Monthly Archives: April 2011

Cluster Munitions Go Boom.

by Diana Wueger Posted on April 29, 2011

I have an article up at The Atlantic today on cluster munitions in Libya – how they got there, why that sucks, etc. I’m pretty pleased with how it came out, even as the writing process bore out the E.L. Doctorow quote, “Writing is like driving at night in the fog. You can only see as far as your headlights, but you can make the whole trip that way.” Had no idea where it was going, but I think I got somewhere interesting.

I struggled with a couple thoughts in writing this, most of which didn’t fit the story(ies) I was trying to tell. I’m just going to jot them down here and hopefully come back around to this soon:

  • So what about smart bombs anyway? How well do these actually work at discriminating between various targets? Given that there is no way to protect all civilians in a combat zone, could they be a reasonable alternative, or do they just have some good PR going for them?
  • In a more US-centric discussion, if cluster munitions are militarily necessary, and we recognize the need to protect civilians, and Secretary Gates has said he wants the US to be all-smart-bombs-all-the-time by 2018 … why can’t we sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions? The CCM allows for guided munitions and their development. The CCM does NOT prohibit us from working with countries that aren’t signatories (which would be a problem with Israel). Basically, I’m struggling with why we refusing to give up the stuff that makes our own jobs harder? Well, not my job, obviously, but, y’know, somebody’s.
  • Stephanie Carvin of The Duck of Minerva raises the excellent point that advocates need better arguments. I wouldn’t call myself an advocate, but as some free advice to those who are: humanitarian pleas aren’t nearly as convincing as national security/national interest arguments. Find ways that the US benefits by banning cluster munitions that go beyond the “but limbless children!” point. Because that’s clearly not cutting it. Find evidence that signing international treaties in the past has bolstered the US’s international standing/national security (note: I haven’t done that research and have no idea if such evidence exists, but if it did, it would be more convincing than the limbless children)
  • There’s a larger point to be made about Europe and the arms trade, but I’m still working that one through, and I don’t want to give away the ending before I’ve had time to think about it and do more research.

While I put these links into the Atlantic article, I’d like to suggest anybody interested in the subject read these two articles in particular:

  • USAToday’s 2003 two part write-up of the US’s use of cluster bombs in Iraq is an excellent primer on the subject and provides a nuanced, non-hysterical exploration of the issues around their use.
Posted in Metablogging, Slightly Larger Arms, Small Arms, The Acronym Game! | Comments Off

In Opposition to Cluster Munitions

by Diana Wueger Posted on April 18, 2011

Oh, Ex. In Defense of Cluster Munitions? Really? This is just a collection of shaky, unsupportable (and unsupported) arguments.

The first, and primary, argument is that “cluster munitions are just that — munitions. And any weapon or munition, depending on how it is used, can present a threat to civilians.” Okay. I’m with you there. Guns don’t kill people, people do. But, y’know, rocks can present a threat to civilians. Cars can present a threat to civilians. The difference here is that cluster munitions introduce a not-insignificant degree of chance in who gets hit without providing enough benefit to tip the scales in their direction. You said it yourself, “they rarely work as intended.” Nevertheless, it seems that in your calculus, it’s worth preserving the option to use “nasty, nasty” weapons that have a solid track record of killing civilians because… well, actually, I’m not sure. On what grounds do you say they’re “terribly useful” for “defensive, conventional warfare”? Have they proven decisive before? They must be why South Korea hasn’t been attacked… oh wait. So much for that.

I have to assume Ex already knows that the throwaway parenthetical - Also, we’re going to rid ourselves of cluster munitions but keep massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons? – doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The idea that a weapon system should or should not be banned based on whether another weapon system is or is not banned is dubious to begin with, but it’s especially suspect in the case of nuclear weapons. We don’t use our nukes. They’re a deterrent. Are cluster munitions a deterrent? Has anybody not attacked us because we could bring a whole lot of M-26s to bear? No. The size of our nuclear stockpile has exactly nothing to do with whether or not to sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It’s a false equivalency.

The argument that other major powers felt free to sign the CCM because they live under the U.S. security umbrella is also not much of a defense of cluster munitions. Rephrased, Ex is saying that the United Kingdom can reject the use of cluster munitions, because the UK has the guarantee of US military might to provide security. What does this have to do with cluster munitions? Cluster munitions are fundamentally different from the other examples provided – sufficient supply of bombs and CAS platforms – in that cluster munitions haven’t proven their use in a way that makes them worth the ongoing risk to civilians.

