For some reason my web based e-mail now doesn't allow me to include
previous text in my responses - I have no idea what's going on. Jeroen
posted two links to Caleb Rossiter's cv and asked me what he had to do for
an evaluation of his credibility. That is, I think, a fair summary. In
fact, I knew who Caleb Rossiter was without the links, but I appreciate
them, as I believe they only strengthen my case that he is far from a
definitive source on the topic. On looking at his cv, a bunch of things
leaped out at me immediately. First and most prominent, he is clearly an
anti-mine activist. He has devoted large portions of his career to ridding
the world of APMs. However laudable that goal is, it obviously calls his
credibility as an unbiased source into question. I'm not accusing him of
lying. I'm saying that this is a situation in which subjective judgments
are called for - are APMs necessary for the succesful allied defense of
South Korea against North Korea - and an activist is obviously likely to
make
those judgments in a way that more neutral observers might not. There are
others. Rossiter has no military experience, nor is any of his academic
experience in security studies - which leads one to wonder how he is
capable of analying the tactics and strategy of the United States military
in South Korea, for example, or at least to question the validity of such
analyses when they are contradicted by the declared beliefs of the
Pentagon. Thus while Rossiter certainly has something to contribute to the
debate, I see no reason whatsoever to take his opinions on the necessity of
anti-personnel mines over those of the people who will actually have to do
the fighting if and when the North Koreans come South.
Gautam Mukunda
