Not Without Risk: Operational Analysis of a Landmine Ban

Since World War II, U.S. forces have gained considerable experience in the employment of landmines in war and operations other than war. Landmines are integrated into the tactics, techniques and procedures trained by the armed services. Now, because of the indiscriminate killing and maiming effects of these weapons, policy makers are committed to a global ban on most categories of antipersonnel landmines. A debate has developed in the professional and academic journals over the utility of landmines in military operations from one perspective versus the necessity of a landmine ban for humanitarian reasons from the other. Much of the available literature examining the impact of a landmine ban fails to analyze the issue from an operational perspective. This study will review the available literature but attempt to maintain an operational focus by consistently returning to the operational link among ends, ways, means and risk. Based on an analysis considering ends, ways, means, and risk the operational commander can logically determine how to respond to a total ban on anti-personnel landmines and, in the process, identify the associated risk. The key to successfully reconciling the tactical and strategic perspectives resides at the operational level of war, because it is at the operational level that available military means are applied to achieve strategic ends. While an operational analysis of the impact of a landmine ban can identify alternative mechanisms, none of these alternatives are without associated risk. In every case, when landmines are removed from the operational equation some degree of risk must be identified and accepted.