Ex also makes the point on Twitter that these munitions are now being made with disintegrating parts. That’s wonderful (really – I like the idea of weapons that break down over time), but are those the ones being bought and used? Because I can’t imagine making the decision to buy something that I know has an expiration date if a non-perishable version is available. And are those the ones we’ll use, or will we keep using old stock that don’t break down so neatly? Until everybody’s using cluster munitions with the half-life of your average toaster oven, I say the cost of use is too high.

I’d love to be able to make a purely humanitarian plea for the banning of cluster munitions and landmines, because I believe human life is sufficiently worth protecting that I’m willing to limit our capacities to destroy our enemies. The human toll of UXO is unacceptable, because the primary victims generally aren’t fighters – they’re children who, as Ex so poignantly puts it, pick up shiny objects off the ground and lose limbs. Do we compensate these victims, saying, “Oh, sorry you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and now your life is exponentially more difficult because we weren’t willing to clean up”? UXO stay on battlefields long after they’ve returned to being regular, not-so-battle-y fields.

Essentially, by failing to provide evidence that cluster munitions cannot be safely sworn off, by not proving that they serve some vital purpose that cannot be duplicated through another weapons system, Ex’s arguments fall apart. The onus shouldn’t be on the anti-CM crowd to prove why we don’t need these, but on the pro-CM side to prove why we do. In an era of precision weapons, I can’t see a need for scatter-effect explosives. So the real question here is: Can we live without cluster munitions? I say yes.

Posted in Slightly Larger Arms | Comments Off

Atlantic City

by Diana Wueger Posted on April 10, 2011

So, uh, had no idea that was going to go over so well. Front page? All day? Sweet crumbs. Thanks, of course, for all the compliments, but extra thanks to everybody who commented, both at The Atlantic and on Twitter - far better to be disagreed with than to not be heard at all, and I’m actually quite pleased with the comments I’ve read.

On that note, a couple conversations jumped out at me during the day that I was, unfortunately, too busy to address immediately. In particular, I’d like to (belatedly) jump into the conversation between Mark Lynch, Andrew Exum, and Gulliver:

Really good points on all sides. Mark’s right in noting that whether the US gives them guns is irrelevant to whether the rebels get guns. Of course they’re going to get guns. It’s Libya. The black market has been going strong there for decades, and where there’s war there’s money to be made. Qaddafi’s been a villain since Airwolf and isn’t particularly popular in his neighborhood - I’d be shocked if Egypt hasn’t already been hard at work arming the rebels.

But as Gulliver points out, the question of whether the U.S. provides the guns is not irrelevant to the U.S. For us, there’s no real winning scenario in Libya right now: either Qaddafi wins and we’re sad; the rebels win and… we’re probably sad since we’re on the hook for post-conflict reconstruction in a country we know almost nothing about; or there’s a stalemate and we’re stuck hanging around yet another desert wondering how the hell we got there.

In any of these scenarios, we do not want to have provided more small arms. We really don’t. As I outlined, we have a lot to lose, both from a humanitarian perspective and a national interests perspective, but very little to gain from providing free hardware to a rag-tag rebellion that can’t hold territory. I ask this in all seriousness, because I really can’t find any answers: can anybody tell me how we would benefit?

Steve Metz brings up the idea of leverage, suggesting that by providing guns we gain leverage, and somehow that’s important, because if we don’t support the rebels, they… won’t do what we want after the shooting stops? They’ll sideline us in the political reconstruction process? They won’t take our interests into consideration further down the road? I’m not sure. And aren’t there more valuable and ingratiating avenues to take that don’t involve weaponry?

And really, what sort of leverage does providing arms actually gains us*? My instincts say Ex is right on: we only have leverage when we continue to have something of value to provide. With more complicated systems, our expertise and continued access to replacement parts and supplies is important and can help ensure that we remain relevant to the political discussions that follow war. With AK-47s, replacement parts and ammo can be purchased from any state (or non-state actor). Gratitude is fleeting. Guns are not.

* Would love solid research on this, if anybody has any. Otherwise, I might’ve found a thesis topic.


Posted in Small Arms | Comments Off

Then What?

by Diana Wueger Posted on April 8, 2011

Well hey there, bloggie, what’ve you been up to while I’ve been starting a new job, moving, getting sick, and getting better? Nothing? Sounds about right. Sorry, team.

BUT! EXCITING NEWS!

For all you listeners out there in radio land, I’ve got an article up at The Atlantic: The Global Risk of Arming Libya’s Rebels. Predictably, it’s about what a terrible idea it is to pour more guns into conflict zones.

And with that, I’m recommitting to blogging. Stick with me, kid, cause we’re going places.

Posted in War | Comments Off