Panel says more nonlethal weapons would have aided U.S. cause in Iraq

[Robb]

WASHINGTON Ð U.S. forces could have done more to deter the widespread looting and to maintain security in Iraq while avoiding a lot of unnecessary deaths of Americans and innocent Iraqis if they had been equipped with available nonlethal devices, a blue-ribbon panel reported Thursday.

The panel recommended formation of a high-level joint office in the Pentagon to push nonlethal weapons, or NLW, programs and urged a tenfold increase in the current funding to develop and produce such equipment.

(snip)

The task force of former military and national security officials saw even more promise in advanced systems under development, including directed energy devices that can stop the engine of a car or boat, can temporarily incapacitate people or produce the sensation of intense heat without burning skin. Retired Marine Gen. Paul X. Kelley, the other co-chairman, said devices to shut off a motor could have avoided the deadly suicide bombings of the U.S. destroyer Cole in Yemen by a small boat and of the Marine barracks in Lebanon by a truck. Kelley was Mar ine Corps commandant when 241 Americans died in the 1983 Beirut bombing.

(snip)

Marine Corps officials have explored the use of nonlethal devices for more than a decade. A Marine force used some NLW capability to protect the 1995 withdrawal of U.N. troops from Somalia without a casualty, the task force noted. A Joint Nonlethal Weapons Directorate was established in 1997 at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., commanded by a Marine colonel. Its budget has increased slowly to $43 million this year, with a proposed increase of $8.2 million next year. But the task force recommended creation of a greatly expanded office with a general officer in charge and an annual budget of up to $400 million.

(more)

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. Umm...militaries dont use that crap...

Once it's war, its war.

That is why war must be avoided.

[damnraddem]

3. Militaries can use weapons that fit the mission.

If the mission is peacekeeping, then these weapons are consistent with the mission. Troops ARE employed as peacekeepers; but not by the Bushistas, because they eliminated peacekeeper training for the U.S. military. Training is always necessary, not just for the use of a given weapon but also for making the choice to use one weapon rather than another. Troops can be in the position of having to choose nonlethal versus lethal weapons, just as police are.

[damnraddem]

2. Provision of the weapons are not enough.

There must be training in the use of the weapons. Such weapons are consistent with peacekeeping. The Bushistas ignored peacekeeper training for U.S. troops.

[Art_from_Ark]

4. The real issue is being sidestepped

and that is, Why was it so freakin' urgent to attack and occupy this powerless country in the first place?????