Military readiness vs. the environment

A proposal in Congress would require the military to comply with the same environmental regulations as private businesses, landowners, and other government agencies.

"Is it really fair that the military - a branch of the federal government - is exempt from its own laws?" asks Rep. Bob Filner (D) of California, whose San Diego district is in an area dotted with military bases.

The controversy is likely to heat up, particularly as the armed services push for more land on which to test and train with advanced weapons systems. In congressional testimony earlier this year, senior officers complained of "encroachment" that is hampering their military readiness.

"The most challenging legal requirements to Navy readiness are the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Act, and the Clean Air Act," Vice Admiral James Amerault, deputy chief of naval operations for fleet readiness and logistics, told the House Armed Services Committee in May.

Speaking of the "encroachment" on target ranges and other training facilities, Maj. Gen. Edward Hanlon, USMC, warned senators in March that "we are training a generation of marines who will have less experience in the intricacies of combat operations."

"If encroachment continues, many of today's junior leaders may initially face the full challenges of combat not during training, but during combat," said General Hanlon, commanding general of Camp Pendleton in California, which includes habitat for 17 threatened and endangered species.

Meanwhile, a philosophical debate within the armed services considers whether the means and methods of actual warfare - not just training - should take into account the long-range environmental impact. That is, should the guy in the tank or the bomber, in the heat of combat, really care about whether he's destroying some pristine wilderness or wetlands?

"As a general consideration, the US should include environmental effects as an issue of central value along with politics, economics, and social effects when deciding whether or not to wage war and, if so, in what manner," Col. Richard Fisher, US Air Force Reserve, wrote in an article for Aerospace Power Chronicles, published by the Air Force. "It may well be that the potential long-term environmental risk due to loss of productivity outweighs the importance of other considerations."

Colonel Fisher's assertion may be heresy to some whose whole career centers on fighting - and winning - in the name of national security.

But that such questions are even being considered is a sign that profound changes are happening in the relationship of warfare and the environment. All of which puts increasing pressure on the armed services, which are looking for some political relief even as they must spend more money and effort dealing with their impact on nature.

"We can, and are doing much to protect the environment," says Hanlon. "However, we cannot be expected to shoulder a disproportionate share of environmental protection and still meet our readiness."

Page: 1 | 2