Re: Friendly fire

[CPEO Moderator <cpeo@cpeo.org>]

===========================================================
Graduate in less than 13 months with AIU's Online virtual
campus. Classrooms and student service as close as your
computer. Highly accredited, study anytime ? anywhere.
http://click.topica.com/caab2L5aVxieSa8wsBba/ AIU
===========================================================



The following response was posted by Dick Boyd <dickboyd@aol.com>.
______________________________________________
The following are Dick Boyd's comments. Dick Boyd is not affiliated with
any
group and speaks only for himself.

The final selection criteria was published in the Federal Register on
February 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 29) Page 6948-6952. Available
online via GPO
Access (wais.access.gpo.gov) as [DODCID:fr12fe04-33]

DOD listed four items of military value and four items of "other
consideration" in the Federal Register.

Item 4, under military value, is "The cost of operations and the
manpower
implications." Possibly DOD has a very narrow meaning of this term. But
could
item 4 also include how the troops are treated by the townies?  If the
town takes
advantage of the troops by building casinos, honky tonks and pawn shops
at
the main gate are there manpower implications? Or are the costs of
incarceration, military tribunals, debt collection and brigs included in
the cost of doing
military business? Or if the roads are so bad that the troops get killed
off
in road crashes before they see combat, then what? Even though the
deaths
aren't combat related, they are still needless deaths, in my mind,
anyway. Or is
the thought process something like, the troops can take the same risks
that the
townies face?

More to the point is item 7. The ability of both the existing and
potential
receiving communities' infrastructure to support forces, missions, and
personnel. Does that item include "lack of infrastructure"? Or is it
only to be
construed as schools, roads, fire fighting, medical and the like? Some
military
missions require isolation. How could the Marines do field exercises if
the
infrastructure is full of motels? Is isolation an infrastructure item?
Is lack of
infrastructure important to the military mission?

How can field carrier landing practice be conducted if there are mink
farms
in the landing pattern? Do land use plans adopted by the local
politicians
conflict with the intended land use by the military?

If the military were to say anything about land use over the fence, they

would be incurring a public debt. Land use has value. The party
dictating the land
use must offer a consideration to the party that controls the land. What
are
the terms and conditions of specific land use plans? Are there words
like
"recommended surface use only" in the title or deed? Is the military
site adjacent
to a wild life area, or national park that has prohibitions against
putting
in "infrastructure"?

For some isolated bases, the consideration is that the military is the
tall
pole in the tent when it comes to employment. Take away the base and
local
governments will be stranded with major unemployment. Pay me now or pay
me later.
First option. Pay for the military and get the benefit of the protection
and
dual use training. Second option. Take away the military and subsidize
the
unemployed. Third Option. Take away the military, don't subsidize the
unemployed
and treat the symptoms of increased crime, drug dealing and the like.
Fourth
option. Take away the military, create employment to replace the loss of
jobs.

Do we know how to make war, but don't know how to make peace?

The same Federal Register article published analysis of Public Comments.

DOD did NOT receive any requests form local governments that a
particular
installation be closed or realigned [Public Law 101-510, section 2914
(b)(2)].

DOD did receive comments from private citizens to close installations or

restrict operations to limit noise or other community impacts. In my
understanding
of the BRAC process, those closure/restriction comments from citizens
will be
considered. Or is the Charlotte Observer saying that what the local
people
think and do is immaterial?

The private citizen comments may not result in closure or restriction,
but
will at least have some type of response from DOD even if it is only a
thank you
for your letter, but your elected officials feel otherwise. So far,
locally
elected officials seem to be mute. I don't get the impression that the
mayors
and chairs are participating. They may look at the BRAC process as a
conflict
of interest. Or they may be playing both ends against the middle.
Developers,
how much do you bid? Military, how much do you bid?

Freedom of speech is what this country is about. There are those that
feel
strongly that the military should be somewhere else, or that military
funds
should be dedicated to peaceful ends. How they state that may be
offensive to
some, but what they are saying is important. If we just let the military
take
over, we don't need Congress, or the Board of Supervisors for that
matter.

Since the North Carolina newspaper has raised the military unfriendly
question, maybe California should make a bid to take over all Navy and
Marine Jet
training?

But these are only Dick Boyd's views. Read the Federal Register and ask
your
local politicians how they interpret the final selection criteria. Make
up
your own mind.

===========================================================
Sponsor a child today through Children International.
Give a desperately poor child hope for a brighter future.
For only $18 a month you can make a difference!
http://click.topica.com/caab4lYaVxieSa8wsBbf/ Children's International
===========================================================

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CPEO: A DECADE OF SUCCESS.  Your generous support will ensure that our
important work on military and environmental issues will continue.
Please consider one of our donation options.  Thank you.
http://www.groundspring.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2086-0|721-0