looters and lawbreakers are dealt with by nonlethal means, 

arrested, and incarcerated. The presence of U.S. civilian law-enforcement personnel has 

a positive effect on local police, encouraging their return to duty under proper supervision in the shortest possible time. It also promotes the rapid establishment of training 

programs for local police and the development of police institutions. 

The United States established a 

pattern of failing to deal with 

large-scale breakdowns in public 

order that occurred after international interventions.

Developing an effective police organization and training a police force 

were resource-intensive. 

Civilian police require the presence 

and support of conventional military 

forces and military police to provide 

force protection, logistics, and other 

services.
The State Department’s plan to create a CRC is an important first step. The initial 

numbers will provide only token capacity, but they will also require establishing administrative and logistics organizations and addressing critical legal and bureaucratic issues. 

It important that the United States move quickly to augment this capacity and provide 

the manpower and equipment to execute complex operations successfully. Such a force 

will help with ongoing missions, but it is critical to have it in place as the United States 

inevitably confronts future crises. 

Of Related Interest

•	 Options for Police in a U.S. Civilian Reserve Corps, by Beth Cole, Michael Dziedzic, and 

Robert Perito (USIPeace Briefing, May 2007).

•	 Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq, by Robert Perito (Special Report, March 

2007).

•	 Policing Iraq: Protecting Iraqis from Criminal Violence, by Robert Perito (USIPeace 

Briefing, June 2006).

•	 Bridging the Public Security Gap: The Role of the Center of Excellence for Stability Policy 

Units (CoESPU) in Contemporary Peace Operations, by Michael Dziedzic and Col. Christine Stark (USIPeace Briefing, June 2006).

•	 The U.S. Experience with Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan: Lessons Identified, by Robert Perito (Special Report, October 2005).

•	 Provincial Reconstruction Teams: Military Relations with International and Nongovernmental Organizations in Afghanistan, by Michael Dziedzic and Col. Michael K. Seidl 

(Special Report, August 2005).

•	 Postconflict Stabilization and Reconstruction: What Have We Learned from Iraq and 

Afghanistan, by Christina Caan (USIPeace Briefing, April 2005).

•	 Building Civilian Capacity for U.S. Stability Operations: The Rule of Law Component, by 

Beth Cole, Michael Dziedzic, and Robert Perito (Special Report, April 2004).

•	 Where Is the Lone Ranger When We Need Him? America’s Search for a Postconflict 

Stability Force, by Robert Perito (USIP Press, 2004).

United States 

Institute of Peace

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

www.usip.org

An online edition of this and related 

reports can be found on our Web site 

(www.usip.org), together with additional 

information on the subject.