RETIRED Colonel Allan Douglas has made a reasoned response to my proposal to abolish the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) as it now operates. Understandably, as a former army officer, he is apt to be defensive. However, he seems very much aware of the shortcomings that compel thoughts of abolition.

I agree with his view that abolition would leave a challenging vacuum to fill; and this is where the ingenuity, wisdom and competence of our elected leaders would be tested. They may shrink from the task. But, among Jamaicans here and abroad, there certainly can be found the ability, talent and commitment to provide solutions.

Another retired JDF officer is stridently in disagreement with the views I have put forward. For the sake of balance I quote from his book:

“Ever since my teenage years, it has become almost fashionable for some in the Jamaican society to want to get rid of, or downsize the military. I’ve always taken those calls with a grain of salt, because I see them as nothing more than knee-jerk reaction triggered by ulterior motives, or by a failure to grasp the realities of the world in which we live. There [are] also those who seem to think that if we get rid of the JDF we would solve much of our financial problems. In other words they see the JDF as an expensive luxury.

“One of the main arguments for those who advocate downsizing or getting rid of the JDF is the assumption that Jamaica needs not to worry about external aggressors. But, even at a cursory glance, the most unaware amongst us ought to realise that the world we now live in is far removed from what it was even 20 years ago. And, Jamaica, like most other countries, now faces two potential threats — one internal and the other external. And as Freud puts it, “War is not to be abolished; so long as the conditions of existence amongst nations are so varied, and the repulsions between peoples so intense. There will be, must be wars.”

To better understand where he is coming from, we need to look at his view of the Tivoli Gardens 2010 incident. He tells of how the residents were told to leave the community and how, after the grace period expired, the military went in “with no-holds barred”. He goes on to say, “the situation in Tivoli Gardens in May of 2010 should also be another reminder of what can be achieved by a well-trained and well-led military when called upon.

“With their lack of exposure to such operations, it is quite understandable why the people of Tivoli Gardens thought they could take on the soldiers, and why the rest of Jamaica, except those of us with the knowledge and experience, wondered if the JDF could handle the situation. In the end, the [operation] into Tivoli played out like a well-written movie script. The army surgically wrested the community from the grasp of the criminal element that had imprisoned its residents and had the audacity to challenge the Government, and by extension the law enforcement agents as of the State.”

I cannot agree with any of this. In no well-written movie script would heavily armed ground troops and overhead support be portrayed demolishing some primitive unmanned barricade of rubble and old pieces of metal; and in the end withdrawing without finding a fugitive or any cache of arms.

In this age of intelligence and technological advancements, the movie would show how spies and smart soldiers quietly infiltrated a targeted area and achieved their legitimate objective — to the applause rather than the disgust of the audience. In our case, the ‘dangerous’ fugitive was apprehended long after by the police. He was in the company of a preacher and was wearing a woman’s wig. He had no gun. If this incident is illustrative of the usefulness of the military action, we must wonder: If they couldn’t catch Dudus and his ragtag gangsters, how would they fare against trained international terrorists? I am reminded of something written by a commentator years ago:

“When the Argentine army challenged the British to fight over the Falkland Islands in 1982, it was badly beaten. When General Noriega’s taunts led to an attack from the United States, his Panamanian defence forces were quickly overwhelmed. The Argentine and Panamanian military…proved useless against a serious enemy.”

In the notorious 1978 Green Bay case, nobody challenged the soldiers. It was the soldiers who went to a community, then collected and transported 14 civilians to a firing range on the pretext that they were to be given jobs. An attempt was made to slaughter them in cold blood, but some got away to tell the tale. The military’s story was that the men were found doing target practice at the range. However, they never recovered a single weapon to support that feeble excuse.

A journalist at the time warned:

“Everyone is concerned about crime in the country. That, however, does not mean that we should allow the guns of the security forces to become the judge and jury of the land. Trials by the gun must never be encouraged or condoned. When there are no more suspects to be tried by the gun it will be automatically turned on the innocent. Then we will not be able to stop it; that’s why we must stop it now.”

That warning went unheeded, and we have lived to see the result. May those who have “hard ears” now have no cause to repent in the future. Meanwhile, it is very important to note the following:

Protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of August 12, 1949

Article 51 – Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population, are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method that cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objectives without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

As for the army officer’s belief that every country needs an army, we must note that Jamaica would not be the first country to try managing without a military force. Costa Rica, one of the hemisphere’s progressive countries, abolished its army in 1948; ploughed the saved resources into education and a sound economy; and achieving a rating of 62nd in the world on the UNDP Human Rights Development Index. Neither Japan nor Panama has any standing army; and such paramilitary forces as they have are used without threats against their people.

On the occasion of abolition of the Costa Rican army, President Jose Figueres used a sledgehammer against the walls of the military headquarters and announced that the military headquarters would become an art museum; and that the money spent on the army would go towards health care, education and protection of the environment.

A later president, Oscar Arias, addressing the US Congress said: “I belong to a small country that was not afraid to abolish its army in order to increase its strength. In my homeland, you will not find a single tank, a single artillery piece, warships or a single military helicopter… we threaten no one; neither our own people nor our neighbours. Such threats are absent, not because we lack a military, but because there are few of us who are hungry, illiterate or unemployed.”

Unlike Jamaica, Costa Rica has an immediate neighbour, including Nicaragua with which it sometimes has differences over land borders. Yet it has found no need for a military force. It is sufficiently enlightened to understand and recognise that there are international institutions to settle such disputes. Instead of preparing for war, Costa Rica prepares for peace.

The Government of Jamaica has several agencies telling us how we should settle disputes by peaceful resolution. How nice it would have been if they had set an example in the dispute with some outlaws suspected of hiding in Tivoli Gardens.

Ken Jones is a veteran journalist, public relations consultant, and is the author of books on Marcus Garvey, Alexander Bustamante and other leading historic figures. Comments: kensjones2002@yahoo.com