| Signing The Mine Ban Treaty Is Morally And Militarily Right Army Times April 3, 2000 By Robert G. Gard Military leaders want to employ all weapons that
help accomplish our Demonstrated by the case of anti-personnel land mines, the Pentagon resists efforts to prohibit the use of a weapon out of fear that removing it is precursor to further restrictions on more vital hardware. The majority of the world's nations signed the Mine Ban Treaty, which prohibits production, stock-piling, transfer and -- most important -- the use of AP mines, an indiscriminate weapon inflicting over 26,000 civilian casualties per year. Not surprisingly, the Pentagon opposes the treaty, asserting AP mines promote combat effectiveness and increase force protection. The only legitimate military function of AP mines is in impeding the movement of foot soldiers. As former Secretary of Defense William Perry stated in 1996, AP mines "delay and disrupt, slow down ... infantry. ... There are other ways of doing that ... with tactics, techniques, other weapons." There are other means of achieving the same result without AP mines. And persuasive evidence exists that using them is counterproductive. As Gen. Alfred Gray, retired commandant of the Marine Corps, stated: "We kill more Americans with our own mines than we do anyone else." Undertaken at the request of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a 1996 Dupuy Institute study concluded AP mines "constituted more of a hazard to friendly troops than to the enemy." The president of the institute, a highly respected retired Army combat arms major general, said a total ban on AP mines, if adhered to by most nations, "will only benefit U.S. ground forces in the long run." He recommended to the chairman that "the United States support a total ban on anti-personnel land mines." A 1995 Army Training and Doctrine Command publication states that close combat operations will be "fast-paced and hard to predict." Also, battle space will be "fluid," requiring "agility" and "flexibility" of "noncontiguous" units in conducting "active defense operations." This highlights our comparative advantage in mobility, making minefields a threat to units operating under TRADOC doctrine. Retired Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, designer of the basic defense plan for South Korea, called military utility of AP mines in Korea "minimal, and ... even offset by the difficulty AP mines pose to our brand of mobile warfare." Responding to arguments that AP mines will help prevent U.S. units from being overrun by wave attacks of North Korean troops, Hollingsworth notes, "We have developed numerous methods other than AP mines to halt the North Korean advance." Employed in Operation Desert Storm, AP mines combined with AT mines in air-delivered "Gator" systems did little to disrupt retreating Iraqi units. But the system significantly impeded the maneuverability of our troops, slowing operational tempo and inflicting casualties on our own soldiers. That commander, Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf, joined 14 retired U.S. senior officers in a 1996 letter to the president, arguing AP mines are not essential, urging the president to ban all AP mines as soon as possible, an action "not only humanitarian but militarily responsible." Past experience is indicative: AP mines caused 33 percent of American casualties in Vietnam, 34 percent in the Gulf War and more than 300 casualties so far among allied peacekeepers in Bosnia. Except Turkey, all of NATO has signed the treaty. Paradoxically, NATO forces operate effectively and safely without AP mines, while the Pentagon claims we must find and field "suitable alternatives." A former Army chief of staff said to me recently: "While I'm reluctant to second-guess the Joint Chiefs, we're clearly out of step on this one -- we should sign the treaty." Seeing our president give up the decision to become party to the Mine Ban Treaty, our military leaders should take a longer view of the security requirements of both the nation and the American soldier. The Pentagon's obligation is to assure the president that joining the ban will not put our soldiers at risk. Whatever marginal utility AP mines have, experience with their use demonstrates they are most effective at maiming and killing American infantry. We must sign the treaty. Retired Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. is military adviser to the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. |
| FREE EMAIL CAMPAIGN UPDATES |
|
| Please enter your email address and click "Go" | |
|
| SEARCH OUR SITE |
For more on the Mine Ban Treaty, go to www.icbl.org |