[CPEO-MEF] Environmentally Friendly Combat

[joelf@cape.com]

>At 12:03 PM -0800 1/4/01, Lenny Siegel wrote:

"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."

What about neutral or non friendly populations, or the millions of poor
souls that just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Is their
health of no concern? In fact, Lenny offers no objection to the concept of
total war waged against an entire society, soldiers and civilians,  men
women and children, so long as there is no long lasting toxic residue and
our "political objectives" are accomplished.

In the modern era we cannot accept the cynical doctrine that war is
politics by other means.  Perhaps the most brutal exercise of this theory,
the bombing of North Viet Nam, would fail to meet Lenny's censure since no
depleted uranium was employed and virtually the entire population was
"unfriendly."

While DU is certainly nasty stuff whose use should be to be banned, it is
hardly more than a tiny increment to the environmental catastrophe cause by
modern warfare. Shouldn't we first ban the bombing of petroleum depots,
wells, and refineries? Does Lenny really think that there is such a thing
as "Green Munitions", as touted by the military? Millions of tons TNT, RDX,
HMX, artillery and rifle propellant, rocket fuel, and heavy metals are used
in warfare. These are highly toxic and persist in the environment for very
long times.

What about the unexploded ordnance, the scourge of post war environments?
And shouldn't we ban defoliants, currently used in Columbia under U.S.
tutelage? The consistent application of Lenny's doctrine would simply ban
all of the instruments of modern war. Except one perhaps, the neutron bomb,
the theoretically perfect weapon that kills living things with enormous
efficiency, leaves no residue (theoretically) and does no harm to roads,
buildings, even enemy weaponry.

I encourage Lenny to continue his private campaign to convince the military
that doing right is in their enlightened interest. But most of us
"do-gooders" and "deep ecologists", as Lenny describes us, believe means
and purposes of warfare should not be determined by Generals, but by the
all of the institutions of a democratic society. When that happens, the
"political objectives" of the U.S. foreign policy will no longer be
determined by the economic objectives of a tiny elite.
-- 
Joel Feigenbaum
24 Pond View Drive
E. Sandwich MA 02537
(508)-833-0144


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