Open Letter to Senator Leahy

DONN A. STARRY
GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY, RETIRED

8 July 1998

Senator Patrick Leahy
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-4502

My Dear Senator:

…The current anti-anti-personnel land mine frenzy grew out of a sudden unexplained
realization
of the enormous numbers of anti-personnel devices, mines or not, scattered around the world.
Some are part of on-going or past terrorist activity; some are left-overs from one or more wars;
all are intended to maim or kill people. While it may have reached alarming proportions recently,
no one should be surprised. Nor should we dash off randomly pursuing ill-thought out solutions.
Ridding the world of the anti-personnel mine menace to innocent populations is indeed a noble
goal. Extending that goal to threats other than the menace to non-combatant
populations,
to a ban adversely affecting future military capabilities and operations is neither logical nor
responsible.⁽¹⁾

* * *

…Currently United States National Military Strategy foresees a military force largely based in
the
United States, with some limited forward deployed forces, tasked for contingency operations as
the normal mode of operation. This spells a requirement for rapid deployment to distant regions
where today’s most likely threats confront us. While we enjoy improved deployment capabilities,
it is yet true that a limited force must go first and expect to be quite vulnerable until
additional forces are deployed. There will be a time therefore when passive defenses are
extremely important. These passive defenses include anti-vehicular and anti-personnel
mine
systems designed to fend off limited numbers of friendly troops. Even after follow-on forces are
deployed, anti-vehicular and anti-personnel mine systems are essential adjuncts to tactical schemes
and operational (theater) level campaign plans …. Their advantage is that they replace larger
numbers of troops and systems that would be required were the mines not available.

* * *

…Mines of all kinds are…an integral and necessary part of any tactical weapons employment
scheme. They are essential to minimizing soldier casualties, and (when properly used) maximizing
those of the enemy.

Because of [my combat] experience [in Vietnam], after the war I became a vocal advocate for
accelerated search for reasonable technical solutions to the search-detection-neutralization of
mines of all kinds. Concluding after several years that the technical complexity of the problem
and an unwillingness to bring the necessary resources to bear, both traditional historically, would

likely prevent meaningful work going forward. So I began a search for “other technology”
and
“other operational concepts.” During my years as Commander, Training and Doctrine Command
(1977-1981), we pursued these goals persistently. [This effort] conclud[ed] after several years
with requirements for some new capabilities — self-destructing mines, command activated and
deactivated mines and mine fields, most of which have been fielded. However, [I] also
conclud[ed] that our solutions were but partial, and that neither a satisfactory technical nor
operational solution, nor combination thereof could be found.

Now, your amendment presumes all we were unable to accomplish can in fact be done in a
matter
of eight years or less; [National Security Advisor Samuel] Berger would have it in five years.
While one might hope that could be, I can, first-hand, virtually assure you that it is
inadvisably sanguine to set such precise dates, given the history of this problem and the
history of frustrating search for solutions. My strong recommendation is for serious
review of
your own time line and that of Mr. Berger, and in the process seeking the benefit of some mature,
experienced counsel.

…Mr. Clinton has said in this context (17 September 97) that he “will not send our soldiers to
defend the freedom of our people and the freedom of other, without doing everything we can to
make them as secure as possible.” Now Mr. Berger (15 May 1998) writes you that “the U.S. will
end the use of all APL’s outside Korea by 2003.” So who is telling the truth?

Further, you have written that General Ralston has agreed to all that you and Mr. Berger have
proposed. By what authority does General Ralston speak for the Chairman? The Joint
Chiefs? The Unified Command Commanders? The views of all those distinguished
gentlemen were made clear earlier, eliciting Mr. Clinton’s 17 September 1997 statement
already cited.⁽²⁾

Finally Senator, I come from a world in which the lives, safety and well being of the soldiers,
sailors, airmen and Marines of the Armed Forces of the United States are the sacred trust given
those of us who have been privileged to lead them in battle. My entire military life, from private
to four-star general — forty years, has been driven by that imperative. Historically the Congress
of the United States has been considerably less dedicated — more than willing to risk military lives
as a result of irrational or ill-advised budget, weapons systems, or other decisions inhibiting or
preventing the readiness of US forces to fight and win first and succeeding battles of the next war.

From time to time, the Congress has for certain been without enlightened military advice on
such
matters; so there is egg on both sets of faces. But the Nation has paid dearly (as have many other
nations) for its folly — paid in the commodity it can least afford to expend recklessly — the lives of
the Nation’s young men (perhaps women) in battle. However you choose to rationalize
the
matter, your words do not match your actions. And in the end what you do is more telling
than what you say.

Along with many others I would hope for a reasonable technical solution to the problem of
search-detection-neutralization of mine systems threatening innocent populations.
However, in
all conscience, I reject the premise that protecting innocent populations from anti-personnel land
mines also requires the denial of an essential military capability and
accepting certain risk of increased friendly casualties. As a nation we have spent a
Shah’s
ransom on a host of weapons systems designed to spare lives — from nuclear weapons to body
armor; why now do we suddenly turn about?

Remember, the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are all volunteers now. None
of them
enlisted with the idea that their lives could be casually disregarded for political expediency.
They will be the first to remind that those who make ill-conceived solutions to imperfectly
understood military problems, especially for political reasons, are never those who have to
pay the price for their capriciousness. They resent that. So do I. So should you.

Sincerely,

Donn A. Starry
General, US Army, Retired
Former Commander, US Army Training and Doctrine Command
Former Commander-in-Chief, United States Readiness Command

– End of Excerpts –

1. (Note: Emphasis added throughout.)

2. (Note: Every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and every one of
the regional and unified
commanders-in-chief signed a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee on
14 July 1997 expressing their opposition to bans on the U.S. military’s use of anti-personnel
landmines.)