Re-posted with permission from CCS21. The author of the article is Dr. Jack Granastein, former Director of the Canadian War Museum, noted military historian and author.

I am not sure if this was the appropriate section or not, but as IED's are used extensively against vehicles and personnel, I thought this article belonged here as much as anywhere.

------------------------------------------------

Why No Outcry Against IEDs?
Jack Granatstein, May 11, 2007

Improvised Explosive Devices have killed hundreds of NATO soldiers—including many Canadians—in Afghanistan. IEDs have also been employed with devastating effect against American and Coalition forces in Iraq. As IEDs are, for all practical purposes, anti-personnel land mines, banned by most nations since the Ottawa Convention of 1997, how is it that there has been no outcry from the Non-Governmental Organizations that spearheaded the 1997 Convention against their recent use?

Landmines are a traditional military weapon designed to deny the use of ground to the enemy or to harass soldiers by forcing them to engage in mine clearance exercises which are by definition dangerous, slow, and labour intensive. In Western armies, landmines traditionally (and sometimes theoretically) were carefully mapped and removed once the battle had passed them by and their usefulness had ended, but non-western armies have not been so careful. In Afghanistan, for example, after the decade-long war against the Soviet Union, estimates are that from nine to ten million mines remained in the ground, almost all laid by Soviet forces and of Warsaw Pact manufacture. Other more modern varieties of anti-personnel mines include some that are dispersed as bomblets that can saturate an area and remain hazardous to civilians (and children) for long periods. (Some of these devices are designed to look like toys.) The Israelis reportedly used anti-personnel bomblets in their war with Hamas in South Lebanon in the summer of 2006.

Improvised Explosive Devices can be fashioned from virtually any explosive, ranging from old (or new) anti-tank and anti-personnel mines to artillery shells. They are ordinarily buried on or alongside a road or path and they can be “victim-activated” by an individual or a vehicle putting pressure on the IED’s detonator. As a minimum, the resulting explosion will blow off a foot or a leg. They can also be “command-activated,” exploded by an electric charge, a radio signal, or some other means by a guerilla hidden nearby. Frequently such command-activated IEDs are supplemented by small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades, taking advantage of the shock effect of the explosion to increase casualties among disoriented troops or those trying to assist the wounded. IEDs can also be coupled together, magnifying their killing zone, or they can be stacked, again increasing their explosive force.

But IEDs, particularly victim-activated devices, can be exploded by anyone—a child, a pregnant women, a donkey, or a soldier. They do not discriminate, and many of the estimated 26,000 civilians killed worldwide each year by mine strikes are in fact killed by IEDs.

So where are the Non-Governmental Organizations now? It was the NGOs, notably the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, that mobilized public support for the Ottawa Convention. It was politicians like Canada’s foreign minister under Jean Chrétien, Lloyd Axworthy, who used the pressure created by a very large coalition of NGOs to secure the ban on anti-personnel mines. This was a major achievement, one that has bound 155 nations not to employ, stockpile, produce, or transfer landmines and, indeed, to destroy their stockpiles. When Pakistan suggested earlier this year that it might mine its border with Afghanistan to prevent (or slow) infiltration of Taliban insurgents into Afghanistan, there were quick protests from NGOs and from nations like Canada. That these border measures could have taken some pressure off Canadian troops in Kandahar did not appear to matter—to the Department of foreign Affairs mines are worse than dead Canadians, or so it seemed. No one, however, is speaking out against the use of IEDs by terrorists in Afghanistan or Iraq.

That’s not wholly correct. In 1999, a coalition of NGOs did call for Non-State Actors—insurgent groups such as today’s Taliban or Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers—to stop using landmines. There was scant response for obvious reasons, not least that rebel or guerilla organizations are both hard to contact, not easy to control, and very difficult to regulate. They will ordinarily use what they have at hand against their enemies, and most guerilla organizations have easy access to mines, explosives, and can readily build IEDs.

But it is worth noting that in 1998 the Taliban, then in power in Afghanistan, denounced the use of anti-personnel landmines and in fact pronounced their use to be against the precepts of Islam. There is a very large opening there should NGOs choose to use it against IEDs.

And they should do so. IEDs are so similar to land mines in their use and effects that only those who split hairs can argue they ought not to be banned. The Taliban insurgents who have wreaked havoc in Kandahar province might not be embarrassed into stopping their use of IEDs if the NGOs took the field against them, but at least the NGOs could claim that they were being consistent. The widespread sense that anti-American or anti-capitalist sentiments, rather than humanitarian motives, drive them today might be dispelled. That would be useful. And if, by chance, the Taliban felt obliged to follow their 1998 statements that land mine use was against Islam, the effects might be profound in Afghanistan. Will the NGOs at last speak out against IEDs?

quote:

Originally posted by GGHG:
Will the NGOs at last speak out against IEDs?

Don't bet on it. And even if they do, such a ban is virtually unenforcable, since IEDs can and have been constructed using anything and everything from military munitions to ordinary household chemicals.

Many parties currently using IEDs have no status or standing as a government - the Taliban aren't, and neither is Al Quaida. Also, many international agreements are binding only if both warring parties agree to follow the rules of war. As seen in Iraq, terrorists have little regard to the latter. They fight without wearing recognizable uniforms (or uniform items); use civilians as cover to avoid being attacked; bomb and otherwise indiscriminately kill civilians; use hospitals, schools, and mosques as storehouses for weaponry and as fighting positions; and even use chemical weapons (chlorine gas enhanced IEDs).

I think you missed the rhetorical nature of his question. Jack knows well that they (NGO's) and others will not go after the Taliban for their crimes against humanity, The question was posed to have others think of why the NGO's and others are not targeting the Taliban and Al Quaeda for special denunciation and prosecution in the field and in the courts.

quote:

Originally posted by GGHG:
I think you missed the rhetorical nature of his question. Jack knows well that they (NGO's) and others will not go after the Taliban for their crimes against humanity, The question was posed to have others think of why the NGO's and others are not targeting the Taliban and Al Quaeda for special denunciation and prosecution in the field and in the courts.

Folks,

The following reasons:

1> Almost all IEDs (and the new HIED class) are command detonated and not prohibited by that treaty.

2> Most IEDs in Iraq are anti-vehicle and that treaty covers only anti-personnel.

3> Most IEDs in Iraq have large amounts of metal in them and can easily be detected and disarmed.

4> As to courts and public opinion it would be a waste of time.

Finally, why would the Taliban not have standing? They were (no matter our feelings for them) the defacto government of Afghanistan before the Fall of 2003.

Jack E. Hammond

I had an idea for increasing the safety of vehicles, although I am not sure how practicle it is. It involves using 4 to 6 inch pipe and filling it with sand, capping the ends and hangine it by cables or on metal racks under and along the sides of the vehicle. It would absorb energy from the blast much as barrels filled with sand protect autos from concrete abutments. both should be readily available on site. With some experimentation it might help.
I would like some feedback from others on the practacality.

Del Rader

in the general topic for the sake of skills
i get a news letter "Defense Industry Daily"
(the www code)
MILITARY PURCHASING NEWS FOR DEFENSE PROCUREMENT MANAGERS AND CONTRACTORS
I HAVE READ IT ON LINE.