(2 of 3)
Some powerful facts support that assertion. Perhaps 110 million mines lurk in 64 nations around the world, and each year they kill or maim about 30,000 people, usually civilians. The heaviest concentrations of mines are in poor countries like Cambodia, Somalia, Bosnia, Mozambique, Afghanistan and Angola that have survived years or even decades of civil war. Five million new mines are laid each year, and only 100,000 are cleared. A new mine costs $3; uprooting one costs between $200 and $1,000.
That vicious, exponential math exacts a human toll long after conflict ends. Still, the notion that the U.S. should forswear the use of mines is unpopular among many at the Pentagon. "There's no easy way to defend a perimeter without land mines," an Army officer says. "But it's just politically incorrect to support the use of land mines right now." The ability to block an enemy's retreat by quickly dropping mines from the air is another advantage that some officials are loath to relinquish. "Mine opponents say it's a matter of morality and not military utility," says the officer. "But is it moral to put your own guys at risk--knowing your adversary isn't going to do that--in order for you to feel good about yourself? That's a very narrow definition of morality."
Top Pentagon officials who support a ban say it is a matter of "military utility." They explain that strategic doctrine has changed in the past generation, and current plans rely far less on mines than did those appropriate for wars of attrition. The capabilities the U.S. now emphasizes are speed, stealth and surprise. Even the Army's current manual on mines questions their usefulness, given the unpredictability of friendly troop movements. The military's most dramatic show of support for a ban came in April, when several prominent retired officers, including Norman Schwarzkopf, signed a full-page ad that ran in the New York Times. The ad called the prohibition "not only humane, but also militarily responsible."
Shortly after the ad ran, Shalikashvili began assembling a panel to investigate the value of mines to the U.S. But a new policy began to jell even before committee members could be chosen. With the White House concerned over the humanitarian issue and the brewing controversy, and many in the Pentagon already convinced by the antimine argument, Shalikashvili and the Joint Chiefs concluded that the U.S. should give up on mines (always excepting protection of South Korea and the Persian Gulf). Only the timing remains an issue. Since the military has accepted Leahy's moratorium for 1999, the White House is pressing that year as the start of a permanent ban.
For Clinton, the decision carries some risk, since he is always in danger of looking weak on military matters. But with people like Schwarzkopf on the side of a ban, Clinton has some cover. Politically, the issue is safe since Bob Dole backs Leahy's measures. Moreover, the International Committee of the Red Cross is an outspoken opponent of mines, and Dole's wife Elizabeth is on leave as president of the American Red Cross. "A lot of the Republicans think this 'Let's ban mines' stuff is stupid, but because of Elizabeth Dole, nobody's willing to take the thing on," says a Republican aide in the House.