[CPEO-MEF] Combat and the environment

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

The news postings by Merv Tano about the after-effects of the use of
both uranium and conventional weapons underscore points that I made at a
recent Army conference. We, as a nation, have both the luxury and
obligation to consider the long-term environmental and safety impacts of
combat. We cannot apply the principles of pollution prevention and
sustainability to production and training alone. As strange as it seems,
the environmental consequences of combat itself must be minimized.

As the articles about uranium weapons suggest, environmentally sensitive
combat is becoming more than a concern of do-gooders and deep
ecologists. Assuming "our side" wins organized combat, our troops - and
those of our allies - as well as friendly populations must be able to
safely move into territory we have secured.

Thus, building the environmental capability of our armed forces should
not detract from its principal mission, it is an essential part of its
principal mission. That mission, broadly defined, is not simply to win
battles, but to use force to achieve political objectives. We cannot
afford to destroy communities, land, or other resources to save them.

Lenny
-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/968-1126
lsiegel@cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~