Out of curiosity, and in the interest of preventing people from talking
nastily past one another's points, I wonder if both sides of this debate
agree to the following basic assumptions.
1. The question (1) of whether the use of landmines to defend the Korean
DMZ makes military sense as such is DIFFERENT from the question (2) of
whether the overall benefits of the US getting rid of those mines and signing the
landmine treaty outweigh the ostensible inconveniences to the US of
getting rid of those landmines. The first question narrowly considers one
pragmatic issue of local defense; the second question considers a more global
and moral (and IMO more difficult to quantify) cost-benefit consideration.
Both the preceding issues are different from the next question (3) of
whether the text of the landmine treaty itself treats all participants
with equal consideration.
2. To conflate the three questions above in the course of a debate
produces more heat than light.
3. It is possible for credible sources to disagree. An anti-landmine
activist, for instance, would be more interested in the second of the two
questions above, and might credibly argue that the benefit to the US of
having landmines in the Korean DMZ are insufficient to outweigh the
benefits of a global landmine ban. The Pentagon in its turn might
credibly argue that the benefits of those mines for American personnel are
sufficient to justify an exception to an otherwise global ban.
4. Bias does not imply dishonesty. An anti-landmine activist ought to be
biased towards protecting the greater global civilian population---why
else worry about banning landmines? The Pentagon, by contrast, has a
specific duty to protect American military personnel and to be prepared
to win a possible conflict, and must be biased in favor of taking all
reasonable steps to do so. The former may argue against landmines in the
DMZ sincerely (in the context of the benefits of a global ban) and without
wishing to endanger US soldiers, while the latter may argue in favor of
those mines sincerely (in the context of the benefits of an exception to
an otherwise global ban) and without wishing to endanger civilians. Each
side, naturally, would believe that its own stance was more conducive to
the long-term goals of peace and safety.
5. The mere fact of bias does not alone imply a lack of credibility. In
any worthwhile debate, one expects to have two biased but credible points
of view at odds. Between these points of view there must be some field
of genuine uncertainty--hence the debate. A pure partisan will deny the
existance of uncertainty, but then a pure partisan is not interested in
true debate (a dialogue used as a vehicle to approach truth) but, rather,
in conversion and/or condemnation.
6. From time to time it's a good idea to ask oneself if one is being a
pure partisan or a true debater.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
"The ego that sees a 'thou' is fundamentally different from an ego that
sees an 'it.'" -- Joseph Campbell
