[CPEO-MEF] DOD: The Emerging Disconnect Between Policy and Practice

[Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@cpeo.org>]

Yesterday I attended the Government Reform Committee's hearing "Critical 
Challenges Confronting National Security -- Continuing Encroachment 
Threatens Forces Readiness."

The military defines encroachment as a number of things that adversely 
impact their ability to train their troops and maintain readiness.  These 
include environmental regulations such as the Endangered Species Act, the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, RCRA, CERCLA, 
the Clean Air Act, Noise Control, Radio Frequency, Night Training, Urban 
Sprawl, etc.

In their written testimony the DOD Deputy Under Secretaries for Readiness 
and Installations and Environment (Mr. Mayberry and Mr. BuBois, 
respectively) stated that DOD's response to encroachment was: "The 
Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative (RRPI).  In many ways this 
policy runs counter to a lot of what was said by uniformed personnel who 
also testified.

To be sure, all DOD witnesses stated that environmental regulations 
impacted training and that work arounds were becoming more and more 
difficult.  However when asked directly by the committee what they saw as 
the biggest issue in the future of readiness training one officer, without 
hesitating, said urbanization was the biggest threat to readiness.  He 
observed that urbanization has second and third tier effects that 
subsequently impact training but the root cause was sprawl.  He further 
stated that unless that problem was addressed the military would be in 
serious trouble.

When asked if they could rank their greatest encroachment concerns another 
uniformed officer answered: "night vision training and live fire 
training."  Once again, environmental regulations were not cited.  What is 
it that affects night vision training?  Sprawl. Development comes so close 
to a base that practicing night maneuvers is no longer possible because of 
the lighting at strip malls, on residential streets, highways, etc.

The live fire training issue was more in regards to the number of ranges 
available for training as opposed to actual environmental 
restrictions.  One could argue that range availability is impacted by 
environmental restrictions, however one could also argue that range 
availability has been impacted by a decrease in actual ranges.  It would be 
interesting to see how many ranges were lost due to base closures in the 
BRAC rounds.  At that time was the Pentagon thinking about how the loss of 
ranges might impact them in the future?  I know of one case, Fort Pickett, 
where the Army had a range that was not impacted by sprawl or ESA yet it 
was closed.  How many other times did this happen?  I'm not looking to 
place blame but simply wondering out loud if there was any thought to range 
needs while base closure decisions were being made.

Clearly, one case being made by uniformed personnel was that urbanization 
is a major problem for the military (as it is for the rest of the 
country).  However in the next panel, comprised of DOD policy-makers, that 
issue was never addressed.  The policy answer seemed to lie in changing 
legislation.  But the legislative changes that DOD is proposing do not 
address the root cause of their problems.  For me the disconnect was 
obvious, but not so for DOD nor Congress.  DOD is proposing a short term 
solution to a problem that will be with them for the rest of their 
existence.  Not to address that issue at a policy level is to do a 
disservice to the very men and women DOD talks about protecting with this 
legislative change.

Finally, when asked about work arounds one uniformed officer talked about 
how at Fort Campbell (I believe it was Fort Campbell) there was a critical 
habitat designation and some times during the year they did not have access 
to that land.  Instead of "working around" they incorporate it into their 
training.  The area becomes a school, hospital, residential neighborhood, 
etc. that they need to maneuver around and avoid.  This, to me, in light of 
some of the fighting that took place in Afghanistan, is quite realistic

Aimee

Please note new phone number and address below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aimee R. Houghton
Associate Director, CPEO
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC  20036
tel: 202-452-8039; fax: 202-452-8095
Email: aimeeh@cpeo.org
www.cpeo.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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