Land mine critics fear Iraq conflict will renew push to use weapons
Chicago, USA, Jan. 17, 2003, Oscar Avila (Chicago Tribune)

Princess Diana never raised a royal fuss over the B-2. Paul McCartney never blasted the Patriot missile. But their outrage over land mines has spread to Capitol Hill, where an Illinois congressman is leading the charge to keep the devices out of Iraq.

In coming weeks, the Pentagon must weigh the twin considerations of military efficiency and public opinion in deciding whether to unilaterally renounce the use of land mines in a potential conflict against Iraq.

Some military experts say the United States should take no options off the table. They argue that land mines, because they can devastate forces and equipment, provide an effective deterrent to an enemy's attack. But lawmakers, nongovernmental organizations and even some former military officials say land mines are ineffective as well as immoral because leftover devices can harm civilians years after fighting ends.

Rep. Lane Evans, D-Ill., who has fought against use of land mines for years, said he and colleagues will attempt to make the case for taking a weapon out of the U.S. arsenal just as Washington is warning of a possible conflict with Iraq. “The difficult thing is that (Iraq) is going to consume the efforts we have made on this important issue,” said Evans, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. “We still think these are unreliable weapons that have killed and injured women and civilians. They aren't necessary in the high-tech war that we now face.”

The United States used land mines liberally during World War II and in Korea and Vietnam. In the 1970s, the Pentagon began developing “smart” mines that would automatically deactivate after a set time.

Other nations, however, have continued to use mines that remain active indefinitely. The sight of maimed children in places such as Cambodia and Bosnia riled public sentiment, led by Princess Diana and other celebrities, against all land mines.

The prospect of war in Iraq has brought new urgency to calls by Evans and other lawmakers to renounce the use of land mines. They want Washington to sign a 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, signed by more than 130 nations and nearly all NATO members.

Land mine critics say they must use military arguments, not humanitarian pleas, to persuade the U.S. political leadership to renounce the weapons. “It doesn't improve our operational capabilities. There are other ways of getting the same military outcome without causing problems for you,” said Lt. Gen. Robert Gard Jr., a military consultant and 31-year Army veteran. Gard said he never let his troops use land mines during the Korean and Vietnam wars because “I didn't want my own men to get blown up.” A report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, supports doubts about the effectiveness of land mines during the Persian Gulf war.

The report, requested by Evans and issued last fall, states that some U.S. commanders feared hemming in their own troops and worried about “friendly fire” casualties. “These concerns led to the reluctance of some U.S. commanders to use land mines in areas that U.S. and allied forces might have to traverse,” the
report states. The Pentagon disputes GAO claims that land mines were ineffective, saying the report “makes assertions and speculations that are not based on fact.” Most of the 118,000 land mines used in the Gulf War were dropped from aircraft or fired by artillery. The United States used both antitank and antipersonnel land mines.

After Clinton pushed the Pentagon to consider a land mine ban, the Bush administration said it would study the issue. According to the Center for Defense Information, the Pentagon has allocated nearly $1 billion to research alternatives to land mines, mainly at a New Jersey research facility.

Some of the promising options include a “man-in-the-loop” feature that allows someone to assess the threat before activating a mine from a remote location. But some analysts worry that the chaos of conflict will lead to poor decisions and harm to civilians or friendly troops.

Lt. Col. John Troxell, director of national security studies at the U.S. Army War College, said the Pentagon should not consider renouncing land mines in Iraq until suitable alternatives have been developed that will safeguard troops. “In the end, we need to make sure that national security decisions are based on national security requirements,” he said.

Copyright © 2003 Chicago Tribune. All rights reserved.