Strategic Mobility, The Force Proejction Army, and the Ottawa Landmine Treaty: Can the Army Get There?

Abstract

Current and emerging United States Army doctrine places great emphasis on the concepts of strategic responsiveness and force projection to meet the National Security Strategy requirements. The use or potential use, of land mines significantly increases the lethality of the Army force during deterrence and combat operations, and enhances survivability. In essence, with the use of land mines, the U.S. Army achieves an economy of force that in effect increases the U.S. Army's agility, versatility and ability to deploy. Smaller more deployable Army forces such as the medium brigade and light units can generate more combat power by using the effects provided by land mines integrated with other combat systems. However, in order to use land mines worldwide, the U.S. must move, store, or reposition land mines in, through, or to the theater and area of operations prior to, concurrently, or in conjunction with the deploying Army force. Movement of forces, material, and equipment across international borders and into sovereign nations requires the permission of those nations, or a conscious decision to violate international laws and conventions regarding sovereignty. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and their Destruction also known as the Ottawa Landmine Treaty has the potential to place severe limits on the United States ability to deploy forces. This study examines the question: Does the Ottawa Landmine Treaty significantly affect the strategic responsiveness of the force projection Army? Beginning with a review and analysis of the treaty language, this study examines the United States policy on antipersonnel landmines and its origin, the concepts of force projection and strategic responsiveness, and two recent force projection operations involving United States Army forces. This review and assessment leads to two potential forms of the treaty in the future: status quo and restrictive.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Feb 15, 2001
Accession Number
ADA387351

Entities

People

  • Scott C. Johnson

Organizations

  • United States Army Command and General Staff College

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Counter IED
  • Energy and Power Technologies
  • Ground and Sea Platforms
  • Human Systems

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Air Force
  • Anti-Personnel Mines
  • Combat Operations
  • Contingency Operations (Military)
  • Department Of Defense
  • Department Of State
  • Interagency Coordination
  • International Law
  • International Relations
  • Land Mines
  • Law
  • National Politics
  • National Security
  • Treaties
  • United States European Command
  • War Colleges
  • Warfare

Readers

  • Maritime Combat Support and Expeditionary Logistics.
  • Munitions and Ordnance Engineering
  • Strategic Security Studies