The Battle is Joined: Defense Department, Congressional Opposition Mounts to Fatuous Landmine Ban

(Washington, D.C.): In recent days,
the pell-mell rush toward an unverifiable
unilateral or negotiated ban on the use
by U.S. forces of anti-personnel
landmines (APL) appears therapeutically
to have hit some “speed-bumps.”
Subsequent to an analysis by the Center
for Security Policy that was sharply
critical of this idea⁽¹⁾
— primarily on the grounds that such a
ban would have no effect on the
genuine humanitarian problem caused by
the widespread and irresponsible use of
“dumb” APLs but would, instead,
result in the needless sacrifice of the
lives of American servicemen and women —
several important voices have urged
Members of Congress to reject a landmine
ban being sponsored, among others, by
Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of
Vermont:

• In a 26 June 1997 letter to the
  Chairman of the Senate Armed
  Services Committee, a long-time
  and highly respected former
  member of that Committee — Secretary
  of Defense William Cohen
  — wrote that his
  “Department strongly objects
  to elements of the proposal [to
  bar new deployments of
  anti-personnel landmines] and
  urges that it be modified in
  several important areas.”
• He added that “[Joint Chiefs
  Chairman] General [John]
  Shalikashvili has advised me that
  ‘any law that prematurely denies
  our forces the use of
  self-destructing APL will place
  our people at increased risk, be
  a serious detriment to our
  war-fighting plans, and will
  unnecessarily hazard the lives of
  our troops.'” Secretary
  Cohen went on to stipulate that in
  order “to avoid unnecessary
  risk to our troops, the
  definition of APL must be
  narrowed to include only those
  systems primarily
  designed as anti-personnel
  landmines. In addition,
  self-destructing APL — which are
  the only APL munitions in the
  U.S. active inventory — must be
  excluded from the proposal’s
  restrictions until we have
  adequate alternatives.”
  (Emphasis added.)
• Secretary Cohen’s exceptions are,
  of course, anathema to those who
  believe noblesse oblige
  arms control agreements — those
  that are long on U.S. moral
  example-setting and short on
  security benefits — must take
  precedence over concerns for the
  safety and combat effectiveness
  of American troops.
• On 27 June 1997, the Chairman of
  the Senate Foreign Relations
  Committee, Sen. Jesse
  Helms, wrote to each of
  his colleagues providing his own,
  detailed and thoughtful critique
  of the landmine ban initiative.
  Sen. Helms observed that:
  “People in 70 countries
  today face the peril of being
  killed or maimed by more than 100
  million land mines buried around
  the globe. But the United
  States is not
  responsible for the emplacement
  of a single one of those mines —
  not one.”
• Like Secretary Cohen and the
  Joint Chiefs of Staff, Senator
  Helms expressed concern that:

“Our young troops in
the field will pay the price for
this legislation. What
Senator Leahy’s bill will do is unilaterally
eliminate a capability critical
to protecting our soldiers
abroad. Senators should
understand the law of unintended
consequences at play here…The
Pentagon estimates that U.S.
casualties will increase by
[between] 15 percent…and
35 percent….At least
26 other kinds of submunitions
which are not landmines
will be eliminated from our
military’s inventory, including
those used, for example, to
destroy Saddam Hussein’s air
bases during the Gulf War. [And]
Senator Leahy’s legislation will
eliminate 100 percent of the
United States’ ‘deep anti-tank
mining’ capability….[As a
result,] we will lose the ability
to delay or stop enemy armored
forces until they are within 15
kilometers of U.S. troops.”

• Finally, today’s Washington
  Post published an op.ed.
  article written in their private
  capacities by two defense experts
  associated with the National
  Defense University — Patrick
  M. Cronin, deputy
  director of NDU’s Institute for
  National Strategic Studies, and
  Army Colonel Ted Sahlin,
  a senior military fellow at the
  Institute. Highlights of the
  Cronin-Sahlin essay ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=97-D_94at”>a copy of
  which is attached) include
  the following points:
• “Like terrorist
  bombs, land mines
  have been and will remain
  an inexpensive means of
  inflicting casualties.
  Sadly, cheap and easy
  technology (land mines
  generally cost less than
  $10 each and can be
  constructed by almost
  anyone) lends to their
  proliferation. The
  largest makers and
  exporters of
  anti-personnel land mines
  are China, Iraq, Iran and
  North Korea.”
• “…It is
  difficult for a
  self-imposed U.S. ban to
  solve the problem if our
  mines are not its source.
  In addition, the argument
  that U.S. moral
  leadership will reduce
  the source of the problem
  can be entertained only
  with incredulity. The
  countries that are the
  largest source of the
  problem are the least
  susceptible to moral
  suasion from the
  international community.
  Non-state actors or
  military movements are
  even less sensitive.
  Less-developed countries
  and armed factions around
  the world will continue
  to resort to mines as a
  means of leveling the
  battlefield. If the
  United States
  unilaterally relinquishes
  all anti-personnel land
  mines, it will be
  exerting moral leadership
  for no substantive result
  while denying itself a
  valuable war-fighting
  capability.”
• “At this critical
  juncture, it would be
  foolhardy to diminish any
  part of the U.S.
  deterrent and thereby
  potentially send the
  wrong message to Kim
  Jong-Il and the military
  leadership in Pyongyang.
  Likewise, the leaders of
  Iran and Iraq would view
  the U.S. elimination of
  self-destructing
  anti-personnel land mines
  from our Persian Gulf
  defense plans only as an
  opportunity to improve
  their fighting
  capability. In both
  cases, the United States
  unilaterally — would be
  assisting potential
  adversaries.”
• What message does
  it send to our soldiers
  and Marines if their
  civilian leaders prohibit
  the use of land mines to
  stake out the moral high
  ground when they know
  that they will face
  enemies not bound by a
  similar constraint nor by
  our value system?

The Bottom Line

The Center for Security Policy hopes
that these compelling insights will
ensure that — despite the intense
pressure to do otherwise, Members of
Congress will look before they leap into
a well-intentioned but reckless
initiative that would prevent the U.S.
military from responsibly using
anti-personnel landmines.

– 30 –

1. See the
Center’s Decision Brief
entitled Hold That Line: JCS
Objections Appear Crucial To Retaining
American Right To Use Landmines To Save
U.S. Troops’ Lives ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=97-D_81″>No. 97-D 81, 18
June 1997).