Re: [CPEO-MEF] Combat and the environment

[pparks@igc.org]

Lenny, there's a new gang in town.  Okay, so its an old gang come back to
town.  But one thing I remember from the old days, is they don't like to
discourse over philosophical conundrums.

I'm afraid its true; military environmental is an oxymoron.  That doesn't
mean give up, but it means get real.  If you are going to deal with the
military, at least the military in the U.S., you have to understand one
fundamental issue: the business of war is war.  If you want to win the
military over to environmental or health issues, you have to put it in
their self-interest (as the Italians, French and apparently the Germans are
doing in regards to the depleted uranium issue in the Balkans).  For
military forces, impacts of combat have to do with troops.  It has only
been in modern times that armies have been even minimally acquiescent to
looking at issues of the impact of combat on civilian populations (whether
friendly or unfriendly).  That holds true for the U.S. military as well as
other nations.  In fact, it was the effect of agent orange on US troops
that led the Pentagon to ban its use (not its defoliant effect on the
Vietnamese countryside or what must be similar health effects w/the
Vietnamese population).  Similarly, it was the combat effect of poison gas
in the First World War that led (though it took 3/4 of a century) to the
Chemical Weapons Convention (not the speculative potential it might be used
as a weapon of mass destruction against innocent civilians).  Even the
"military environmental" cleanup (which came under the watch of then-Sec
Def Cheney & then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Powell) is the result of
self-interest:  the prospect that the cost would come out of hide.
Nonetheless, the program they endorsed was needed and functional.   There
were even followup policies on overseas bases; active and closing, that
somehow disappeared after the Philippine Senate rejected a new Bases
treaty.  Nonetheless, Mr. Cheney made sure the Federal Facilities
Compliance Act wound up on George I's desk; Mr. Powell made sure the senior
uniforms embraced its mission.  The program has remained functional despite
devolvement, budget cuts and a less than enthusiastic adherence to the
spirit and letter of the law by the politicals, careers, and uniforms at
the Pentagon.  

Does that mean the environment is going to be "safe" at the Pentagon during
George II's term.  No, especially if it has connotations of being
touchy-feely liberal stuff that doesn't make any sense like "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....We cannot afford to destroy communities, land, or other
resources to save them."

Lenny. You know better than this.  It's been nice you have been invited to
these military conferences and allowed to speak, but don't fool yourself
for one minute as to why that was happening.  Now, I think we can agree
that its important to keep what gains have taken place from being torn to
shreds.  That means you are going to have to back off the philosophizing
and get back to what gives CPEO any weight at all.  It has provided a voice
for local folks and a platform to network local communities w/the cleanup
bureaucracy.  CPEO was also important in making sure RABS were put into
place.  I think the CPEO constitutuency would appreciate it if you would
stick to making sure they don't get disenfranchised over the next year.


Polly Parks


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