September 27, 2014
Obama Landmine Ban Goes Against Best Military Advice; Unilateral Decision Could Endanger Deployed U.S. Military Forces In Outposts, Ungoverned Areas; Increases Chances Of Technological/Capability Surprise
Adam Kredo, writing in the September 25, 2014 edition of the Washington Free Beacon, reports that POTUS Obama went against the Pentagon and the best military advice –“banning the use of anti-personnel landmines,” except on the Korean peninsula. POTUS Obama’s unilateral decision not only went against the Pentagon; but, also against many in Congress.
“In a series of statements this week,” the Obama administration said “that landmines will no longer be used and ordered DoD to begin destroying stockpiles of the devices — which have historically been used to protect U.S. forces from enemies in the warzone.” “The United States will not use anti-personnel landmines,” the POTUS said, while at the United Nations in New York earlier this week.
Mr. Kredo adds that “this controversial, and unilateral decision, comes as America steps up [military] strikes against the Islamic State (IS) — and, has been in the works for some time — despite protests from the top Pentagon leadership, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman (CHCS), Gen. Martin Dempsey, who argued that “landmines were an important tool,” in the kitbag of options that are used to protect deployed and vulnerable military outposts. Gen. Curtis Scaparottii, Commander of the United Nations Command, and U.S. Forces in Korea — when asked by Congress earlier this year — said, “I have provided my best military advice on this issue; and, it is my assessment that landmines are a critical element in the defense of the Republic of Korea; and, our interests there. And, they are a critical element of our contingency plans as well,” he said.
The POTUS’s announcement was met with alarm by U.S. lawmakers who “warned that the decision is not backed by U.S. military commanders,” — who view the use of landmines as a key tool in the protection of U.S. forces deployed in a war zone or ungoverned area. “It is disappointing once again to see that the White House has overruled the advice of out military commanders,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, (R. – CA.) Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC). “With the security situation around the world deteriorating, the last thing we should be doing is unilaterally jettisoning sound defense options. We’re all in this together, and we all share the risk when the best advice of our military experts is ignored.”
U.S. State Department spokesperson, Jennifer Psaki said in a statement this week that “while the U.S. will continue to employ the devices in the Korean Peninsula, — where our actions are governed by the unique situation there,” the Defense Department will no longer produce, or acquire anti-personnel landmines, outside of the Korean Peninsula. And we will diligently undertake to destroy stockpiles of these landmines — that are not required for the defense of the Republic of Korea. And, so we’re going to continue work to find ways that would allow us to ultimately comply fully — and, accede to the Ottawa Convention,” a treaty — which the U.S. actually hasn’t signed — which bans.”
The Future of Warfare: Small, Many, Smart vs. Few And; Exquisite?
T.X. Hammes, writing in the July 16, 2014 editions of Analysis and Commentary, writes that “smart sea mines should be a particular concern for the United States. Simple contact and influence mines have the distinction of being the only weapon that has defeated a U.S. amphibious assault – the landing at Wonson, Korea in 1950. While lanes were eventually cleared through the primitive minefields, forces attacking up the west coast of Korea had already seized the amphibious objectives before the first amphibious forces got ashore. Frustrated at cruising up and down the coast as the Navy tried to clear the mines, the Marines nicknamed the landing “Operation Yo-Yo.” Not much has changed. In February 1991, the U.S. Navy lost command of the northern Arabian Gulf to more than 1,300 mines that had been sown by Iraqi forces …” These were simple moored sea mines.”
“Since 1950, mines have become progressively smarter, more discriminating, and more difficult to find. They have sensors which can use acoustic, magnetic, and other signals to identify and attack a specific kind of ship, allowing – for example – commercial vehicles to pass unmolested. As early as 1979, the United States fielded CAPTOR mines. These are encapsulated torpedoes that are anchored to the ocean floor. When they detect the designated target, they launch the captured torpedo to destroy it out to a range of 8 KM. Today China possesses “self-navigating mines” and even rocket propelled mines. We are seeing early efforts to use unmanned underwater vehicles to deliver mines. Since commercially available drones are already crossing the ocean autonomously, pairing drones with mines will almost certainly make it possible to mine sea ports of debarkation and perhaps even sea ports of embarkation.”
“Ashore, mobile land mines/autonomous anti-vehicle weapons are also under development. The natural marriage of IEDs to inexpensive, autonomous drones is virtually inevitable. The obvious targets are parked aircraft, fuel dumps, ammo dumps, communication sites, and command centers. Non-state and state actors alike will rapidly transition to drones that can hunt even mobile targets.”
By banning our own use of mines, one would have to assume that leading edge research in this area will also atrophy in the United States; and, no doubt lead to capability and technological surprise on the future “battlefields,” as our adversaries will adapt these new technologies in ways we won’t anticipate; nor, understand very well. But, one thing we know for certain — our adversaries won’t ban their use.
Denying U.S. Military Measure Of Safety And Protection That Landmines Provide — Unconscionable; Opens U.S. Military To Technological And Capability Surprise
A March 16, 1999 editorial by the Chicago Tribune said it pretty well: “As has been demonstrated in places from Somalia, to Saudi Arabia, and Beirut to Berlin, Americans — especially [deployed] military personnel — are special targets for terrorists and fanatics, looking to make a statement. To deny our service members the measure of safety and protection that land mines can afford would be unconscionable.” The Tribune added, “proponents of a land-mine ban point out, correctly, that 25,000 people each year are killed or maimed by landmines in the Third World.” These same misguided advocates, “generally do not mention that none of those mines are American, since the U.S. does not sell such weapons. The same, however, cannot be said for China and Russia,” the Tribune argued.
Moreover, the Tribune noted that “U.S. troops in recent years have employed so-called “smart mines,” which self-destruct automatically within 48hrs. after they are planted — eliminating the danger that innocents may be killed; or, months, or years later.”
In conclusion, the Tribune wrote, “a universal land-mine ban is a laudable ideal, to which the U.S. should subscribe just as soon as it can be assured — [that such a ban] it will not needlessly endanger our service members; but, that time is not here yet.”
In recent weeks, the Director of National Intelligence stated that the CIA had been ordered to stand down unilateral intelligence collection operations in Europe. Now, the POTUS is ordering the military to forego its use of landmines. And, NSA spying has been curtailed in the aftermath of the Edward Snowden leaks. Leaks which prompted al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, others to enhance their encryption and communication practices. So, we’re going to be “deaf, dumb, and blind,” and, we’re also going to be lest protected in hostile environments. What’s next, unconditional surrender. V/R, RCP
No comments:
Post a Comment