Some of you older, more loyal readers may remember me ranting on about cluster bombs waaaay back in August of 2006, and for those of you who are new or wisely decided to clear space in your brain for more important things, here is the link: http://everythggoodwastaken.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html
The point of that post was to point out the barbarity and senselessness of these weapons, using the July 2006 conflict between Israel and Lebanon as an illustration. At the time, I stated that the use of cluster bombs was unacceptable, particularly when one considers the great risk they pose to civilians unlucky enough to be caught in wars many of them would rather sit out. Apparently 111 countries agree with me, as today a treaty banning the use of cluster bombs was signed! The agreement even calls for all current stockpiles in signatory countries to be destroyed within eight years and could potentially lead to the removal of US inventories in signatory nations where the US military operates. If I wasn't so tired right now, I might actually have cried a little bit -- this treaty represents a rare moment of clarity and progress in the loooong struggle toward a universal concern for human protection, these moments are few and far between and this one ever-so-slightly warmed my cold, cynical heart.
Naturally, the US did not sign this treaty, deeming cluster bombs far too critical to their vaunted military operations. While disappointing, this is not especially surprising. What I found more annoying, though, were the following quotes (found in this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_re_eu/ireland_cluster_bombs) from a person who heads what I'm sure is a reliable, impartial think tank on par with, oh, Fox News. Ahem. This genius (and real humanitarian!) offered the following in response to this historic, shockingly progressive treaty:
"This is a treaty drafted largely by countries which do not fight wars," said John Pike, a defense analyst and director of GlobalSecurity.org.
"Treaties like this make me want to barf. It's so irrelevant. Completely feel-good," he said.
The point of that post was to point out the barbarity and senselessness of these weapons, using the July 2006 conflict between Israel and Lebanon as an illustration. At the time, I stated that the use of cluster bombs was unacceptable, particularly when one considers the great risk they pose to civilians unlucky enough to be caught in wars many of them would rather sit out. Apparently 111 countries agree with me, as today a treaty banning the use of cluster bombs was signed! The agreement even calls for all current stockpiles in signatory countries to be destroyed within eight years and could potentially lead to the removal of US inventories in signatory nations where the US military operates. If I wasn't so tired right now, I might actually have cried a little bit -- this treaty represents a rare moment of clarity and progress in the loooong struggle toward a universal concern for human protection, these moments are few and far between and this one ever-so-slightly warmed my cold, cynical heart.
Naturally, the US did not sign this treaty, deeming cluster bombs far too critical to their vaunted military operations. While disappointing, this is not especially surprising. What I found more annoying, though, were the following quotes (found in this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_re_eu/ireland_cluster_bombs) from a person who heads what I'm sure is a reliable, impartial think tank on par with, oh, Fox News. Ahem. This genius (and real humanitarian!) offered the following in response to this historic, shockingly progressive treaty:
"This is a treaty drafted largely by countries which do not fight wars," said John Pike, a defense analyst and director of GlobalSecurity.org.
"Treaties like this make me want to barf. It's so irrelevant. Completely feel-good," he said.
Asked whether U.S. forces would ever ban or restrict cluster-bomb technology, Pike said, "It's not gonna happen. Our military is in the business of winning wars and using the most effective weapons to do so."
So let's make a quick list of the MANY problems w/these statements:
1) Not since middle school have I heard someone imply that people who do not fight are somehow inferior.
2) Barf??? Really??? You said, 'barf,' in an official interview??
3) I am curious about Mr. Pike's definition of 'irrelevant'. More than half of all recognized states, including most of our NATO allies, signed this treaty, which to me seems the opposite of irrelevant. But maybe he is of the school that considers all things irrelevant until they are endorsed by Amerrrica.
4) Recent conflicts would suggest that the American military is more in the business of protracted, obtuse struggles with no clear outcome, not 'winning wars.'
4b) If these cluster bombs are integral to the current American strategy of how to win wars, the military should re-evaluate their effectiveness since, um, they don't seem to be working.
You know what? I'm sure there are far more eloquent, less propagandized critics of this treaty who could have defended the American decision not to sign, but I'm glad it was this guy. It makes it all that much easier for me to ignore the nay-sayers and delight in the fact that for once, common decency and concern for human life found a place in politics.
So let's make a quick list of the MANY problems w/these statements:
1) Not since middle school have I heard someone imply that people who do not fight are somehow inferior.
2) Barf??? Really??? You said, 'barf,' in an official interview??
3) I am curious about Mr. Pike's definition of 'irrelevant'. More than half of all recognized states, including most of our NATO allies, signed this treaty, which to me seems the opposite of irrelevant. But maybe he is of the school that considers all things irrelevant until they are endorsed by Amerrrica.
4) Recent conflicts would suggest that the American military is more in the business of protracted, obtuse struggles with no clear outcome, not 'winning wars.'
4b) If these cluster bombs are integral to the current American strategy of how to win wars, the military should re-evaluate their effectiveness since, um, they don't seem to be working.
You know what? I'm sure there are far more eloquent, less propagandized critics of this treaty who could have defended the American decision not to sign, but I'm glad it was this guy. It makes it all that much easier for me to ignore the nay-sayers and delight in the fact that for once, common decency and concern for human life found a place in politics.
