It's the terminology that gets so abused. People have turned themselves inside out to try to describe what isn't chapter 6 peacekeeping operations--chapter 6 being characterized by three descriptions or criteria. One is that you're invited in by all sides to the conflict. Two, you're lightly armed for self-defence only. Three, you're impartial. Well, that sure as hell doesn't apply in Afghanistan.
In chapter 7 operations, the difference is that you can use deadly force to bring the situation under control. That is being applied, for example, in the Congo. The Americans will refuse, quite rightly in my estimation, to ever participate in a mission that's not chapter 7.
Afghanistan is counter-insurgency. It's war fighting. People who put a label of peace operations on it are misguided and they're confusing the glossary of terms that cover that particular operation. There is no peace. The defeat of an insurgency is when it no longer has an impact on your day-to-day life. It's like the situation in Spain or in Colombia, or wherever it's at least under control enough that it's no longer relevant to day-to-day operations.
I really recommend cleaning up the terminology. If somebody wants to call Afghanistan peace ops, I would strongly debate the wisdom of using that term.
I agree with you, though, sir, that's what we will probably be doing after Afghanistan, and we will be doing it in coalitions of the willing, whatever the title happens to be. That's what we have to be prepared for. Where we differ from the UN is that we don't go into these things prepared for the best-case scenario, because it never works out that way.