| Land Mine Mindset
Washington Times
February 25, 2001
By James Hollingsworth and Henry Emerson
The U.S. Army does not require anti-personnel
(AP) land mines to protect its men and women in uniform or to increase
its combat-effectiveness when waging war. Former President Bill
Clinton claimed in 1997 that a U.S. signature on the Mine Ban Treaty
would rob us of a weapon key to our forces' security.This assertion
was, at that time, and still is, untrue.
Ironically, AP landmines have consistently
demonstrated that they are, at best, minimal in their military utility,
and at worse, deadly to the very troops that deploy them. U.S. combat
strategy is based on an aggressive and highly mobile counterattack
when engaged by hostile forces.This response plan almost always
makes AP mines a liability to our dismounted infantry.
AP mines, in Operation Desert Storm especially,
have shown that they slow our units and impede their ability to
conduct fast-moving combat operations.
Mines, either permanent or self-detonating,
are blind - and time and time again they have proven to be as adept
at maiming and killing our own troops as those of an opposing force.
While serving several tours in Korea and Vietnam as combat arms
commanders in some of those conflicts' fiercest fighting, we saw
firsthand the carnage our own mines inflicted on U.S. combatants
and Korean and Vietnamese civilians.
According to U.S. Army documents, a full
third of U.S. casualties in Vietnam were caused by AP mines, and
more than 90 percent of those weapons responsible were made by the
United States.
In that conflict, the only advantage AP
mines gave was to the North Vietnamese, who often recycled our weapons
for use against us in their own mines and booby traps.
The strategic failures of AP mines are only
compounded by the human tragedy they cause for both civilians and
our own soldiers. The International Committee of the Red Cross estimates
that every 22 minutes someone, most often a civilian, is maimed
or killed by an AP mine.
Like civilian survivors, U.S. soldiers who
survive injury by AP mines, after multiple surgeries and rehabilitation,
often are abandoned by their spouses, have been unable to find gainful
employment, and in some cases, have fallen into addiction or committed
suicide. No treaty can bring back the lives and limbs sacrificed
to this indiscriminate and counterproductive weapon, but U.S. participation
in the Mine Ban Treaty can help ensure that American troops will,
at the very least, not fall to our own mines while fighting tomorrow's
wars.
No matter what minimal military utility,
if any, AP mines may display, the cost they exact on armies and
civilians is too great to continue reserving the right to deploy
them. Poison gas and chemical weapons have been banned because of
the indiscriminate and horrific nature of the casualties they cause.
But AP landmines remain long after gas and chemicals would have
dispersed. The Mine Ban Treaty has demonstrated that preventing
further mine use, not simply removing those mines already laid,
is the only vaccine to this disease.
Some congressional leaders maintain that
the U.S. should continue on course with Mr. Clinton's plan to accede
to the Mine Ban Treaty in 2006, a date dependent on a successful
search for "suitable" alternatives to AP mines. Development
of "suitable" alternatives to AP mines is a ludicrous
course of action when one considers that the U.S. Army already has
tactics and technology that serve the same purpose of AP mines,
blocking the movement of infantry units.
If U.S. policy-makers continue to believe
in the general utility of AP mines, the best interests of the American
soldier will never be fully served. As retired lieutenant generals
with considerable combat command experience, we urge President Bush
to instruct the Pentagon to develop operational doctrine that does
not include the use of non-command detonated AP landmines or anti-handling
devices.
By sending the Mine Ban Treaty to the Senate
for ratification, Mr. Bush will demonstrate he has the vision and
political courage to forward a militarily sound solution to this
crippling humanitarian problem. The world's civilians as much as
America's soldiers do not deserve to be tragically disfigured, horribly
maimed or blown apart by a weapon emplaced in yesterday's battlefields
where children now play. President Bush should ban this weapon.
James Hollingsworth is a retired U.S.
Army lieutenant general and a former commander of I-Corps (ROK-U.S.A.)
Group. Lt. Gen. Henry E. Emerson is a former commander of the U.S.
XVIII Airborne Corps.
|