I would discourage anyone from signing the petition. From several points of view, an all-out ban is both ill-advised and, in my opinion, ideologically half-hatched.
First, a bit on me. I am an ex-infantry soldier, having spent time in both the enlisted and officer ranks. I typically do not weigh in on political issues but with 73 messages posted thusfar, I felt obliged to post a little something on the topic.
Since the end of the Reagan years, and in particular after the Gulf War, the U.S. military has been greatly downsized in a process known as the "RIF" (Reduction in Force). I would not argue that such was a good or bad move, only that such has occurred. Nonetheless, this - along with the collapse of the former Soviet Union - has lead to a restructuring of force doctrine (how our troops fight enemies of varying size and composure). Specifically, our land forces (which hereafter I shall use only to refer to the Army and Marines) have become much "lighter."
This is to say, over the past 10 years, planners have anticipated (and structured forces) to deal not with the heavy, armored armies that were once anticipated to roll out of the Bloc into Western Europe, but to deal with small conflicts and the general family of international emergencies that are euphemistically known as "OOTW," "Operations Other Than War." The name of this initiative was (is) "AirLand Battle," or, as I believe it has been tweaked, "AirLand 2000."
In turn, there is a larger emphasis on highly mobile and light troops, including the airmobile, airborne, and mechanized ("motor rifle," in Eastern parlance) units. More infantry arriving on the field of battle via foot, vehicle, helicopter, and parachute than the previous doctrine outlined, which was a tank and personnel carrier intensive fighting force with little emphasis on small unit tactics.
Again, without getting into a long dissertation: a large part of small, light units' maneuver strategy is based upon a high operational tempo (moving very quickly), seizing the advantage (via leaders' initiative) and, at times, fighting a numerically superior enemy. Both in the defense (resting between operations, preparing for missions) and on the offense (attempting to channelize the enemy, deny his use of certain terrain features, etc.) mines of both the land and antipersonnel varieties play an invaluable role.
Why anyone would be surprised that the U.S. hadn't signed such a treaty is, in itself, a surprise. Most other countries have the luxury of signing all manners of treaties and agreements being that it is the U.S. which will, at the 11th hour or sooner, come to their rescue.
In addition, I would ask if anyone here could seriously assert that those countries that did sign the landmine banning treaty wouldn't, in a dire national emergency, use them anyway? The track record pertaining to countries keeping their pledges with regard to military treaties is spotty, at best. There's nothing to suggest that those nations which have already signed are any less inclined to use mines that those who haven't.
Sorry to say, folks, but as horrible a choice as it seems - and it is - I'll unflinchingly take 100 legless and/or dead enemy soldiers if that is what it takes to defend a perimeter with mines such that even a single American soldier comes home to his or her family alive & in one piece.
It's a soldier thing, you may or may not understand.
Now. Mines not being policed up after conflicts end, however, is a problem and a terrible situation for the nations whose countrysides are littered with all sorts of hardware once the smoke clears. I personally will take the position that a better option than simply banning mines would be first to attempt to develop mines that are retrievable (believe it or not, prospective landmine banners, part of my infantry training was marking and retrieving emplaced mines), either by way of some sensor or automatic, wide-area defusing mechanism.
Now, with regard to injured and dead children. Folks, war is bad for children and adults alike - soldiers and noncombatants.
While they tug at emotional heartstrings - and they should - statistics about third world children missing arms and legs are somewhat suspect. As the Sunday New York Times Magazine pointed out some months ago in an eye-opening, horrifying article, tens of thousands of children in Africa and Southeast Asia become combatants either by choice or conscription. Those who voluntarily choose to do so often are so inclined for the prospect of little more than a regular meal or, at times, a miniscule stipend.
The idea of banning landmines, showing pictures of people missing limbs and the like seems to suggest that other weapons are, somehow, more palatable!
Mines are not the only weapons that leave a legacy of pain and destruction once the fighting is gone. At Verdun, in Vietnam, and in Iraq, explosive shells which landed anywhere from 10 to 80 years ago spontaneously detonate in the heat or upon becoming chemically unstable after laying dormant for years. Indeed, the radioactive properties of uranium-tipped rounds used in the air raids over Kosovo are of concern to American, French, and British troops in the region presently.
"Ban" WAR, folks!!! There's a petition I'll sign. Soldiers, whether present or former (such as myself) above all others should work toward peaceful ends, as it is our ("our") lot to bear when all other efforts fail.
But people telling stories or flashing pictures of kids missing legs are missing the big picture, and in fact are woefully, perhaps harmfully, minimizing what the real focus of any pacifist effort should be: soldiers & indigenous children, adults, and the elderly left homeless, poverty-stricken, decapitated, eviscerated, multiple amputees, burned beyond recognition, crushed, punctured, or insane from the havoc of war. Bullets, artillery shells, mortar shells, tank rounds, flechettes, shot, grenades, fuel air explosives, and the like are as physically destructive as mines, and yet they don't arouse the outrage that mines do - and, as I pointed out above, mines have no monopoly on the post-conflict legacy of blood, either.
I applaud your effort - it's great to see someone being proactive [even if it's merely posting on SI with a link
;-) ] but I personally find this effort misdirected: poorly representative of the tactical, operational, and strategic realities of AirLand Battle and, more importantly, fundamentally: diminutive and "condescending," in a sense, toward the approach of promoting of a more peaceful world.
I wish you luck.
LPS5 |
