Re: [CPEO-MEF] Combat and the environment

[bieke@coqui.net]

Polly Parks, Richard Hugus and Joel Feigenbaum have make clear statements
criticizing Lenny Siegal=B4s call for military environmentlism.     I thank
them.

I also thank Lenny for his consistent work over many years helping to=
 inform
an amazing network of people worried about and working on community issues
related to US militarism.

To embrace too closely the military=B4s arguments is obviously very=
 dangerous
if one is to work with and for the communities under attack by US
militarism.  I=B4d like to understand Lenny`s arguments a bit more, to not
dismiss something that may be of importance for all of us.  Or, to be clear
that this is a deviation from a hitherto excellent historial.

In Vieques we want the Navy out - whether they drop DU, Napalm or cement
blocks.  Also, whether Navy activities here had or had not been=
 ecologically
devastating, we must, in any event, denounce the use of Vieques to train=
 for
military actions that put the Duvaliers in power in Haiti, the Somozas in
Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, etc, etc.  We should not be "winning" or even
waging these battles.

R.Rabin



----- Original Message -----
From: <pparks@igc.org>
To: "cpeo-military" <cpeo-military@igc.topica.com>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [CPEO-MEF] Combat and the environment


> 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
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~