For over a decade, some Members of Congress have expressed reservations about U.S. military involvement in peacekeeping. The Bush Administration's decision to reduce the commitment of U.S. troops to international peacekeeping seems to reflect a major concern: that peacekeeping duties are detrimental to military "readiness," i.e., the ability of U.S. troops to defend the nation. Others, however, view peacekeeping and related stability operations as a necessary feature of the United States' current and possible future U.S. military activities. With the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, often referred to as a "stabilization and reconstruction" operation (which manifests some characteristics of a peace operation), concerns about whether U.S. forces are large enough and appropriately configured to carry out that operation over several years dominate that debate. These concerns were heightened by the 9/11 Commission report, which cited Afghanistan, where the Administration has limited U.S. involvement in peacekeeping and nationbuilding, as a sanctuary for terrorists and pointed to the dangers of allowing actual and potential terrorist sanctuaries to exist. Thousands of U.S. military personnel currently serve in or support peacekeeping operations. The number of troops serving in U.N. operations has decreased dramatically since the mid-1990s. About 24 U.S. servicemembers are serving in five operations under U.N. control. In the Balkans, U.S. troops were withdrawn from the NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia as a result of the December 2, 2004 end of that mission, but some 1,500 remained with the NATO Kosovo Force (KFOR). About 30,000 more serve in or support peacekeeping operations in South Korea, and roughly 700 serve in the Sinai. In Iraq, some U.S. troops are involved in lowintensity combat while at the same time performing "nation-building" tasks that have been undertaken in some peacekeeping operations, as are a few hundred U.S. troops in Afghanistan. DOD refers to the latter two as "stabilization" or "stability" operations. The military "readiness" issue factored heavily into the debate over peacekeeping from the mid-1990s through the early 2000s. Some policymakers worried that peacekeeping costs were draining funds that DOD used to prepare its forces to defend against a threat to U.S. vital interests, that peacekeeping deployments stressed a force whose size was inadequate to handle such operations, and that troops deployed on such operations lost their facility for combat tasks. In the 108th Congress, the readiness issue morphed into a capabilities issue, which is likely to continue into the 109th Congress, even though peacekeeping deployments are substantially reduced. With some policymakers and analysts arguing that the uncertainties of the postSeptember 11 world demand a greater U.S. commitment to curbing ethnic instability, a major issue Congress continues to face is what, if any, adjustments should be made in order for the U.S. military to perform peacekeeping and stability missions -- in Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere -- with less strain on the force, particularly the reserves. Of particular interest is whether the size and configuration of U.S. forces, especially the Army, should be further modified. Additional issues are whether to augment civilian and international capabilities in order to take over some of the tasks currently performed by U.S. troops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]