15. New York Times, April 3, 1996. These were not the first military men to speak out against mines. "No one likes mines," wrote Captain Richard W. Smith in the Marine Corps Gazette of October 1954. "The engineers may admire their efficiency and the commanding general may appreciate the principles of their employment, but the fact remains that those who know them best hate them with a passion. The unexpectedness of their damage, the high percentage of lost limbs, their tendency to strike at friend and foe alike, and their limiting effect on the Marines' time honored offensive tactics—all these add up to make it the stepchild at the family reunion."

Despite the dangers posed by antipersonnel mines to U.S. troops in combat and on peacekeeping missions, the Pentagon clings to its assumptions about the military benefits of the weapon. Many in the U.S. military establishment are eager to reverse the U.S. policy calling for a total ban, believing that a ban on dumb mines is sufficient. The U.S. appears to be taking a "go slow" approach to banning antipersonnel mines because of concerns expressed by some in the military that alternatives to antipersonnel mines have not yet been developed. Yet, fifteen distinguished retired U.S. military officers told President Clinton in a full-page open letter in the New York Times: "Given the wide range of weaponry available to military forces today, antipersonnel landmines are not essential. Thus, banning them would not undermine the military effectiveness or safety of our forces, nor those of other nations." They also said, "We view such a ban as not only humane, but also militarily responsible." Those who signed include General David Jones, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander Operation Desert Storm; General John Galvin, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe; Lt. General James Hollingsworth, former Commander of U.S. forces in Korea; and Lt. General Robert Gard, former President, National Defense University.15