Jeroen wrote:
At 12:00 15-8-01 -0400, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>>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.
>IOW: he's an anti-mine activist, and therefore his credibility is
>questionable (after all, he disagrees with you, so his statements could
not
>possibly be based on facts, right?). If someone publishes a pro-landmine
>article, would you consider that source unbiased and credible?
It would depend on their position. If that person worked for a company
that manufactured landmines, probably not. There are (at least) two ways
of analyzing political arguments of this sort. You can look at the
arguments themselves - but there are few people on this list who are really
capable of analyzing the tactical and strategic situation in the Korean
peninsula. I am not, certainly, and I think that I can honestly say that I
have a fairly high level of knowledge about military affairs for a
civilian. You can also look at the possible biases of the person who makes
the arguments. It is not unreasonable to me to suggest that a person who
is an anti-mine activist, whose paper is put up on the web by an anti-mine
organization, might, consciously or unconsciously, have slanted his case in
the Korean peninsula against land mines. I am unaware of similar
incentives working in the US Defense Department.
>I doubt there are any unbiased sources in this case. Can you cite a few
>unbiased sources? (And no, the Pentagon is NOT an unbiased source -- in
>case you wanted to cite that one.)
First, why doesn't the Pentagon count as an unbiased source? They are
certainly the most _authoritative_ source on the topic. I certainly can't
think of any organization that is _more_ capable of assessing the strategic
balance on the Korean peninsula. And, as I stated above, there are not, so
far as I am aware, any incentives for the Pentagon to keep mines, other
than that they believe that they are militarily useful. There is no
"mine-laying" career path in the military, no one whose job depends on
maintaining the American mine force, no one who is promoted solely (or even
largely) because of their expertise with mines. In fact, the United States
has _already_ made plans to phase out its use of mines as better
technologies become available. Just saying that the Pentagon doesn't count
as an unbiased source doesn't make it so. You need to supply us with a
credible reason that the Pentagon would have a pro-mine bias.
>BTW, I'm still waiting for you to cite a few sources that support the
>pro-landmine views of the US.
The nice thing about this argument, from my perspective, is that I don't
have to do that. You argued that the United States government was guilty
of crimes against humanity for failing to sign the International Treaty to
Ban Landmines. All I need to do is demonstrate that a reasonable and
ethical person could decide that landmines were necessary to the security
of the Korean peninsula in order to prove my case. Your use of terms like
"pro-landmine" in describing the United States only helps my argument,
since it's fairly ludicrous to describe the American government that way
when it has already taken steps to phase out its use of landmines. The
United States stopped exporting landmines in 1992, for example, well
before, say, France, I believe.
>>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.
>And who would those "neutral observers" be?
Us, presumably. Well, I certainly think I am. I have no dog in this
fight. My life is not changed one way or the other if we use landmines in
Korea or not - except that if we don't, there's an increased chance that
some friends of mine who are currently in the military will die fighting
for the freedom of South Korea. Obviously that weighs heavily on my mind.
But it seems to me that should weigh heavily on the mind of _any_ decent
person, who presumably would not want them to die needlessly. More on this
below, actually.
>>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.
>You know, people (including mr. Rossiter) are quite capable of acquiring
>knowledge *without* getting a degree in the subject. For example, I know
my
>way around computers and computer networks (that's what my boss pays me
>for!), but I don't have a Masters Degree in Computer Science. Does my not
>having a CS degree make me incapable of, say, analyzing and solving
network
>problems?
I agree. But I did not cite an educational degree as the sole way of
gaining these credentials. Military experience - particularly serving at a
high rank in someone's military - would be an experiential way of gaining
this knowledge, perfectly equivalent, it seems to me, to your knowledge of
computers. In fact, a person with military experience would have _more_
credibility in my (and I think in most people's) minds than someone with
purely academic knowledge. The third way of about this sort of topic is
the one I, and presumably Rossiter, have taken - taking an intense interest
in the military, reading a lot about it, and getting to know as many people
in the military as possible. But there is obviously more question about
our knowledge than someone with credentials and/or life experience. This
is why I have been as careful as possible in this discussion to pass on the
evaluations of professionals of the situation in the Korean peninsula, not
make my own assessments of the strategic balance. The only
time I have moved away from that policy is when Dan specifically asked me
for my own assessment of why the situation in Korea is more difficult than
that faced by American forces in the Gulf. But a larger strategic analysis
is simply, at this point in time, outside my realm of competence.
>Jeroen
Two more points. The first is that it seems to me that in order to prove
your case, you must make some argument as to _why_ you think it is that the
United States military is holding on to mines with such force, if they are
of as limited utility as you seem to believe. Decision-makers at the
Pentagon are not stupid, nor do they invite international criticism for the
enterntainment value. So it seems to me that you must supply an
alternative explanation.
The second is that I'm fairly amused by your apparent characterization of
me as pro-mine. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Let me quote
from the seventh chapter of my senior thesis, which included policy
recommendations based on the theory I developed. From page 129: "it [the
United States] should take steps signifying its respect for international
norms like signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty or the International Ban on
Land Mines." The thesis is now available in the Harvard archives, should
you doubt my veracity :-) That stemmed from _my_ assessment of the
strategic balance in the Korean peninsula, and my belief that the
superiority of American (and South Korean) forces is high enough that we do
not, in fact, need land mines to stop a North Korean attack. That was
written in March of this year. Further conversations with Army officer
friends of mine have since convinced me that I was incorrect - that the
North Korean threat is more formidable than I thought at the time.
Nonetheless, that s
hould be enough to demonstrate that I'm hardly a pro-mine fanatic. It just
seems to me that this is an issue on which reasonable people can differ.
Given that fact, it seems fair to say that some deference is owed to the
democratic decision of the people of South Korea - the people who are at
risk both from the mines, and from North Korean invasion. Some deference
is also, it seems to me, owed to the judgments of the men and women who are
risking their lives in defence of South Korea, and who also have the
highest degree of expertise necessary to judge whether the use of land
mines would be necessary in the case of war. Given that the people of
South Korea have decided that they want to be able to use mines to protect
themselves, and the soldiers of the American military have come to the same
decision, I find it hard to have much sympathy for your belief that the
American (and presumably the South Korean, although you never mention them)
government is guilty of crimes against humanity for choosing to use
land mines in defense of a sovereign democracy. Or that you have
"debunked" the beliefs of the American military by citing the writings of
an anti-mine activist who lacks any evidence of credentials that would rate
his judgment equal or superior to that of people in the American and South
Korean militaries.
Gautam Mukunda
