STAFF
Vice President Emeritus: RADM (Ret.) Eugene Carroll, Jr, USN
RADM Eugene J. Carroll, Jr. was commissioned as an Ensign in April 1945. His early service as a Naval Aviator included ten months flying AD Skyraiders from aircraft carriers in the Pacific during UN operations in Korea. Following a series of assignments in the Atlantic Fleet, he commanded two light jet attack squadrons of A-4 Skyhawk aircraft. Transferred to the Pacific Fleet in 1965, he served a total of six years with units engaged in the Vietnam campaign. His assignments there included command of the amphibious assault ship, USS OGDEN (LPD-5) and the aircraft carrier, USS MIDWAY (CVA-41).
Promoted to the rank of Rear Admiral in 1972, he served as Commander of Task Force 60, the carrier striking force of the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean.
Admiral Carroll served on General Alexander Haig's staff in Europe from 1977 to 1979. He was the first naval officer to serve as Director of U.S. military operations for all U.S. forces in Europe and in the Middle East. His last assignment on active duty was in the Pentagon as Assistant Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Plans, Policy and Operations. In this capacity he was engaged in U.S. naval planning for conventional and nuclear war.
Rear Admiral Carroll holds B.A. and M.A. degrees in International Relations from George Washington University. He graduated from both the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army War Colleges. He now serves as Vice President Emeritus of the non-governmental, nonprofit, nonpartisan Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C. He actively conducts research and analysis concerning major defense issues and writes and speaks on the need for rational military programs which will meet the long-term national security interests of the United States.
http://www.cdi.org/aboutcdi/admc.htmlAnd a few of his writings:
Article first appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 18, 2003
http://www.cdi.org/iraq/eye-on-iraq.cfmAnother war, another round of land mines?
By Eugene Carroll and Rachel Stohl
WASHINGTON – While UN inspectors are searching for dangerous weapons hidden in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, they must also be wary of American weapons already lurking there.
These are not the nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons that President Bush charges Iraq is concealing, but they're equally indis- criminate and dangerous. Antipersonnel land mines emplaced by the US during the Gulf War in 1991, as well as those from the Iran-Iraq war, now continue to kill or maim up to 30 Iraqis each month.
Rear adm Carroll on missile defense:
By Admiral Eugene Carroll, Jr.
To an extent seldom seen since Cold War days, the continuing angry debate over the need for a National Missile Defense (NMD) system has polarized public opinion. Pros and cons are put forward in increasingly strident confrontations which lead not to understanding or accommodation but to divisive, emotional rejection of opposing views. What is there about NMD that produces heat - not light - when the issue arises?
The answer to that question lies in the political schism between the true believers in NMD and those who counsel other measures to reduce nuclear dangers. The believers argue emotionally that American citizens deserve a defense against missile attack and reject out of hand attempts to raise rational objections to NMD. The opponents are denigrated and their patriotism impugned if they dare to question the need for or feasibility of NMD.
This failure to discuss NMD in civil, factual terms is unfortunate because the decision to deploy a National Missile Defense system raises fundamental issues of America's role in the world. It involves our relationships not only with our adversaries but with our closest allies as well. It is not surprising that Russia and China are loud critics of NMD but Germany, France, Great Britain and other western nations are also questioning the wisdom of proceeding with a program which threatens to ignite a new nuclear arms race. It may be possible to shrug off understandable criticism from potential enemies, but we must give thoughtful consideration and great weight to the same criticism from our friends. The need for public debate leading to a constructive decision has never been greater.
For example, a final decision to deploy NMD must await careful evaluation of four criteria: 1) There must be a real threat; 2) We must have the technological means to address that threat effectively; 3) Our response must be affordable; and 4) NMD deployment must not do unacceptable damage to the stability of current and future international security arrangements. There are serious questions concerning each of these criteria .
http://www.pepeace.org/current_reprints/03/Care.htm 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
